The Instigator
Scorbie
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,858 times Debate No: 22502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Scorbie

Pro

This debate will be about the superiority of either Reverse angle parking or Head in parking. I will be arguing that Reverse angle parking is superior to Head in parking.

Definitions
  • Head-in parking is parking an automobile by driving forward into a 45° parking space on a street.
  • Reverse angle parking is parking by backing into a 45° parking space on a street.

Rules.
  1. No new arguments in comment section
  2. First Round is Acceptance and Clarification
  3. No modifying rules after debate has started
  4. Number sources for reference in refutation
RoyLatham

Con

Pro asked me to debate his topic because it's a real issue in his town. I think it's a good topic because it touches on an issue in the real world more closely than many of our debates on DDO.

I accept the challenge and look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Scorbie

Pro

First of all I would like to give thanks to RoyLatham for accepting my debate, I choose RoyLatham because I really wanted the best possible counter-argument because in this issue and after looking at his debate record of 163-4-11 I knew I would get just that.

Back story

Before I delve into my argument I believe some context is duly needed. In late 2011 a Plan was put into motion by BPAC or The Southern Pines Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to increase bicycle and pedestrian safety in a very clustered historical district of the city.[1] The plan was to incorporate reverse-angle parking please note this would cost nothing locally as it would have been provided by the Department of Transportation's budget for repaving. The plan however was a trial, only effected about one block of road, and would not have been permanent if found unpopular or problematic. This plan would increase safety for pedestrians and motorist alike, it also had strong community support when first proposed. However when the gears finally started turning this March the SPBA(Southern Pines Business Association) tried to block the trial.[2][3] So back to the matter at hand I opened this debate to argue that Reverse-angle parking is safer and a better way forward when it comes to barking and Head-in parking is heading the town in the wrong way.(no pun intended) This argument will serve to strengthen my understanding of the counter argument and hopefully spread knowledge on the subject that is so far hindered by only fear-tactics, traditionalism, and is backed by no empirical evidence.

Increased Safety

My first argument is that it is important to realize reverse-angle parking is safer both in practice and on paper for the driver. A Study in Pottstown, Pennsylvania showed that switching to reverse-angle parking resulted in 25% fewer accidents and a 43% reduction in personal injuries involving parking.[4] Also reverse-angle parking is safer because you are backing into a parking spot with an unobstructed view, also no cars will be moving behind you that could potentially lead to an accident, however with head in parking your view in obstructed by a car on either side and you have Moving vehicles driving past that have a right away.[5] Due to how cars are engineered the motorist is in the first 25% of the vehicle this translates to getting further away from the road in head-in parking and this further obstructs the view between two vehicles leaving about a 50° field of vision vs. a 180° field of vision when driving forward out.

Increased Visibility and Prosperity

Having reverse-angled parking would increase pedestrian and cyclist traffic within the city, this would increase increase because reverse-angle parking provides more safety for both the cyclist and the driver.[6] Due to this increase in traffic Business would return to small shops. Also this increased Bicycle traffic can help reduce carbon emissions, and help citizens save money on the growing fuel prices.

Simplicity

Reverse-angled parking is the easiest and most practical parking method between head-in and reverse-angle parking. Reverse-angled parking is the easiest parking method because of Increased Visibility that one has both backing in and Driving out due to seat positioning and Car placement(See above). It is also simpler because it is viewed as the future of parking Technology. All Innovations made in the Automotive industry involve reverse-angled parking and not head-in driving. Such technologies include but are not limited to Rear Camera assist, and reverse-angle parallel parking assist. [7]

Focusing on all these points one can Conclude that Reverse-Angled parking is safer, more economical and easier than Head in parking.



Sources:
http://www.thepilot.com... (Provides an image for proposed parking)
http://www.thepilot.com...
http://www.thepilot.com...
http://www.hampdenhappenings.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://contextsensitivesolutions.org...
http://www.dpw.ci.burlington.vt.us...




RoyLatham

Con

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: ] 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.

Debate Round No. 2
Scorbie

Pro

Thank you pro for bringing up some very valid points one of the many reasons I choose you for this debate.

If the Potsdam study showed reverse angle parking to be safer, why would people object to even experimenting with the method?



To start with, "there are so few accidents that result from backing out of a parking space it's a non-problem."


-lets look at the under reporting of these types of collision


The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center studied pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions during 2004-2008 for The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. The report, entitled North Carolina Pedestrian Crash Facts 2004 – 2008, found the following safety concerns:




North Carolina is ranked the ninth (9the) highest State in the U.S., up from twelfth (12the) in 2007, for pedestrian fatalities per capita.


Over the past five years 12,547 pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions have been reported in North Carolina.


Pedestrians ages 15 and younger accounted for 15% of pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes during 2005-2009.


Nearly half (46%) of all pedestrian- motor vehicle crashes occurred on local streets reflecting higher levels of walking – numbers of pedestrians in cities and neighborhoods. Over a quarter (26%) of crashes occurred in parking lots, public drive ways, and other public areas


Sixty-five percent (65%) of pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes took place on roads with a speed limit of 35 miles or less in areas where more walking and pedestrian crossing takes place.



