965
Feed your Neighbours (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/memes@slrpnk.net
257 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (26 children)

We'll need an after picture too, I assume they're going to replace that concrete tightrope with one?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (25 children)

    Respond to the wrong comment?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

    I think they're commenting that the sidewalk is super skinny. I legit didn't see it at first glance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (16 children)

    The sidewalk is 36” (1m actually) with a 12” curb.

    It’s large enough for wheelchairs to get by. The road is also 40’ wide so two cars can pass with parking along each side. The vehicle in the back provides some scale.

    Plus the bins in the back, they’re atleast 24” by 24”, clearly the sidewalk is wider.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (15 children)

    So like, technically a sidewalk but that sidewalk is gonna be embarrassed af in gym class

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

    It exceeds international standards. What the hell are you basing it off of?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    International bare minimums maybe. I'm used to 1.5m but sounds like even 1.2m is more of a standard than 1.0m

    Can barely even walk beside/past someone comfortably with 1.0m wide sidewalks

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (12 children)

    ADA compliance requires sidewalks less than 60” to have passing zones every 200 feet. Which is why USUALLY you’ll just have a 60” wide sidewalk. 36” is the bare minimum for ADA compliance. So. That.

    The one you’re showing would simply not be compliant in some states and unless they’re counting the driveways as “passing zones” idk how this meets ADA compliance

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    ADA has no such requirements, and can be reduced down to 32” in places.

    They are brand new modern sidewalks that exceed international standards.

    60” sidewalks aren’t a thing.

    Are you confusing footpaths and sidewalks like the other user is too? They’re totally different things, and all footpaths in the city are 2.4m and changing 4m.

    You have to atleast compare the same things here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

    I have 60” sidewalks in front of my house and all throughout my city.

    When sidewalks reduce to 32” they are required to have a passing zone of 60” minimum every 200’

    Maybe there’s a carve out for private communities, but your sidewalk here is definitely not ADA compliant.

    The PROWAG is even more stringent at 48” minimumsz

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (9 children)

    I provided you the exact specifications from ADA, they say 36” lol.

    And maybe where you are, they are thing, but not here since they would break every winter. So that’s why the ADA doesn’t have requirements that wide, since some states are frost states.

    It’s almost like our infrastructure is designed for our location or something….

    You’re obviously conflating things, since ADA is 36”, what agency are you thinking of instead? Because the ADA is exceeded by our model building code. So your claims are just fucking wild at this point. They wouldn’t build something that doesn’t meet or exceed the code minimum. Are you just making shit up for fun now?

    Provide the ADA requirement that states what you’re thinking. This is part of my job, I can look it up and take a picture of the code book for you. If you can be arsed to provide the code reference #?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

    You’re just repeating what I’m saying from the opposite position.

    We’re calling that 36” bare minimum sidewalk tiny, and you’re taking umbrage to it. I’m saying it barely meets the requirement and you’re saying it meets the requirement so it’s sufficient. Yes, the same thing said differently except per you 60” sidewalks aren’t the norm which has everyone calling the ones you linked out.

    I live in a frost state. Im not interested in arguing what the requirement is since we both agreed it’s 36” you’re just arguing about the 60” landing requirement. Which is fine. I don’t care, sorry to twist your panties.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (7 children)

    You’re the one that’s saying it doesn’t meet ada requirements, and I’m trying to explain that they quite literally do. And the context of the road doesn’t require larger sidewalks like other places, but 60”+ is no longer a sidewalk and follows different construction protocols.

    A 4” thick slab over 48” can’t support a vehicle for driveways where there is frost movement. So they only build them where needed or required since the city wholly pays the cost, and taxpayers get a say in how public money is spent in that regard.

    If you didn’t have your head so far up your ass thinking you’re correct, maybe you could learn something. And frost doesn’t just mean it gets below freezing, it quite literally means your ground is frozen for months at a time.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but someone correcting incorrect information doesn’t have their panties in a twist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (6 children)

    Just to be clear, again.

    I have 60” sidewalks in front of my house, in a frost state.

    You and I both agree your 36” sidewalks are the Minimum requirement

    I’m not sure what you’re on about, your sidewalk is small which is why we all noticed

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (5 children)

    It’s a bloody service sidewalk that leads to larger sidewalks. You’re the one that’s going off about needing passing lanes so yours are 60”. That’s…. Not…. A… thing… and I’ve asked you multiple times to provide the regulation and you haven’t.

    I’m sorry you think that things need to be overbuilt and waste taxpayer money. I’m sure if I looked at the state of your sidewalks compared to ours it would be stark difference in the quality and the longevity if they’re “all” that size.

    How large of a sidewalk do you think a road that only services 50 houses need? Traffic can’t pass through, it will only add distance to their route, same with pedestrians. If you’re assuming this is grid based where every road is through road…. Well… get your head out of your ass.

    The roads are designed to have minimal traffic after work and school so kids and people can be out and use the infrastructure. Can’t do that if a car passes by every minute getting somewhere else…. You’re not seriously trying to suggest THAT is better…?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (2 children)

    I assume you then chose to continue reading and saw you being wrong, which is why you immediately deleted it?

