I would like to add my observations to those of letter writer Wes Guckert, who extols the virtues of back-in angle parking in urban settings ("The best alternative to parallel parking," May 28).
Back-in angle parking is a concept that works in theory, but it is so off-putting that it fails in practice.
To initiate the maneuver, one must have complete range of motion of the neck and spine. And depending on the size of the vehicle and its wheel rotation, the first phase of the procedure can obstruct two lanes of traffic.
It also requires backing up toward the pedestrian right-of-way, which can be very dangerous — which is why new cars now have back-up cameras.
Meanwhile, back-in angle parking increases the amount of auto exhaust emissions directed at homes and business and decreases visibility at intersections.
Finally, back-in angle parking destroys the streetscape and is visually unpleasant. It reduces city charm to no more than a parking lot.
It's true you can squeeze a few more cars into a given amount of space with this form of parking. However, in many communities around town, especially Hampden, there has been no foresight or master plan to provide designated municipal parking in commercial growth areas that would reduce its impact on existing neighborhoods.
Back-in angle parking is dangerous, it's a blight, and we don't like it.
Marcia Kargon, Baltimore