I have only glanced at that paper, but it is an interesting read and the notion that it chiefly is about the space required kind of makes me reconsider my expectations of how easily this tactic could be compressed to a convergent one: maybe it just is that damn complex and comprised of so many sub-skills based on the different environments, lengths of car, and even traffic conditions.
They also explained that no one actually expects you to do it that way in real life,
My driving instructor, pointing to a space I was going to practice on stated that after I pass—I’d simply go in head-first, but that this was something that had to be mastered for the test.
My driving instructor, pointing to a space I was going to practice on stated that after I pass—I’d simply go in head-first, but that this was something that had to be mastered for the test.
This sounds like it assumes you’ll never have to pull into a space less than a few cars lengths long. In other words, it assumes a context where the skill doesn’t actually matter, and you don’t need to be better at it than the bare minimum. There’s no selection pressure there to converge on an optimal teaching method even if there is one.
FWIW, the official standard length of a parallel parking spot is something like 23 ft, and most passenger cars need about 1.5 car lengths of space to parallel park (though that includes however much of the spaces in front and behind happen to be available).
This sounds like it assumes you’ll never have to pull into a space less than a few cars lengths long. In other words, it assumes a context where the skill doesn’t actually matter, and you don’t need to be better at it than the bare minimum.
That would be my implication not his. He wasn’t saying no one ever needs to parallel park, only that he was nominating that space as a opportunity for me to practice reversing in even though I’d likely go head first in.
Honestly I don’t know.
There’s no selection pressure there to converge on an optimal teaching method even if there is one.
I mean it’s still universal in tests, which even if it’s a pointless exercise, means there is SOME selection pressure.
I have only glanced at that paper, but it is an interesting read and the notion that it chiefly is about the space required kind of makes me reconsider my expectations of how easily this tactic could be compressed to a convergent one: maybe it just is that damn complex and comprised of so many sub-skills based on the different environments, lengths of car, and even traffic conditions.
My driving instructor, pointing to a space I was going to practice on stated that after I pass—I’d simply go in head-first, but that this was something that had to be mastered for the test.
This sounds like it assumes you’ll never have to pull into a space less than a few cars lengths long. In other words, it assumes a context where the skill doesn’t actually matter, and you don’t need to be better at it than the bare minimum. There’s no selection pressure there to converge on an optimal teaching method even if there is one.
FWIW, the official standard length of a parallel parking spot is something like 23 ft, and most passenger cars need about 1.5 car lengths of space to parallel park (though that includes however much of the spaces in front and behind happen to be available).
That would be my implication not his. He wasn’t saying no one ever needs to parallel park, only that he was nominating that space as a opportunity for me to practice reversing in even though I’d likely go head first in.
Honestly I don’t know.
I mean it’s still universal in tests, which even if it’s a pointless exercise, means there is SOME selection pressure.