    Idk.

    I hope this was as thrilling for you as it was for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Lmfao, no I realized that you’re still never going to understand that a sidewalk isn’t a walking surface and public property is different than residential sidewalks. It’s on someone’s property, but it’s the cities. It’s not the same bloody thing.

    As stated, your head is so far up your ass, you can’t even see you are talking about something totally different.

    Every comment I’ve asked about sidewalks, nothing you’ve stated has been about sidewalks.

    But it’s wonderful to see you care soo much to screen capture a deleted comment to try and use it against someone. Do you think bringing up a deleted comment is supposed to help you? It just makes you petty and look pathetic.

    I have a question, if someone installs an accessible ramp to their house, you’re saying it has to be 60” wide? That is not the case, it follows residential rules, not public.

    Enjoy arguing about stuff you don’t understand!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

    No my dude I do not think it’s wasting taxpayers money to follow ADA guidelines.

    It’s 403.5 which is for official use on government property, the ADA (as you’ve claimed to be an expert on) is a tangled web of guidelines. Some are laws, some are best practices and recommendations. If I can untangle, during my pipeline builds, the web and find guidance for residential instead of what the government dictates for its employees I will. Until then most guidance you’ll find online still mirrors what I’ve said.

    My point again is that yes your sidewalk meets the minimum requirements. It’s a shame it isn’t built more to what is the norm, but yes again “bare minimum has been met” Neat!

    What I find hilarious is how hard in the paint you’re going for those sidewalks, THEY EXCEED INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS but somehow barely meet ADA requirements

    Here, you deleted your response:

    It’s 403.5 just in a subsection you opted not to read. Again, I never said your sidewalks weren’t compliant I called out that them being the BARE MINIMUM isn’t some ideal you’re touting about how nice they are.

    Anyways, fuck right off friend

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    I think they're saying that sidewalk is too narrow, which it does look minimal compared to the street, like a wheelchair would have a hard time, especially with the edge curving down like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    It’s a 40’ wide road with a 36” sidewalk and 12” curb. People can pass a wheelchair going down it fine. Look at the vehicle and the bins for scale context.

    It think they’re trying to funny that there’s no shoulder, which would just waste space on a 40km/h residential road that is filled with parking after school and work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago* (4 children)

    a 36” sidewalk

    So... About the minimum for a single person to walk with little leeway, normally in a safe indoor area with no car traffic?

    36" is the absolute bare minimum required walkway space in the US by ADA to technically be wheelchair compliant in that a single wheelchair user might be able to use it, roughly half the minimum 1.8m clear width recommended by Australia's Department of Transport, and less than half the 2m minimum unobstructed walkway space recommended for pedestrians in low-traffic areas by the UK's department for transport. This is undeniably too narrow.

    That road looks wide enough for about 4 cars, it's not a "waste" to surrender some of that to make it slightly less hostile to pedestrians.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    This are footpaths, not roadside sidewalks.

    Why are you comparing it to something totally different? Gotta be apples to apples.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Huh? I literally just sent you two links about roadside walkways. Australia's one is under the header "Footpaths in road reservations", while technically it doesn't always need to contain a road, it does include the road and area around it. Here's a definition from a random Aus council I found with a quick search:

    A road reserve is the public land outside your property boundary and generally includes the nature strip or verge, roadside drains or kerbing, footpath and roadway.

    The UK one literally gives that advice beside a diagram of a footway beside a road while clearly marking the 2m recommendation on the diagram.

    Personally I'm the same size wherever I'm walking, but I'd still prefer the extra space when I'm around cars rather than on a safe path, I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    Lmfao it’s a residential service road, the only traffic is the homeowners and delivery’s.

    Walk to the end of the block either way and you have an actual footpath that’s 2.4m wide, and the other way leads to the feeder and through roads that are designed differently.

    Different places have different terms and are defined differently. Of your road is designed for people to use to pass though to the next, it obviously needs to be designed differently.

    You’re the one assuming every road is identical to this one, roads that aren’t service roads must have sidewalks on both sides and be designed differently. But go off mate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

    That road looks wide enough for about 4 cars, it's not a "waste" to surrender some of that to make it slightly less hostile to pedestrians.

    That’s exactly what it is, parking on either side, with enough room for two vehicles to be able to come Opposing each other.

    Making it skinnier would make it a risk to pedestrians since two vehicles meeting between parked vehicles could collide pushing the parked vehicle onto the sidewalk. It’s an issue in Older neighborhoods.

    What you’re suggesting is even more unsafe for pedestrians, Jesus Christ.

    What’s hostile about a 36” wide sidewalk that leads to other infrastructure?

    Your second link also only talk about different designs, like with having the buildings right against the sidewalks. Those obviously need to be designed different and my image obviously isn’t that either. So what do you think it’s proving?

    And the first link is about footpaths which aren’t sidewalks. Check your sources and make sure you’re comparing the same things? You’re arguing over something entirely different here. All footpaths here are 2.4m, but they’re also updating to 4m as well now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent