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
[–] 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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
    •