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

After coming rereading both sections in my opponents argument I see some major flaws also I see many opportunities to clear the confusion surrounding the superior parking method. Pollution issueAs my opponent would say the Pollution issue is a non-problem almost every state as an no idle law[1] This would prevent the so called scenario Con brought up I would also like the voters to consider, is this a problem with parallel parking and the answer is no, this is a complete side argument, these laws prevent such instances from occurring.Public safetyCon would like you to believe the only problem with pedestrian safety is for people on the side walk, I would ask the voters is it safe to load the trunk of your car while standing in traffic, that is exactly what head in parking encourages this is where the majority of accidents happen it is when the pedestrian loses the right away because there is no sidewalk or crosswalk, these are not in parking crash data but road pedestrian crash data. Con said I tried to make the numbers look big actually I wasn't I was trying to show the importance of each individuals life but instead I will show a large number I will use the national numbers instead of the state numbers maybe this will draw some attention. "About 5,000 pedestrians are killed and another 64,000 are injured in motor vehicle accidents every year in this country." I'm not going to bother putting that over a 5 year mark. Also note "Generally, pedestrian deaths rates are higher in urban areas" [2] All accidents from backing out of a parking spot due to head in parking don't fall into the crash categories as Con stated, "Road traffic accidents generally fall into one of four common types: Lane departure crashes, ...accidents at junctions … Accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists [and] Collisions with animals.” ... Collision from backing out of a parking space do not fit in the other named categories. they are negligible. That my friends is the sad truth as a statisticians Con fails to realise the true implications of what this means it only takes common sense to realise just how unsafe Head in parking really is.Novelty effectCon states that my 25% fewer accidents and a 43% reduction in personal injuries was a result of the Novelty effect He then quoted "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%” I find this amusing because con actually admitted that even with the Novelty effect their was a Net gain in consumer safety, so in a round about way he admitted that Reverse angle parking was Safer, one can only go by his own words and I give to you Cons agreeing with me that safety is increased.Austin TexasIn one of his newer arguments he stated "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." 4.8 accidents a year on a 2 mile stretch of road is in my opinion a Pandemic. The quote then goes on to say there has only been one accident sense the implementation of head in parking, Con again uses a source that confirms Reverse angle parking is safer, the only justifications is "oh its under reported its still worse". One should ask themselves is the numbers say accidents go down why are you against it, it seems to me the Advocates of Head in parking or stubborn and don't look at the facts when given to them. Con goes to Ad hominem arguments by calling advocates incompetent I ask what makes one incompetent when they are presenting factually supported Data to increase safety for everyone, I believe it is more troubling to not welcome change that has been proved to be beneficial both in my sources and Cons. Also I would like to note why has Austin Texas continued to use Reverse-angle parking, and even expanded it if it is such a bane?[4] All of my opponents sources against reverse angle parking occurred immediately after implementation negating all the evidence that would come with time.CongestionEvery public street that has any angled parking also has parallel parking, so lets use common sense Parallel parking causes more congestion than Reverse angle parking, because it is the exact same thing requiring more steps. So one can deduce this argument again was one of fear tactics not of data.Reverse doesn't hurt businessIf Reverse angle hurts business I would love to see a source that provides numbers because lets be honest the news loves to stir public opinion to get viewers what I provide is evidence. If Reverse angle parking hurt business in Austin it surely would have shown up on the economic report right?...well it doesn't seem that way there was an up tick of 1.1% between 2010-2011 lets see what next year will hold.[5]False claimsCon claims that I quote "Pro admits that business dropped sharply after reverse-angle parking was instituted in Austin." I hope he doesn't mean my statement that said "I would instead look at the many cities that have implemented reverse angle parking now and look at their economic problem." one of sarcasm but is instantly known after reading the evidence that I provided in the next sentence "Cities that include reverse-angled parking are the Epicenters of our country some cities Washington DC, New York City, San Francisco, And Charlotte these cities are are experiencing no Economic effect related to how they park." Does that sound like I agree I certainly don't think it does it just shows that reverse parking doesn't hurt business.In confusion Con appears to be giving factual evidence while spreading disinformation claiming I made statements I did not, and ignoring the evidence which I provided and ignoring his own evidence he provided that supported by claims, Also Con appears to try to win by using Ad hominem arguments by calling advocates incompetent, I would do no such things and urge the voters to look at the evidence.[1]http://www.atri-online.org...[2] http://legalcatch.wordpress.com...?[3]http://maps.google.com...[4] http://weareaustin.com...[5]http://www.angeloueconomics.com...