I would argue that Con stating Back over accidents are a non-problem is a very troubling statement. Con states that Backing collisions don't fit into any categories and are negligible this only means the numbers could be very much larger. I would instead look at incidents involving backovers 292 casualties and over an estimated 18,000 injuries were reported.[1]Also I would ask that Con will use exact numbers of injuries and Casualties for victims Percentages have a way of not letting us see the real picture for example 1.6% seems really same but these are people.

Reverse-angle parking doesn't hurt business

Con asserts that reverse angle parking hurts business and then provides no substantial evidence to prove this claim, 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. The Opinion of these consumers is that of fear and not wanting to accept change with the "If it ain't broke dont' fix it" ideal this mindset would have completely shut out advances in mostly anything from the automobile to the plane. Some people don't like seatbelts and find it annoying but it improves safety and should be accepted, I would instead look at the many cities that have implemented reverse angle parking now and look at their economic problem. 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.[2(Pottstown study)][3] Also with increased Bicycle traffic Business would increase not decrease.[4] In conclusion extrodianary claims requre extrodinary evidence which Con has failed to provide.

Head-in parking is not safer

All of the evidence I have provided that Head in parking is more dangerous than Reverse angle parking The Blind-spots, pedestrian injury data and commong logic. One can Deduce that it is safer to to stop traffic while you are in it and back up safely in-between two stationary objects than it is to back against fast moving traffic. His evidence for it being safer was based on a single college that is probably against the idea simply because of the human inherit trait of not wanting to accept change. Change is viewed as a negative thing when at times its an improvement.

Reserve-angle parking is better because it improves public safety, street awareness, and business. Also one of Cons points was that Head-in was better because it stained walls, Con would be willing to trade Civilian and business well-being for that of clean fences.

http://www.iihs.org...
http://www.hampdenhappenings.org...
http://www.hampdenhappenings.org...
http://www.bikeleague.org...
RoyLatham

Con

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 cited

We 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 safety

Pro 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 shops

Pro 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.

Debate Round No. 3
Scorbie

Pro

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 issue
As 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 safety
Con 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 effect
Con 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 Texas
In 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.

Congestion
Every 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 business
If 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 claims
Con 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...
RoyLatham

Con

Thanks to Pro for an interesting debate.

Pollution Issue

Pro 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 safety

How 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.

Congestion

Pro 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 business

The 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 Required

I 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.

Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mobiledan 4 years ago
mobiledan
I drive on South Congress regularly. Congestion, particularly in the right lane, has increased markedly since the implementation of reverse parking. It's much harder to back a car into a spot than to back out of it. The extra difficulty results in more time blocking traffic. A scan of the street shows many badly parked cars, at odd angles, which must contribute to increased body damage to cars - people who back into parking spots frequently show the scars on the corners of their car's back bumpers, and every damaged bumper equals a damaged fender on another car. Also, cars, and trucks especially, typically have greater overhang in the rear, so when the vehicle is backed to a curb, the overhang is covering a large part of the sidewalk. If the curb is high, the vehicle will incur damage it's exhaust system.

Pulling out from a reverse parking spot, the driver has no visibility until clearing the front of the car parked on the left. At this point, about a third of the vehicle is in the street. When the car has pulled out far enough to see, the drivers door is the point of impact should an accident occur, likely resulting in much more serious injury than backing out, where the point of impact would be the right rear fender.

Any improvement in safety along South Congress (I haven't seen the numbers) is likely from the addition of the bike lane, which was implemented at the same time as reverse parking.

South Congress is a wide street, and has something of a carnival atmosphere due to the number of shops, cafes, and pedestrians. I sense there is overall less aggression in drivers along that stretch than on other streets that are more essentially thoroughfares. Reverse parking along thoroughfares, with faster, more aggressive driving the norm, will put drivers of cars pulling out from parking spots at risk of serious injury. The best way to increase safety is to implement bike lanes.
Posted by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
Excerpt from first source "In the last ten years, just over 7,600 pedestrian were killed by motor vehicles while 29 were killed by cyclists. Over the same period, 364,000 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles, almost 76,000 (or 21%) of them seriously while cyclists injured just over 2,600 with roughly the same proportion (22%) being considered serious."

People like you are the reason we have so many stupid laws, We don't need to make the exception the standard.If their is a 1 in 1000(Not actual statistic) chance that you will be attacked by a shark is it logical to ban swimming in the oceans? If everyone obeys the current laws the only remaining accidents would be caused by visibility problems.

If you really want to remedy the problem enforce the laws that currently exist make pedestrians use the crosswalks, Cars drive the speed limit, and bicycle drive the speed limit. A car going 25 in a 25mph area would not get cited for reckless driving and if you believe that I urge you to understand what speed limits are. Even though it seems a fast a Bike going 25 in a 25 is not speeding.

Way to demonize the bicyclist I don't cycle but even i know the responsibility or burden shouldn't fall solely on the cyclist, pedestrian, or driver. If anything the current laws need to be followed, and we should do our best to increase visibility(something Reverse angle parking is superior at). I agree all laws should be enforced but to be enforced on everyone not just picking and choosing.

