Parallel parking

In the old days where you could see and judge the front and back of cars
like my full sized 1968 Ford Galaxy 500, I could parallel park with full
confidendence given a space clearance as little as 2 inches. (Takes forever
to get in and out but I could park that sucker) With the newer cars, like my
son's compact Honda, where I couldn't see where the front or the back of the
car ends, I'm hasitant to parallel park even with clear space of 2 feet.
Wondering if its just me and getting too old?

 

you and me, brother.

but the Honda Accords, at least, have always had terrible turning
radius, that doesn't help either.

Don't worry, it'll all be automated in a few years, like in the new
Lexus. Few years after that, car will drive itself home automagically
while you sleep.

J.

 

Yeah, right... And we'll all have those air-cars and the jet packs
they've been promising for forty years. ;-)

 

Just glue some big tail fins to that puppy and you'll be all right. (wink)

 

Place a big empty box and find the 'point of no return'.

 

Hate to say this but my 20-something daughter parks her '99 Accord as
easily as I used to park my '66 Chevy.

 

------------------------

Always park in front of stores that have large windows. Watch your
reflection and the car in front / behind.



Works for me.

 

When you "park-by-touch", as many do, it matters little...

 

And in 1968 you could park by touch with little fear of leaving a dent. Even
a casual brush these days can cause thousands in damage.

BTW, 30 years ago I could parallel park my 36' motor home a lot easier than
I can parallel park any of the 4 cars I drive today. Part of it is age, part
of it is lack of practice. Most places I go these days have parking slots or
valets.

 

Back in the 60s, American car bumpers are heave duty steel, perhaps about
3/16" thick. 5 mph bumper crash, no problem. 5mph bumper crash on new cars,
maybe over $10,000 in damages.

 

I had a '71 New Yorker that had a bumper that was the entire back of the
car. I was rear-ended by a '78 Buick doing about 25 mph. It left a 2" dent
in the center of my bumper that was not even worth fixing.

If that same car had rear-ended my '06 Accord, it would be totaled and I'd
have been hurting.

Jon

 

i wouldn't bet on that.

http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/

what's important is that the passenger cell doesn't collapse. 70's
detroit may take the small knocks, but for the big stuff, it only good
at making hamburgers.

 

Not quite. The car would likely be seriously damaged at the least, but
you'd likely walk away without a scratch.

And in a serious crash, the old detroit steel wouldn't hold a candle
to the new cars. You're much safer in a modern car.

 

That may be so but in so doing, modern engineering may have defeated the
Darwin principle. The result, a dumber society.

Yes, Walt Kelly was right... "We have met the enemy and he is us."

JT

 

This only indicate crashes into immovable objects like a tree or a 1,000 ton
boulder. A train wouldn't do too well either crashing into a 1,000 ton
boulder as compared to a Mini Cooper but a head on crash between a Cooper
and a train, I'll take a train, or even a F-150, any time.

 

Jim Beam knows the Ford F150 has been improved since that test. But
you are correct. In a crash between a heavy vehicle like that F150 and
a much lighter weight vehicle like that Mini the mass of the F150
would cause it to use the Mini almost like a cushion. The Mini would
decelerate rapidly. It might even fail (frame break) if the speed was
high enough. That is exactly what happened to a Corolla that had a
head-on with a Ford Expedition (same frame as the F150) near where I
live. The driver of the Corolla was killed instantly when it broke in
two and crushed while the idiot kids in the Expedition walked away.

Older cars were death traps in high speed crashes but in low speed
crashes there was often little damage. Today's cars crush WAY too
easily, bumpers are nothing more than plastic covered foam. On the
other hand, in a high speed crash the engine is now designed to drop
into the roadway to absorb energy and not end up in your lap. Overall,
not a bad trade-off, eh? And don't even get me started about what
passed for brakes in those old cars.

 

I was sitting in my '79 Accord hatchback at a red light with a car in front
of me one drizzling evening, when I looked up in my mirror and saw that the
car barreling down on me wasn't going to stop (or even slow down). I laid
back in the seat and put my head against the headrest and just kind of
relaxed, and next thing I know, I'm in the back seat, but the back seat is
where the front seat should be (or at least close to it) and the car in
front of me is in the middle of the intersection.

The car that nailed me was a '70 Chrysler Newport doing about 60 MPH (drunk
driver, suspended license, no insurance). The impact wrapped the entire
back of the car down under the tires (it was no longer a "hatchback"!). I
don't know how I was so fortunate as to not get hurt (or why the tank didn't
rupture and/or blow).

Hardly a dent in the Newport.........

I don't think I'll ever forget the sound and feel of that impact....

 

Why on earth would you want to do something foolish like decelerate or stop?

;-)

 

That may be the case, but I'll take the added safety when some dumbass
crosses the line and crashes into me.

 

Hi,
Learn to use mirrors.