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

The studies and reports on reverse-angle parking are classic cases of misrepresenting data and skewing analysis to support a preconceived outcome. I don't think Pro is deliberately trying to misdeed us, He is merely quoting sources that ought to be trustworthy, but are not. The study errors include citing accident statistics unrelated to backing out of street parking space, The studies pretend to show that reverse angle parking is easy by comparing it to parallel parking instead of head in parking, the studies ignore valid criticisms including problems of traffic delays, exhaust gas exposure to sidewalks, the cost for median strips or enforcement, overhang of curbs, fender-bender accident damage, and the drop in business are all simply ignored in what pretend to be objective studies.Not a single accident due to head-in parking is citedWe would like to know (a) the accident rate for head-in angled parking spaces and (b) the accident rate for reverse-angle parking. If we had the numbers for (a) and (b) then we could compare them. No such numbers exist, nor is there anything close to them. Consequently the best we can do is to make estimates based on the numbers that are available together with the experience in certain applications. the evidence is that reverse angle parking is more dangerous, which is why it is so widely banned.Pro cites 12,547 pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions reported in North Carolina over five years. (When you want numbers to be large, always cite the total over many years.) There is no evidence that even a single one of those collisions came from backing out of a head-in parking space. I wouldn't be surprised if there was one, but if they were common they would be easy to find and proponents of reverse-angle parking would be sure to publicize them. None of the reports I've seen cite a single case.Most all pedestrian accidents are from cars moving forwards. The data from bicycle accidents are a clue. The accidents occur when a car is turning doesn't see the bicycle or pedestrian in time to stop. Backing accidents occur mainly in driveways where children are playing, or in parking lots where there are lots of pedestrians behind the backing cars, and the pedestrians may be pre-occupied with shopping carts. There are obviously no pedestrian accidents where there are no pedestrians, and fewer accidents where there are fewer pedestrians. Angled parking is between the sidewalk and the lane of moving traffic. There are many more pedestrians on and near the sidewalk than in the lane of moving traffic, so backing into a parking space is going to place more pedestrians at risk. That is one reason cited by campus parking regulators explaining their ban on reverse-angle parking as a safety hazard. Apparently students like to congregate near sidewalks as well as on the sidewalks.Pro's source says, "Most backover incidents don't happen on public roads." and it goes on to affirm my claims about children, driveways, and parking lots. [8. http://www.iihs.org...]Pro did not dispute the statistics on bicycle accidents that I presented. Only 1.6% of bicycle accidents involve backing, and most of those are in driveways and alleys. Yet bicycle safety is cited by reverse-angle parking advocates far more often than pedestrian accidents, though they never cite examples of either having occurred.In Austin, Texas:"City officials point to 24 accidents over the past five years on South Congress that involved parking (4.8 a year, not exactly a pandemic of parking pandemonium). And they say only one parking accident has occurred on Dean Keeton since the reverse angle spaces went in. Of course, fender-denter accidents aren't always reported, sometimes not even to the absent owner of the victimized car." [9. http://www.statesman.com...]The author noted that there had already been one accident on Dean Keaton, even though it was apparently a small area in which the experiment had been running for a short time. For any experiment to be valid it would have to have before and after statistics with significant numbers. We'd also have to account for the drop in parking due to motorists refusing to perform the difficult reverse-angle maneuver.I wanted to see the actual Potsdam study so I could see if the numbers were statistically significant, if they were doing an apples-to-apples comparison, and if they took into account a drop in parking. Pro cites a follow-up study on the Potsdam experience [10. http://www.hampdenhappenings.org...], but the original study is not revealed. The follow-on study declares success, but gives no statistics on accident rates, traffic flow, or shop sales. It declares success in making the area more pedestrian friendly. Sure, banning cars altogether would make it still more pedestrian friendly, while destroying the area economically. Pedestrians and bicyclist benefit fro having a good variety of thriving businesses in the downtown just as much as motorists. Accident rates may have increased; it doesn't say. Failure to even mention the major concerns is suspicious. The report recounts the street layout and lauds the addition of bus lanes and bicycles lanes. Bus lanes and bicycle lanes are, of course, unaffected by head-in parking. the report claims that reverse angle parking is more difficult than parallel parking, but doesn't compare it to head-in parking.Head-in Only Parking is required for safetyPro incorrectly claims that I had only cited a single example of back-in parking being banned for safety reasons. I said that a Google search of "head in parking only" produces the long list of examples. It's not possible to copy the whole list into the space allowed for this debate. Here are some of the other examples: Ccity of Urbana, IL [11 urbanaillinois.us/citycode/12914014/original], Mount San Antonio College [12. http://www.mtsac.edu...], Fullerton college [http://campussafety.fullcoll.edu...], Cedarville University [13. https://www.cedarville.edu...], Florida International University [14. http://parking.fiu.edu...], Glendale City college [15. http://www.glendale.edu...] ... it continues.The Google hits for specific places requiring head-in parking are separated by large numbers of ads for "Head In Parking Only" signs. The only reason for so many signs being sold is that the requirement is very common. Effect on shopsPro admits that business dropped sharply after reverse-angle parking was instituted in Austin. He conjectures without evidence that it might pick up again. Pro bears the burden of proof. As far as I can tell, advocates of reverse-angle parking avoid the subject entirely. It's an obvious concern, especially with the immediate drop in business. So why don't they provide numbers? Numbers are easy to get from sales tax revenues, so it's not a problem to get the data. I think the reason it's never addressed is that advocates have no concern for business or for motorists. They are intent on a pastoral ideal and don't want to hear any nay saying. They don't present statistics on all the relevant concerns, they don't explain why head-in only parking is derived as a rule by thousands of independent decision makers, and they don't address concerns with curb hangover, exhaust fumes, or needs for median strips to prevent crossover parking. Pro's only response was that we shouldn't worry about exhaust damaging walls. Sure, not as much as fumes on sidewalks and in shops. Perhaps advocates are merely incompetent. I can't verify their thinking, and one can make a good case for stunning incompetence. Regardless of the motivation, They don't have the data to make a case.Pro should number his refences. Referring to them by number when they are not numbered is problematic.