How big is a parking bay?
Discussion
Is it time for PH to take a stand and campaign for sensible parking bays within the UK?
I presume all here love cars and motoring, and the vast majority of us don't like our vehicles damaged while parked.
Facts:
Cars are getting bigger.
And it seems parking bays aren't.
On the news last night it hinted that a recommended parking bay should be 2.4 metres wide, although one railway station had bays of only 1.9 metres wide.
To put this in perspective:
Even taking the narrowest car on the list, the iQ at 1.68m would only give you 36cm (just over a foot) each side of the car to get in or out for a 2.4m wide bay.
A joke when you consider that you won't be able to fully open the car door in that space, the door part opened will take up at least 10cm+, so all in all you've got probably 20cm's worth of opening to squeeze yourself out of while trying not to damage your car or the one next to you.
I know some will argue and say there are smaller cars on the roads.... but that's not how something like this should work. You need to cater for the larger ones as well - they still exist.
So shall we try and come up with a minimum parking bay width for modern cars?
I presume all here love cars and motoring, and the vast majority of us don't like our vehicles damaged while parked.
Facts:
Cars are getting bigger.
And it seems parking bays aren't.
On the news last night it hinted that a recommended parking bay should be 2.4 metres wide, although one railway station had bays of only 1.9 metres wide.
To put this in perspective:
| Car | Width (excluding mirrors) |
|---|---|
| Insignia | 1.86m |
| Freelander 2 | 1.91m |
| 2007 BMW 5 Series | 1.85m |
| 2007 Focus | 1.84m |
| Navara | 1.85m |
| Range Rover | 2.19m |
| Peugeot RCZ | 1.85m |
| 2011 Elise | 1.71m |
| Toyota iQ | 1.68m |
| 2009 Jaguar XJ | 1.89m |
| MINI R56 | 1.68m |
| Ferrari F458 | 1.94m |
Even taking the narrowest car on the list, the iQ at 1.68m would only give you 36cm (just over a foot) each side of the car to get in or out for a 2.4m wide bay.
A joke when you consider that you won't be able to fully open the car door in that space, the door part opened will take up at least 10cm+, so all in all you've got probably 20cm's worth of opening to squeeze yourself out of while trying not to damage your car or the one next to you.
I know some will argue and say there are smaller cars on the roads.... but that's not how something like this should work. You need to cater for the larger ones as well - they still exist.
So shall we try and come up with a minimum parking bay width for modern cars?
I think staggered bay sizes would work - with smaller bays which can only take small cars and bigger bays which can take anything, ideally with the biggest ones in the furthest corner of the car park from where people actually want to be, so they don't just fill up with small cars.
In the case of the iQ, you actually have more space than you've stated because it's assumed that you can use some of the adjacent space as well. If you were next to another iQ which was in the middle of its space, you'd have 72cm of space, which is loads.
I would just prefer to see average cars get smaller again, though.
In the case of the iQ, you actually have more space than you've stated because it's assumed that you can use some of the adjacent space as well. If you were next to another iQ which was in the middle of its space, you'd have 72cm of space, which is loads.
I would just prefer to see average cars get smaller again, though.
kambites said:
In the case of the iQ, you actually have more space than you've stated because it's assumed that you can use some of the adjacent space as well. If you were next to another iQ which was in the middle of its space, you'd have 72cm of space, which is loads.
Is that not part of the crux of the issue though?Surely there must be some sort of legal angle, that if the car park owner expects and forces you to open your door into the space next to you (were you are highly likely to encounter a parked car), then they are either and accessory or aiding potential accidental damage to property.
300bhp/ton said:
Is that not part of the crux of the issue though?
Surely there must be some sort of legal angle, that if the car park owner expects and forces you to open your door into the space next to you (were you are highly likely to encounter a parked car), then they are either and accessory or aiding potential accidental damage to property.
It's a free market I suppose. If you don't like the car parks, don't park in them. If there were many people who worried about it, there would be a market for smaller, more expensive car parks with bigger spaces - I see no reason that people should be able to park big cars for the same price as smaller ones, after all. Surely there must be some sort of legal angle, that if the car park owner expects and forces you to open your door into the space next to you (were you are highly likely to encounter a parked car), then they are either and accessory or aiding potential accidental damage to property.
Spaces should be bigger (esp as parking controls get tighter, be an inch outside of the bay and a ticket is on your way etc...) and spaces should also, where possible, be angled (e.g. 90°) rather than at 180°. This would lead to less car park knocks where people clip the corner of their/other car. People would also drive straight in/out first time rather than fiddling around. This will mean smoother running car parks/roads, less waiting etc.
kambites said:
It's a free market I suppose. If you don't like the car parks, don't park in them. If there were many people who worried about it, there would be a market for smaller, more expensive car parks with bigger spaces - I see no reason that people should be able to park big cars for the same price as smaller ones, after all.
What about free car parks?Not sure pricing should really come into it... my Roadster is tiny, but you need to open the doors wide to get in or out of it, so in reality you need a wider space than you do to get in or out of my Jeep Cherokee.
And it's not really a free market... if you need to go to the shops, you need to park. You can't park down the road, so are forced to park in the carpark.
300bhp/ton said:
kambites said:
In the case of the iQ, you actually have more space than you've stated because it's assumed that you can use some of the adjacent space as well. If you were next to another iQ which was in the middle of its space, you'd have 72cm of space, which is loads.
Is that not part of the crux of the issue though?Surely there must be some sort of legal angle, that if the car park owner expects and forces you to open your door into the space next to you (were you are highly likely to encounter a parked car), then they are either and accessory or aiding potential accidental damage to property.
where's the problem?
