Not that there's anything wrong with it

December 6, 2004 3:53 PM

Seinfeld DictionaryHead-First Parker - 1) a person who tries to pull into a parking space head first as opposed to backing into the space 2) a person who pulls into a parking space head first with the intention of screwing someone else out of the space
posted by BradNelson (29 comments total)

For all the geeks who need to implement these into their vocabulary.
posted by BradNelson at 3:55 PM on December 6, 2004

In Japan virtually all parking is socially mandated as back-in parking. It's unusual indeed to see someone park head-first - and it's probably a US soldier driving!

Some people take parking far too seriously.
posted by meehawl at 4:00 PM on December 6, 2004

I don't know if it's necessary, but here's the Google cache.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 4:02 PM on December 6, 2004

Holy cow. Meehawl, Parking Today made me laugh aloud.
posted by Specklet at 4:18 PM on December 6, 2004

How could they forget "spongeworthy"?
posted by Raymond Marble at 4:28 PM on December 6, 2004

There are some glaring omissions from that list; for example, they have Big Salad (Taking Credit for a), but they don't have Big Salad itself! How am I supposed to know that it's like a salad, only bigger, with lots of stuff in it?

I mean, come on!
posted by Nedroid at 4:29 PM on December 6, 2004

I'm a Cell Phone Walk & Talker. My other options are to (A) disturb people at work and risk being interrupted, to (B) call after 10 PM or (C) only call on weekends.
posted by Foosnark at 4:43 PM on December 6, 2004

Good idea. Poorly executed.

(No marble rye? No black-and-white cookie? NO MASTER OF ONE'S DOMAIN?)
posted by Robot Johnny at 4:54 PM on December 6, 2004

I am busy writing a letter of complaint to Angelfire. Who wants to sign?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 5:15 PM on December 6, 2004

Maybe it's me but I've found back-in parking to be quite illogical in many situations. What's easier - driving backwards into a tight parking spot or driving backwards into a far larger parking lot? Given the option, I'll drive forward into the smaller space.
posted by davebush at 5:23 PM on December 6, 2004

The smaller the spot, the more backing in makes sense. Driving forward into a small spot just results in minutes of inching back and forth trying to be anywhere closer than two feet from the curb. If your back wheels could actually pivot at your command, though...
posted by zsazsa at 5:33 PM on December 6, 2004

Really, you're not saving any time or effort by backing in to a spot. Either you have to expend the time and energy to back the car in in the first place, or you have to reverse to get out. Neither backing in nor reversing out seems to be any more difficult or strenuous or time-intensive than the other, so it doesn't seem to matter either way.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:35 PM on December 6, 2004

The smaller the spot, the more backing in makes sense. Driving forward into a small spot just results in minutes of inching back and forth trying to be anywhere closer than two feet from the curb. If your back wheels could actually pivot at your command, though...

Are you talking about parallel parking?
posted by padjet1 at 5:41 PM on December 6, 2004

Are you talking about parallel parking?

Isn't that what the concept is about? You pull past a parking spot with the intention of backing into it, but somebody comes up behind you and shoves the nose of their car into the space to steal it from you.
posted by bcwinters at 6:02 PM on December 6, 2004

I saw someone trying to headfirst park today at the kerb - she had a tiny little car, ample space and no friggin sense. Didnt seem to understand why it ddn't fit. Car was sporting one of those green 'P' signs, which means I should not have stood, stared and pointed, all the while rubbing my belly because I laughed too hard.

I know, I'm going to hell now, aren't I?

O- I don't remember the context, but I suspect that Seinfeld wasn't waffling about parallel, but slot parking, as in a carpark with rows of spaces, as opposed to kerbside spots.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:09 PM on December 6, 2004

Good idea. Poorly executed.
Yeah, I agree. There are a lot of things left out, but it requires more effort/ambition than I can muster.

Are you talking about parallel parking?
Yes, this is a reference to a parallel parking scene in the show.
posted by BradNelson at 6:09 PM on December 6, 2004

I think this whole thread has been misinterpreted, then. I believe the discussion was about regular parking spaces, but looking again at the FPP I see that it's really about parallel parking. Bleah!
posted by neckro23 at 6:27 PM on December 6, 2004

*un-dateable!*
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:59 PM on December 6, 2004

But then, I always knew that the whole Seinfeld series took place in a parallel universe.
posted by wendell at 8:43 PM on December 6, 2004

Actually, backing into a spot takes advantage of the extra width of the lane you're in. Since (most) cars/trucks steer with the front wheels, if you park head-first you will either have to go over the curb at some point, or just do the forward-backward shuffle for a couple minutes.

