Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where to park your car, according to math

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#31

Post by andrew-v »

I am wondering how did the "meek" strategy look like in detail.

Because, if you try to occupy the very first spot available, then of course it makes very little sense. But I believe that a "human meek" would instead skip the whole line of unoccupied spaces and take the last spot in such a line. This "unoccupied line" does not even have to begin with the first parking space, but for example with the third. Though you need to assume that the line of empty spots is in driver's line of sight.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#32

Post by amelius »

technothrasher wrote: post #20

I've never been called 'meek' before! But then I think I'm looking at the problem differently. I don't consider the walking time wasted, I don't mind the walk. I want to get the car parked as quickly as possible, not spend the least amount of time between entering the lot and getting to my destination. In fact, I will often park further away even when I can directly see that close up spots are free.

Walking can be nice, but in an indoor parking garage not so much, with all those exhaust fumes and cars driving by without a clear sidewalk.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#33

Post by badpun »

eertami wrote: post #24
badpun wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always try and park away from the busiest areas for the same reasons but, purely from observation, it's obvious most people don't since the area closest to the store entrance is almost always utilised the most. Walking through parking lot is not ideal. If it's outside, then you need to be dressed out for walking outside (and be prepared for rain etc. when coming back). When it's inside, it can smell of fumes and…

Are you American? It's absurd to me that you say you need to be "dressed for walking outside" to walk 200m across a parking lot.

I'm Polish. If it cold (say below freezing), then you could possibly walk 20-50 meters without your jacket. 200 meters, not so much.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#34

Post by croon »

zaind wrote: post #30

From the paper: "However, if there a few meek drivers while the majority follow the prudent or optimistic strategy, then the meek strategy is not bad because meek drivers will park a distance λ from the target." I am a 'meek' driver for this very reason. My assumption is that the majority of other drivers are either 'optimistic' or 'prudent,' and as such the parking cost of the meek strategy is much lower. Would be v…

There are a few parking lots at my workplace, and I park at one fairly close, at a time where the last spots usually fill up.

I haven't kept a tally, but there have been multiple times (after a few earlier experiences on the other end of the spectrum) where I've gotten the last spot on the far end of the lot, only to see the few cars ahead of me drive around and eventually end up going off to another lot.

In my case I'm the meek driver on a micro/lot level, but a prudent/optimistic one on a macro/workplace level. But in my anecdata it's probably saved me more time than any other behavior I could employ.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#35

Post by deaps »

This is great. Fortunately, at my work, if I just drive past the main entrance, and enter the parking lot nearest our entry door, I can start my journey through the lot at the closest point. This obviously eliminates the need for guessing or betting or settling early.

I admit that at certain times I do enter from the furthest entrance...and I always drive past the first spot, and bet on that second one. Quite often there is a better spot as I'm walking in, but sometimes there's not. So when faced with the opportunity, I follow the prudent strategy.

Now at an unfamiliar location (walmart, movie theater, whatever), I always try to find a spot that butts up against a curb (preferably on one side AND the back of the spot as well) to lessen exposure of my vehicle to other motorists (doors, bumpers) as much as possible.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#36

Post by CPLX »

rbg246 wrote: post #26

In multi-level car parks I believe people overestimate vertical distance and underestimate horizontal. In the carpark I park in, I often just speed down to the level where there first begins to be car spaces and I can often get much closer to the stairs which lead back up to the exit on the ground floor. Extra vertical distance is only 4-5m but saved horizontal distance can be 50m.

> Extra vertical distance is only 4-5m but saved horizontal distance can be 50m.

Indeed, for the walking component. However having to drive up and then back down additional levels has time and hassle costs too.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#37

Post by esotericn »

OliverJones wrote: post #29

OK, I admit it. I use the meek strategy. Why? because I believe the parking spots that minimize walking from car to destination should be left empty for people who need them more than I do. On the rare occasion where I need to minimize walking (because I have something heavy to carry, for example) I park to minimize walking even if I have to waste some time and fuel doing it. In that case it helps me when other peopl…

Right.

I actively want the exercise. I take the stairs at work rather than the elevator when practical for the same reason.

I don't think it's fair to categorise being a decent person as "meek". If more people did that, we'd have a far lower need for things like disabled and family spaces because people would fill inwards.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#38

Post by mattlondon »

Hmm - do non-mathematicians "optimise" their parking? I really doubt it.

I feel like the people trying to park right near the door/entrance to the shops are not "optimising" the time they're there - I feel like they're probably just being lazy and "optimising" for the smallest amount of energy exertion possible (consciously or not). After all, why walk when you have a car? They don't seem to mind spending time following people walking back to their cars, or just looping around and around, or trying to squeeze into spaces that are too small when it is clearly obvious that you can just pull straight into a space another 20-30m away without any waiting or tight squeezes, then spend 15-30 seconds more walking. They're wasting a lot more time trying to get close so it can't be time they are optimising for otherwise people wouldn't do it.

(some people of course can't walk distance but then there are disabled spaces, parent + child spaces etc)

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#39

Post by TimMurnaghan »

This model assumes hiigh availability of spaces - and that's not what I see very often outside the wide open spaces of America. A better model would include time to find a free parking space. Searching and queuing time can quickly dominate under high utilization. Taking the first available space is very far from "meek" when you have to struggle to get it.

Re: Where to park your car, according to math

#40

Post by bovermyer »

Of all the metrics in my life, optimizing for minimum car-to-store time is not important or even a consideration for me.

Unless it's pouring rain, I'll usually park near the back of the lot and take my time walking to the store. Even if it's raining, I won't usually opt for the spots closest to the store. I don't know _why_ that latter behavior exists, but it's what I do.

Post reply on HN