What's the advantage over back-in perpendicular parking? I don't actually think your eyeballs are closer to the road (since the diagonal to your front corner is longer than the line to your nearest headlight), and you can always force neighboring cars to be further away by just painting the lines wider apart.
At first I wondered if the road can be slightly narrower while still allowing one to get into the parking space, but if you look in the OP article at how the orange envelope is shaped by the way the front end swings around, I don't really think that's the case.
In general, I'm confused about why angle parking is picked over perpendicular parking. It's significantly less linear density (reduced by the factor cos(theta)), but the square shape of cars means the road width occupied by the parking is hardly less. (The wasted space is the triangular patches between the parked cars and the road/sidewalk.) Parallel parking has even lower linear density, of course, but takes half the road width.
I've never seen perpendicular parking outside of a parking lot. one immediate issue is that many vehicles will not have a sharp enough turning radius to make a right angle turn from a single width traffic lane into the space. they will have to make a multiple-point turn and/or cross into the far lane (possibly with opposing traffic) to get into the space. I can't imagine how this wouldn't be a huge obstruction every time someone parked something larger than a honda fit.
I see perpendicular parking pretty often. It's probably at least as common as angled parking in San Francisco (although obviously much less common than parallel parking).
One advantage I can imagine would be that it's safer for exiting drivers. They are partially blocked by the vehicle next to them. It also eliminates the cyclist "door zone".
At first I wondered if the road can be slightly narrower while still allowing one to get into the parking space, but if you look in the OP article at how the orange envelope is shaped by the way the front end swings around, I don't really think that's the case.
In general, I'm confused about why angle parking is picked over perpendicular parking. It's significantly less linear density (reduced by the factor cos(theta)), but the square shape of cars means the road width occupied by the parking is hardly less. (The wasted space is the triangular patches between the parked cars and the road/sidewalk.) Parallel parking has even lower linear density, of course, but takes half the road width.