That said, sometimes you have to head-first park, because there are fucktard jackals in some cities that will pull into a spot and block you from backing into it.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:45 PM on December 6, 2004

Thank you, C_D. Geez, front-wheel drive, people.
posted by Mach3avelli at 10:33 PM on December 6, 2004

I've never seen an episode of Seinfeld. It started off accidentally, I just never watched it. Then, people thought it was odd that I'd never seen it. Now I actively avoid it.
posted by Captaintripps at 12:11 AM on December 7, 2004

"That's how you park when you're pulling a bank job."

No, "Serenity now!" No Wizard. No Chicken Roaster. No Little Jerry. No "Go time!" No Rye. No Mr Marbles. No bris. No Frogger.

That seems a little capricious and arbitrary.

You can check out the scripts for all of the episodes here.
posted by veedubya at 1:57 AM on December 7, 2004

I once mediated a parallel parking back in-nose in fight from my balcony by crossing my arms and glaring at the noser-inner. They took off, allowing the person with brains to back in, like Ford intended.
posted by jon_kill at 5:51 AM on December 7, 2004

"Really, you're not saving any time or effort by backing in to a spot. Either you have to expend the time and energy to back the car in in the first place, or you have to reverse to get out. Neither backing in nor reversing out seems to be any more difficult or strenuous or time-intensive than the other, so it doesn't seem to matter either way."

Come again?

As an admitted bad "backing in parker" - aka "parallel parking" - here's my 5c worth:

Backing in is avoided by llamas like me soley because:

Often, the pressure is on. You're in a busy cafe strip and there are ten cars up your clacker. Best to go in head first and avoid embarrassment and gnashing of teeth. Just suffer in silence as you inch back and forth in shame for 5 minutes.

Otherwise "backing in parking" is far superior. I'll always try it if the traffic behind me is light.

I like what meehawl said about it being socially etiquette in some countries. That's what makes it a kinda 50/50 situation where I come from: If ya don't nail it first time, then you're guaranteed there'll be some prick sitting on his horn in displeasure. (Disclaimer: It's totally my fault for lacking the skills. I have friends who get it right first time 100% of the time. I know the theory but lack the ski1lZ0Rz.)

Oh yeah, and as for this comment: "you have to reverse to get out"

Wah fah?! That's the beauty of "backing in parking". If you get it right the first time and don't (stupidly) straighten the wheels, then getting out is a no-brainer.




Good grief... sorry… /thread highjack
posted by uncanny hengeman at 7:02 AM on December 7, 2004

Rich Hall did it better.
</yourFavoriteBandSucks>
posted by Fezboy! at 7:12 AM on December 7, 2004

Oh, this left out one of my favorites: "un-vitation" (synonym: "non-vite") - an invitation received too late for the receiver to attend the event, which allows the sender to pretend it isn't a complete and total snub, since after all an invitation WAS issued.
posted by dlugoczaj at 7:15 AM on December 7, 2004

With something like this, there will be omissions of course, but that's no excuse for the page looking like shit. It's badly coded, with occasional breaks between entries omitted, etc. Looks like someone threw it up on the web without even taking a second glance.

The parking discussion reminds me that shortly after that episode, the exact thing happened to me (I was the parallel-parker) on a busy street (Walnut) in Philadelphia. It had never happened before. I got out of my car and was railing at the guy, and at one point said "Jesus Christ, this is a Seinfeld episode!" And one grizzled passerby chuckled and muttered to himself, "Heh, heh - Steinfeld."
posted by soyjoy at 8:07 AM on December 7, 2004

My first wife told me she got in an argument with a nose-firster while she was backing in and he wouldn't budge (nor would she). she left the car in the spot half-way in (this was Germany) and went to fetch a policeman. He mediated and she won.

That said, one only parks nose first if they're a bad driver (yes, I said it) or if they're in front of tons of traffic and the less useful method is the only way they can get out of the way of oncoming traffic (to save on yelling matches and glares). It's obviously less functional as there is just no way a driver can nose-first if there's 'just enough room', whereas a parallel-parker can do it with 'barely any room'.

Somebody once wrote about the Parking Umbrella, whereby a driver purposefully stops behind a person while they're parallel parking so they don't have to worry about the oncoming traffic and they can manouver in peace. I'm an inveterate Parking Umbrella...uh, Umbrella-er, when I get the chance.

That said, I've never seen a full episode of Seinfeld, but when I get rich, the DVD box set will be the 147th boxed set I'll purchase. I've seen him live, before the show was produced. Does that count?
posted by geoscott at 12:28 PM on December 7, 2004