By Cons logic we should lower all speed limits across the board especially motor vehicles, because a pedestrian is 263 times more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle.

Speed isn't the problem its visibility, again I ask don't make an exception the standard rule.

http://adrianfitch.wordpress.com...

Interesting documentary
http://www.youtube.com...
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
I learned an interesting fact this past week. There was a news report on the local news from San Francisco that a cyclist killed a pedestrian in a traffic accident. That's odd, I thought ... probably a one in a million. No, the report said that another pedestrian was killed by a cyclist about six months ago.

I have come to understand that avid cyclists believe they should be able to travel at 15 - 25 mph on city streets, and it the job of cars and pedestrians to stay out of their way. Whatever it takes for them to maintain speed is justified for safety. The cyclist in the videos are going way too fast. A car going that fast under those circumstances could be cited for reckless driving.

Usually, the cyclist is mainly putting himself at risk,but when they kill pedestrians thee is problem that affects public safety. One remedy is enforced speed limits on bicycles.
Posted by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
No accidents were cited because the person backing out is never help liable for example in those videos the Bike had to change lanes, when he does this he could run in front of another car unknowing trading one accident, that his reflexes avoided, for yet another that couldn't have been stopped. If a car backs onto a road blindly and forces cars to jerk into the other lane and they get into an accident the reverse backer can drive away scotch free.

Backing into traffic isn't safer because there is a bigger area, its unsafe because you back blind, not only blinded by the features of your car but the features of the cars next to you which is completely avoided in Reverse angle parking. Con argues the Bike is going to fast yet in the second video he is going the same speed as a car, In the majority of states bicycles are considered vehicles, why should bicycles drive slower when they aren't the cause of the accidents Con wants bikes to drive slowly to protect against blind backers. Why not fix the problem of backing blind rather than punish.

Con then tries to say my video is just touting the claimed advantages of reverse angle. Now here is a fact that video was filmed in the same city that Con used as his source, the only difference is a conflict of opinion. In his the merchants don't like it, in mine the merchants do like it proving that their is so harm on business and actually has a positive effect for consumers. Con would like you to ignore my video by unwittingly fully accept his own. Also ask yourself why the Japanese exclusively reverse back park?[1] Con may argue that its unsafe lets look at the accident data. [1] http://www.goodparkingspaces.com......
http://www.apeaweb.org......
Posted by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
I never said shops had lower sales, in fact i said the opposite it helps business i even linked reports on where business has increased in Austin Texas, the quote " I would instead look at the many cities that have implemented reverse angle parking now and look at their economic problem" is a quote of sarcasm one only needs to go to my source to look that none of the cities listed in the study received any economic outcome.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
First a good point con brought up is Head parking is sometimes needed, and many of those situations he showed are needed for are common. Although this is not the full winner argunment it does prove that head parking can be better, so some of his Bop, and a lot of it, is filled with that one point.

Now pro cites many good statistics, when I was reading I was expecting counter stats, if any. But I think what Con showed (the stats are faulty) are really good counter points. Roy won this point, and a vital one to pros case.

Then Roy uses his own data on head parking. without using faulty stats he proves his point. I think Roy won this point.

Buisness, pro conceded saying shops had lower sales after Reverse was used.

Without going through every point, con won most of them, pro won a few, con won the debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Because you posted video as additional evidence relevant to the debate. The last video had nothing in it except argument. The Seinfeld video had nothing to do with the debate in the first place, and type of parking produces that sort of situation.

However, comments are in any case separate from the debate. One cannot point to additional arguments in comments during the debate and expect to have those arguments count as part of the debate. After a debate ends there is nothing wrong with with having additional discussion in the comments. That happens fairly often. So your were free to post the video of maniac cyclists expecting cars to stay out of their way.
Posted by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
Why are you posting new arguments in the comment section that was my rule?
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
The first video shows the car backing out when the bicycle is more than a hundred feet away. Are cars supposed to wait if there is a bicycle anywhere on the horizon? There was no hazard whatsoever. A car in the situation of the bicycle could have easily slowed and stopped, but the cyclist chose to maintain his high speed.

The bicycles in the first and second videos are going too fast. In the second video the van apparently stopped to let the bicycle pass. There was no hazard.

The third video is just someone touting the claimed advantages of reverse angle parking.

Throughout the entire debate, not a single example of an accident caused b backing out of a head-in parking space has been found. No doubt it's happened somewhere, but they are too rare to find it cannot be a safety problem. "Head-in only" is in fact the prevailing safety rule.
Posted by Scorbie 5 years ago
Scorbie
Just for clarification the Seinfeld example is not right.
Head-in

Reverse angle

Please watch the videos before you vote this has nothing to do with Parallel
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ScorbieRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
ScorbieRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had much stronger points and fulfilled his BOP but Con conceded one or two arguments
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
ScorbieRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's statistics were not specific enough to address the cost/benefit of head-in vs. reverse-angle. The dangers of backing out (blind spots) appear to be mitigated by Con's reference to "open road" vs. "tight space"