Archive for April 23rd, 2009

Just for kicks — though also an interesting period piece of suburbia, with relatively few cars in each driveway, etc. I somehow imagine this as a Fountains of Wayne or Weezer video, or some such. Excellent amateur cinematography, no doubt much harder then than it would be now.

(thanks Chris — who also points out the 35 mph limit for a narrow, unlined streets with lots of “butt racing” kids)

Photo by Hidesax/Flickr

I just came across this kernel about Tokyo, a city I’m always plotting to return to:

“The elevated expressways make it possible to traverse the city by car, but the average speed is only 15 km/h. That is if you have a car, because anyone who wants one has to prove they have their own parking space. Parking on the street is forbidden, and with an average street breadth of 4 m, often quite impossible.”

This comes from the book Mobility: A Room with a View, the catalog to the 2003 International Architecture Biennale in Rotterdam (OK, so I’m slow getting to it), which I picked up not long ago at the bookstore of the Canadian Centre for Architecture (along with William Stout in San Francisco, one of the world’s best shops of that theme). It’s a mishmash, like all catalogs, but for mobility types there’s much on offer, including an essay on the aesthetic mandates for the autobahn during the Third Reich and an essay with the incredibly tempting title “The History of French Motorway Design.”

But back to Tokyo; I’d be curious to know more about the parking legislation. When did it pass? Was it a result of the narrow streets, or some other force? Has the law influenced urban form, vis a vis house construction? Are there more parking garages per capita in Tokyo than elsewhere?

A driver has been exonerated in Australia for striking a cyclist because he did not have a front-facing light and was, in the words of the magistrate, “an accident waiting to happen.” There’s just one thing: He was struck from behind, and he was sporting a rear tail-light.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Bob Anderson submitted that a headlight was not relevant because Mr Angel was hit from behind.

“A flashing red light was displayed on the victim as required by the road rule,” Sgt Anderson said.

So far, so good.

Defence lawyer Jon Irwin submitted that a cyclist riding in darkness required a headlight, rear light and reflectors on the bike.

“If he had a (front) light it would have projected 200m in front and Ms Jasper could have picked up a bike was on the road,” Mr Wilson said.

This I find a bit hard to swallow. Firstly, I can’t say I ever spotted a cyclist from behind by dint of their front light. Secondly, maybe I’m using the wrong light, but there’s no way the beam projects 200 meters — it spills a (very) little light on the pavement about 15 feet of me. But maybe others out there have had a different experience?

(Horn honk to Treadly)