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

Pollution IssuePro claims that having the exhaust aimed at the sidewalk is not a problem because states have laws against idling. But there are laws against causing pedestrian accidents and denting parked cars, yet we are still debating these problems. Backing into the slot involves exhaust exposure for however long it takes, which may be several attempts. People commonly warm up their engines before driving, so even if they are not idling for long periods, it is a pollution problem. No one likes exhaust gas even for a short time. Public safetyHow many accidents are caused by head-in parking? Pro never cited a statistic on that during the whole debate. He gave data on total pedestrian accidents, but nothing about accidents caused by head-in parking. I noted in R3 that not even a single case of an accident caused by head-in parking was cited by Pro. I couldn't find one either. Pro said that someone might be injured while putting something in the trunk of a head-in car, and I grant it's possible, but most people are not putting things in the trunk and when they do they're likely to be careful. No case has been found of it causing an accident. Pro says that parking accidents are not counted as road accidents. Accidents when parking on the road are counted as road accidents, and parallel, head-in, and reverse-angle parking are all on roads. Accidents in parking lots are not, but we are not debating those. I claimed that because the Pottsdam study cannot be examined, we don't know why there were fewer accidents reported in the study. I offered several possible reasons. One is that because reverse angle parking is difficult, non-expert drivers do not park on the street. In Austin business dropped substantially after reverse-angle parking was required. Fewer cars means fewer accidents. The second reason reason offered is that reverse-angle parking increases traffic congestion. Again, there are fewer cars. The third reason is the novelty effect, whereby people are more careful when something is new. The fourth reason is that accidents involving dents are under reported. Pro only responded to the novelty effect. His response was that in the case of elevated stop lights, There was a residual positive effect of 4.3% and he assumed that reverse-angle parking might have a similar residual positive effect. However, we don't know what will happen as less-skilled drivers are forced to reverse-angle park, and other becomes blasé about it. Accident rates will likely rise, but we don't know that there will be a positive residual. Quite possibly accident rates will climb. Austin, TX The quote says that there were 4.8 accidents per year on South Congress but only one on Dean Keaton since reverse angle went into effect. The comparison is to accidents on a different street, and we don't know how long it was in effect. I called the cited studies of reverse-angle parking biased or incompetent. The studies did not identify the causes or types of accidents, did not measure traffic flow, and did not measure the impact on business. They used invalid comparisons, typically comparing reverse-angle parking to parallel parking rather than to head-in parking. They ignored the disadvantages of reverse-angle requiring median strips and exhaust on sidewalks. No mention is ever made of the large numbers of head-in only parking rules made for safety reasons. These are not ad hom attacks, they are specific defects in the studies. I said that it doesn't really matter whether the defects were due to bias or incompetence, but that the studies are defective. If the streets are blocked off entirely to traffic, accident rates would go to zero. Obviously there is more to consider. Recall that bicycle safety was cited by Pro and by other advocates as a reason for reverse-angle parking. We had good statistics on that, and only 1.6% of bicycle accidents were due to parking at all, and many of those were n driveways and alleys. The subject was dropped. CongestionPro claims that reverse-angle parking usually replaces parallel parking, and because parallel parking is difficult congestion should not increase. When a street is converted to angled parking, one lane of traffic is lost. More space is devoted to parking. Parallel parking blocks one lane of traffic, but there is still a lane to move around the parking car. So it is not valid to compare reverse-angle parking to parallel parking, it must be compared to head-in parking. Reverse-angle parking takes longer than head-in parking. This is common sense based on the difficulty of backing, but we also have the experience cited in Carmel, CA, and in other places that reverse-angle parking increases congestion. Note also that reverse-angle parking requires a median strip to prevent drivers from cross into a space head-in. That means that cars wanting to avoid a driver attempting to reverse-angle cannot pass in the opposite lane. They are stuck. Pro claims that if the 2.2 miles of reverse-angled parking caused a drop in business, it would have been noted in the economic forecast. Austin comprises 300 square miles. The central city is about 3 miles by 30 miles, with 53 numbered streets. That implies about 300 miles of streets in the central city. If the central city accounts for half the population, and business dropped 25% on the 2.2 mile stretch, the total impact would be 0.09% of the city, which is negligible. Drop in businessThe video in my R1 gives ample evidence that business dropped significantly on the street where reverse-angle parking was implemented in Austin. Pro responded "the evidence he did show only showed agree business owners who are afraid of change the report was only weeks after the parking had been implemented and no Data would be conclusive. " Pro offered no evidence that business owners were afraid of change; if business increased they'd love it. However, Pro admitted that business did drop, but said it would probably recover. Reverse-angle parking was implemented on south Congress street in Austin on July 6, 2011. . http://www.kvue.com... The 2010-2011 Forecast Pro cited is irrelevant. Pro goes on to claim that because cities that are the "Epicenters of our country" have experimented with reverse-angle parking that it must not be bad for business. That's Pro's speculation. Pro's cited sources mention the several cities, but do not say a word about the economic impact. The Pottsdam experiment was only a 1.1 mile stretch, with no word on economics. How any city does as whole when 0.1% of it's streets are converted is no indication of either success or failure. Other economic factor will dominate. Pro must show data from the streets affected. Pro has the burden of proof, and reverse-angle proponents seem to never collect that data. Pro says that the claim that business drops is "extraordinary. " It's not. It's common sense. People do not favor shopping in places where parking is more difficult over places where it is less difficult. Moreover, the only evidence we do have from merchants on the street is the experience in Austin, where the common sense reasoning was confirmed. Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, so he needs to show with convincing evidence that both common sense and the experience in Austin are wrong. A bike lane is provided with either head-in or reverse-angle parking, so it's not a business issue. Head-in Parking RequiredI quoted a couple of sources about head-in parking being required for safety reasons. I cited the Google search as producing too many more to copy. Pro challenged that I had only cited one, so I linked a bunch more. Pro did not rebut the evidence. I also noted the very large market for traffic signs saying "Head In Parking Only. " The signs are purchased independently by people who have concluded that head-in parking is safer. Pro did not rebut the evidence. For all these reasons, the resolution is negated.