Damn, that's a high curb. Gotta be on the ball when you're parallel parking in that neighborhood. Also... I guess passengers don't get to leave the car.

ok, These people are all morons... EXCEPT the guy at 4:54 who just decided to parallel park in the most badass fashion possible

And here's me who avoids parallel parking if I possibly can.

Like this?

http://videosift.com/video/Little-Kid-Shows-How-to-Parallel-Park

Why not have the back wheels do that too and just drive sideways in to the parallel parking slot?

Unfortunately this is not very special because a large number of people are like this behind the wheel, however it does mean that this person should not have a license to operate a motor vehicle. I understand some people are not great at parallel parking but this shows a distinct lack of spatial awareness and reasoning.

Too many people in this country see driving as a right and not a privilege and therefore fail to properly learn and/or be trained. This is also due to the fact that most people operate under the assumption that a car is an appliance, rather than the 4000lb killing machine that it is.

No, this might be the worst parallel parker in the world: http://videosift.com/video/Spanish-Woman-Cant-Get-HUGE-Car-Into-Little-Parking-Spot, same size if not larger space, but parking a Smart (like the one in the back of this lady's space)... or pretty much anyone on this list: http://videosift.com/search?q=smart+parallel+park but this one is pretty well up there. Of course I'm not very good at parallel parking and generally try to find a spot to avoid it. So I'm not one to talk I guess, though I'm fairly sure I could get into that spot with that car, or any of those spots those people tried to park their Smart.

I have a question about Smart cars. I see quite a few of them where I live here in the States, but I thought one of their primary features was that you could pull straight into what would otherwise be a parallel parking spot, yet I never see this done. Is it typically a parking violation to do that? That would be massively convenient if you could.

Unfortunately, the Captain failed the parallel parking portion of his test that day.

Laws must be reactionary, because you should not be punished for harms that you haven't yet committed.
'Imagined future harms' are a poor reason to take action against anyone.
Fundamentally, you're not in charge of other people's imagination. That's their business, not yours.

Inevitability is not an issue, incidents are inevitable for all drivers, without exception, so long as they keep driving.
Any non-zero probability will have an incident, given enough time.

Every driver is unique, and it is not deterministic that "driver A + 3 beers" is worse than "driver B".
It's not deterministic that driver B has a lower probability of incident.

These guys were good enough to get a license, and are legally 'suitable' to drive.
They are above the "absolute bar" determining 'ok' or 'not ok' to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIJ0kQtLyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-OqmQc5hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiRDv4nxe64
(Seriously, watch them end to end... it's amazing.)

Imagine the drivers that you know. Do you think a few beers will get them even close to as bad as the people in the links? Because it's enough to get them a DUI. Hence the irrationality of just saying "drink = unsuitable to drive".

There are lots things that impact your cognitive function.
too tired
too excited
too bored
too entertained
too preoccupied with memories
too preoccupied with anticipation
etc, etc, etc...
A driver at 90% attention due to these reasons is considered ok, but a driver at 95% attention [for whatever reason] ... that just happened to drink alcohol ... is a criminal. Again, irrationality.

The fact that you're operating in a diminished state /specifically/ due to alcohol is not meaningful.
How much you are diminished [regardless of why] is what matters - but that isn't even in the drinking and driving public discussion.
Heck, some people aren't even prepared when at 100% attention and 100% sober (like the folks in the links).

I generally dislike how unprepared drivers are.
Just being able to drive around a few blocks, parallel park, and answer a few questions from a booklet you just read 5 minutes prior, is crap criteria.
IMO, it shouldn't even be criteria until much later.
IMO, people should be able to proficiently autocross in the wet before they are even given a chance to begin learning the road rules.

IMO, people consider driving a necessity (which it is if you want a normal life), and they throw driving into the same bucket as walking.
Something they need to do every day, it's mundane, nothing special, nothing worth concerning yourself about.
If they have an "accident" (the term accident should really be "operator error" 99% of the time), they even get offended if you say that they screwed up.
Like as if it's just an "Oh well, shit happens" sort of thing, and blaming them for what they did is profane.

At the same time, there's a religion of "drinking and driving hate" that has mushroomed into something not far from crazies frothing at the mouth.
"He drank... and drove! Burn him! Burn him!" ...
Imagine being the person that was arrested, watching people talk to you like you're the antichrist himself ... and you never even hurt anyone. Discussing amongst themselves 'what they need to do to you'.

Punishing only harm has two benefits :
A) It focuses on real victims.
B) It only involves people who were demonstrably not suitable drivers (the harm is the demonstration) - without any emotional bias for the reason behind the unsuitability.

Using the law for deterrence is possibly even illegal in itself (If I had my way, it would be seen as so).
There is supposed to be "no cruel and unusual punishment".
If you ask "what makes is it cruel/unusual?" - the answer will be that it causes excessive suffering.
Deterrence consists of punishing people in excess (making examples), in the hopes that it scares 3rd parties.
So then the idea is that the suffering should be in proportion to the crime.
Making examples, is by definition, punishing in excess of what is deserved.
DUI laws are by design an exercise in exactly this.

-scheherazade

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 42 Badge!

The Red Bull version of this stunt from 2009:

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Backflip-in-a-truck

Teaching dogs to drive a mini:
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Dogs-taught-to-drive-by-NZ-animal-welfare-group

I couldn't find the world record parallel parking one.

Forget parallel parking.

So apparently watching a woman shoot someone is like watching a woman trying to parallel park.

That's no lady driver...

>> ^shang:

Female Captains.... thinking they can parallel park.


...and no accident.

>> ^lv_hunter:

Looks like a scrap yard?