Am I the only one who thinks that parallel parking should be outlawed? Stopping in the middle of traffic, abruptly, and reversing direction is, in my mind, reason to be arrested for driving to endanger.
The sheer laziness that spawns this activity (refusal to find a parking space nearby that they can safely drive to) and the reckless ignorance of safety guidelines is audacious.

Paul

Great idea! Let's start in New York City. There's plenty of safe-to-drive-into parking for 'em out in Pennsylvania, if they weren't too damn lazy to walk!

no, that is all

While I wholeheartedly agree with you. What prompted your disgust?

'Inquiring minds want to know'(I just had to say that)

Expand it to include EVERY major and mid-size metropolitan region.

Outlawing parallel parking, no; free parking, yes. I don't see what the problem with parallel parking is. How is stopping mid-street to park any different that stopping mid-street to make a left hand turn? If nothing else, the existence of parallel parking and other street-side parking slows traffic down, and that's fine with me. Riding down a street with nose-in angle parking is actually a bit more nerve racking, IMHO.

I would question all on-street parking. When I park a car on a public street, I am making use of the public way for a private use - storage of my property. If there were no cost to society for this use, then I would have no problem with it, but by using the street for parking we are reducing the capacity of the road (fewer travel lanes), as well as reducing visibility of pedestrians or vehicles entering from side streets. Where else would we accept spending public money to provide private individuals with space to store their private property at the expense of public safety and public finances?

When you drive your private vehicle in the street, you're making use of a public way for private use. When you park your bike at a public bike rack, or your car at a parking lot in a public park, you're making use of a public space for private use.

Street side parking calms traffic. The only stipulation that I would put on it is that it be priced fairly; no free parking, no overly cheap parking.

The problem with parallel-parking, compared to stopping to make a left turn is, parallel-parking albeit a temporary situation, still has a permanent purpose. Stopping to make a left turn, is both temporary in the situation and the purpose. By parallel-parking being temporary in situation and purpose, it isn't justifiable.

I agree. If they are going to get rid of it, make the street narrower. They just did that here, and it's pretty nice. There was one place where the sidewalks were obnoxiously narrow so they could have on-street parking. They got rid of that and made the sidewalks wider. I like the fact they are trying to drive parking to their garages because the garages are not making enough money, there have been lots of improvements in town due to that.

Huh? I'm confused. Even my smart albeit blond wife is confused. You would rather head in parking so drivers can't see you as the back out into traffic?

I can't remember even awkward attempts at parallel parking being anything more than a brief inconvenience.

The existence of a left turn opportunity (i.e., an intersection) is not any more or less permanent than a street side parking space. Whether or not someone is actively using the piece of infrastructure in question, the infrastructure is there and the purpose is there. Situationally, stopping to make a left turn can often take longer than pulling into and out of a parking spot.

And you can't see cars or cyclists as you pull out. I'm not a fan on head in street side parking, from either side of the situation.

Here in Eugene a city staffer (who left as soon as he implemented this disaster) does that one better. He copied a situation on University Way in Seattle and:
1. Replaced a west-bound, concrete-protected contraflow bike lane (one-way east bound street) with a substandard width paint-only contraflow bike lane
2. Removed a door-zone east-bound bike lane
3. Put in sharrow markings (too far right, as usual) in the east bound direction
4. Changed the parking from parallel to back-in for east-bound motorists

So, since many cyclists will filter to the front on this stretch of street and the sharrow markings are placed in such a way as to appear to encourage that, there have already been so many incidents that one cop wanted to set up a kiosk with accident report forms. Also, in order to back in most motorists will first pull up into the contraflow bike lane so they can line themselves up, which also causes them to be hidden from view of filtering cyclists.

That's right, they really replaced parallel parking with back in parking. I guess there is at least one good thing; they got rid of a door-zone bike lane.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha A&S is the shizzy!!!!

Yes, Stopping can take longer than pulling into or out of a parking spot.

But when a vehicle is stopped at an intersection for a traffic light, unless they straddle the lanes with their vehicle, they will be properly stopped on the road. When a person double-parks their vehicle, they are intentionally blocking a lane of traffic.

Beats the heck out of cars backing out of angle places into traffic!

Why are we suddenly talking about traffic lights and double parking? All I was saying was that left turning traffic temporarily blocks a travel lane, same as parking traffic does. If the OP thinks that he can devise a traffic system where traffic flows continuously and uninterrupted, then he is welcome to try. His contention that parallel parking be outlawed because it involves a motorists stopping, and then performing a routine driving maneuver, seems silly and unjustified; as does the sentiment that people are being lazy for taking advantage of available and legal parking spaces.

I agree, sadly where I ride we have (IMHO) too many home/property owners parking on residential roads that are in reality too narrow for on street parking. But this doesn't stop people from parking on BOTH sides of the road reducing the road to a VERY narrow path between the parked cars. On another section of my normal route there is a road that I ride that home owners or their guests park on a curve.

What I'd like to know is why do they think that it's a good idea to park on a road that is too narrow for on street parking, and why do they think that it's a smart idea to park on a curve?

And I think that we all know that they'd be screaming bloody murder when their car(s) are hit and damaged or totaled. And not willing to take any of the blame themselves for where they choose to park.

If one wants to park their private car on a public street no matter how long or short a time, they should have to pay for it, and to pay through the nose to do so.

I think that the speeds on any road that people live next to should be slow enough that parking on the road is safe, and there is no issue with people getting out of control and hitting their cars. Paying for it is a different matter, I don't think governments should be in the business of paving people's parking spaces, and it generally makes the roads too wide.

Honestly, on-street parking should only be available in commercial/business areas, where volume and turnover make use of the space more efficient; apartment complexes generally have parking within the property confines, and many private homes have garages and driveways. Urban housing, generally, is more upscale when parking is provided, so I'm sure that the 'average' urban dweller would holler 'class warfare' at being denied a parking spot for their smoke-belching commuter/grocery-getter. But, really, how many of these folks would be better served by efficient mass transit?

This is a problem that will self-resolve when car ownership stops being a status symbol, and a badge of success to the American citizen. I won't, however, hold my breath (except when I'm pedaling past one of these smokers!).

Huh? A parking spot is a pooled public resource, like a sewer ... or a road, for that matter. Roads that permit parking are designed to permit parking; it doesn't reduce the intended use of the road - it IS an intended use of the road.

I think it's called "trolling".

I have to disagree with you on that. As I've already said on my route there are several residential roads that have on street parking and they are too narrow to allow on street parking. As it reduces the space available for cars to travel on the road.

They may be too narrow to make you happy, but that doesn't mean they don't perform their intended use. They're just not adequate for YOUR notion of their intended use. That just means they weren't designed to support motor traffic, parking, and comfortable CYCLING. Maybe they don't really care all that much about the last one?

I can't believe that a discussion of outlawing parallel parking, period, is even serious. Then I remind myself that this is A&S...

Doing away with parking (or free parking) is a staple of cycling advocates -- it's one of many measures designed to remind people just how impractical their cars are (by explicitly decreasing their practicality) and they really should be on a bike.

Of course, if you were to suggest that bicycle parking should be charged for similarly (or even charged less but still charged, as bikes do take up less space to park), they'll generally come unhinged.