Hugo a Gogo said:
300bhp/ton said:
kambites said:
In the case of the iQ, you actually have more space than you've stated because it's assumed that you can use some of the adjacent space as well. If you were next to another iQ which was in the middle of its space, you'd have 72cm of space, which is loads.
Is that not part of the crux of the issue though?Surely there must be some sort of legal angle, that if the car park owner expects and forces you to open your door into the space next to you (were you are highly likely to encounter a parked car), then they are either and accessory or aiding potential accidental damage to property.
where's the problem?
I'd have thought fairly rare on both accounts.
300bhp/ton said:
kambites said:
It's a free market I suppose. If you don't like the car parks, don't park in them.
it's not really a free market... if you need to go to the shops, you need to park. You can't park down the road, so are forced to park in the carpark.I think it doesn't help that we only paint a single line between spaces, in the States they mostly have a double line (connected with a loop at the end) so you get decent spacing between cars. Of course added up this probably loses a couple of spaces in a row and they generally have more space to play with than us.
I have been driving a commercial vehicle for 4 years and have only once encountered a car park with spaces to small - the problem was really due to insufficient turning space.
I have found a real problem parking on the road in marked bays, it seems they are trying to make them so narrow to free up road space. On some occasions the o/s wheel is outside the white lines with the n/s touching the kerb.
Having a job that involves a lot of measuring parking spaces, I find they are more often than not 2.5 to 2.6m wide and 5m long.
I have found a real problem parking on the road in marked bays, it seems they are trying to make them so narrow to free up road space. On some occasions the o/s wheel is outside the white lines with the n/s touching the kerb.
Having a job that involves a lot of measuring parking spaces, I find they are more often than not 2.5 to 2.6m wide and 5m long.
Ask Tesco how much on average each of the spaces in their car parks is worth on an hourly, weekly or even yearly basis.
Bigger spaces = fewer spaces = less revenue
Was the rationalisation I heard anyway.
In terms of multi-storey car parks in town to access high streets etc, many of them were built in the 60s and 70s when the spaces were apparently adequate for the cars of the day at usually 3 spaces between pillars.
To increase spaces, they'd go to 2 huge spaces between pillars instead, so losing a third of their capacity. Car parks built more recently do seem to be much better in this respect, which is why I always use the newer car park in town rather than the older one, despite it costing 30p more per hour to park there...
Logically those older ones all need tearing down and rebuilding. But similarly, do we build them for the size of cars today or for 30 years hence?
Bigger spaces = fewer spaces = less revenue
Was the rationalisation I heard anyway.
In terms of multi-storey car parks in town to access high streets etc, many of them were built in the 60s and 70s when the spaces were apparently adequate for the cars of the day at usually 3 spaces between pillars.
To increase spaces, they'd go to 2 huge spaces between pillars instead, so losing a third of their capacity. Car parks built more recently do seem to be much better in this respect, which is why I always use the newer car park in town rather than the older one, despite it costing 30p more per hour to park there...
Logically those older ones all need tearing down and rebuilding. But similarly, do we build them for the size of cars today or for 30 years hence?
300bhp/ton said:
Not sure pricing should really come into it... my Roadster is tiny, but you need to open the doors wide to get in or out of it, so in reality you need a wider space than you do to get in or out of my Jeep Cherokee.
So? I didn't say anything about car size, I was talking about parking space size. You're essentially renting a piece of land, why should a bigger piece of land cost the same to rent as a smaller one? That makes no sense. It's like fat people saying they should have first class plane seats for the same price as thin people get economy class. 
or maybe everyone could just spend an extra 10 seconds straightening their car in the space instead of just driving in, abandoning it at whatever angle fits and walking away...
i like the staggered size idea though. in an ideal world, we would have small cars at the front nearest the entrance, large cars at the back but it would never work like that because all the large car owners would complain thathaving spent thousands of pounds on a new status symbol, they want the world to see it... they have children 
i like the staggered size idea though. in an ideal world, we would have small cars at the front nearest the entrance, large cars at the back but it would never work like that because all the large car owners would complain that
Zwoelf said:
Ask Tesco how much on average each of the spaces in their car parks is worth on an hourly, weekly or even yearly basis.
Bigger spaces = fewer spaces = less revenue
Was the rationalisation I heard anyway.
Most supermarkets here have free parking. But it's not just supermarkets, there are lots of different car parks for different things.Bigger spaces = fewer spaces = less revenue
Was the rationalisation I heard anyway.
Zwoelf said:
In terms of multi-storey car parks in town to access high streets etc, many of them were built in the 60s and 70s when the spaces were apparently adequate for the cars of the day at usually 3 spaces between pillars.
A few years back when they renovated and re-opened the multistory in the town near me, they actually made the bays bigger. I was quite surprised but pleased. Previously they tried to get 3 spaces that would be tight for a classic Mini to fit in, now it's only 2 sensibly sized bays between pillars.Zwoelf said:
To increase spaces, they'd go to 2 huge spaces between pillars instead, so losing a third of their capacity. Car parks built more recently do seem to be much better in this respect, which is why I always use the newer car park in town rather than the older one, despite it costing 30p more per hour to park there...
Logically those older ones all need tearing down and rebuilding. But similarly, do we build them for the size of cars today or for 30 years hence?
Not all cars in even the 60's where small though. Plenty of large cars about then.Logically those older ones all need tearing down and rebuilding. But similarly, do we build them for the size of cars today or for 30 years hence?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff