Reverse-angle parking is better than head-in angled parking on streets.

This turned out to be a difficult topic to research, so I'm not surprised it's controversial. It's a very good debate topic. Accident Data is Misleading If the Potsdam studyshowed reverse angle parking to be safer, why would people object to even experimenting with the method? It is because business drops dramatically on streets with reverse angle parking because many people refuse to attempt to back into parking spaces. Business people are sensitive to that. Experience in Austin, Texas showed the problems. [1. video: http://www.youtube.com...] Safety would improve even more if parking were banned! I cannot find a copy of the Potsdam study. Pro only references a news story with the results. I suspect they have made the errors and oversights I will now describe. To start with, there are so few accidents that result from backing out of a parking space it's a non-problem. For bicycles, the main causes of fatal injury involve the cyclist entering traffic or with motor vehicles turning at intersections and there is nothing related to backing. [2. http://www.kenkifer.com...] For all cycling accidents, only 1.6% involve autos backing, and of those 19% were in parking lots and another 19% were when both the bicycle and the auto were in an alley or driveway. [3. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov...] For Automobiles, “Road traffic accidents generally fall into one of four common types: Lane departure crashes, which occur when a driver leaves the lane they are in and collide with another vehicle or a roadside object. ...accidents at junctions … Accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists [and] Collisions with animals.” [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...] We have accounted for the bicycle-involved accidents, they are the 1.6% cited. Collision from backing out of a parking space do not fit in the other named categories. they are negligible. I believe the main safety advantage of reverse-angle parking comes from scaring away drivers, so there is less parking. In a experiment on a particular street, there is always a place to go nearby that avoids the reversing. If reverse angle parking became common, less-skilled drivers be forced to use them, and accident rates would soar. Second, accidents in which a parked car is dented by the backing car are often not reported. Once the backing driver hears a crunch, he is aimed to take off and escape the scene. Since injuries from backing accidents are virtually non-existent, the main safety concern is with property damage, and more of that is not reflected in the statistics. Third, while reverse angle parking in novel, drivers will take special care in parking. Once the novelty is gone, drivers are likely to revert to their casual ways and the accident rate can be expected to rise. The novelty effect was demonstrated by the introduction of brake lights above the trunks of cars, called a Center High Mount Stop Lamp (CHMSL). “Early studies involving taxicabs and other fleet vehicles found that a third, high-level stop lamp reduced rear-end collisions by about 50%. Once the novelty effect wore off as most vehicles on the road came to be equipped with the central third stop lamp, the crash-avoidance benefit declined. However, it did not decline to zero, and a CHMSL is so inexpensive to incorporate into a vehicle that it is a cost-effective collision avoidance feature even at the long-term enduring crash-reduction benefit of 4.3%” [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Once the extra caution brought about by novelty wears off, less-skilled drivers are forced to use the spaces, and the dents caused by backing are taken into account the alleged safety benefit of reverse angle parking vanishes. It's almost certainly more hazardous. Visibility for e driver leaving the parking space is improved, but because brake lights and backup lights are in the rear of the vehicle the car is less visible to oncoming traffic. When the car is parked reverse-angle, the brake and back up lights will not be visible, and the driver is away from the traffic by the hood length. Reverse angle parking also encourages drives to dash into gaps in traffic, rather than wait for the traffic light to clear the oncoming traffic from the street. That reduces safety. Advantages of head-in parking It's safer. A Google search for “head in parking only” produces many pages of links to cities, college campuses, and parking lots that require head-in parking. Here, from Winthrop College, is a typical explanation: Due to safety issues created by backing into certain types of parking spaces, Winthrop has found it necessary to prohibit back-in parking in angled, bumpered or curbed spaces on campus, as indicated by lot signage. Compliance helps avoid endangering pedestrians or other vehicles and impeding traffic flow while back-in maneuvers are made, as well as minimizing the risk of wrong-way driving on one-way routes upon departure. [6. http://www2.winthrop.edu...] Head in parking minimizes the risk of denting an adjacent parked car, and it minimizes the risk to pedestrians, who are more likely to be on the sidewalk side of the space than the road side. The pedestrian safety advantage is likely to be greatest in congested areas where pedestrians are tempted to use an empty parking space as a path to the street. Head-in parking reduces traffic congestion. Even for a skilled driver, it takes less time to back out of a space than to back into it. That's because the street is an open space and the parking area is tightly confined by the adjacent vehicles. The extra time required for reverse angle parking adds significantly to traffic congestion because the street is blocked longer. For example, the city of Carmel, California passed an ordnance requiring head-in parking, “The ordinance ... was presented with the intention of eliminating the '12-point turns' that .. are frequently completed in the garage, bringing traffic flow to a halt.” [7. http://currentincarmel.com...] There are other reasons why head-in parking is often required. In warm climates, businesses have open doors and backing cars blows exhaust fumes into the shops. Outdoor eating eating areas are subject to exhaust fumes from backing cars. Vegetation is damaged by exhaust fumes and the heat from idling cars. Nearby walls or fences may be stained by the exhaust gases. Keep in mind that in warm climates, a car, especially one with a waiting passenger, may be left idling to keep the air conditioner running. In cold climates, cars may be left idling to keep the heat on. In either case sidewalk pedestrians are blasted with exhaust gas. Reverse angle parking often requires extra expense A reverse angle space on the right side of the street is open to head in parking from the opposite lane of traffic. Drivers cross the lane to grab the space, creating a hazard of driving in the wrong lane. Traffic engineers say “medians or enforcement are key to keeping drivers from the other side of the street flipping into a stall nose in.” Either building a median strip or increasing policing are new expenses not needed with head-in parking. Vehicles usually have much more rear overhang, so experts advise “make sure your sidewalks are wide enough for any expected vehicle overhang (6 foot sidewalks without a planter zone are too narrow).” Wider sidewalks take more land or require narrower roads, neither of which is desirable. Summary Reverse angle parking seems weird at first, and upon close examination it really is weird. It hopes to solve a virtually non-existent safety problem but creates traffic congestion, risks more damage to parked cars, requires median strips and wider sidewalks, and pumps exhaust gas on to shops and pedestrians. the resolution is negated.