my_hat_stinks comments on Feed your Neighbours

[–] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 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

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 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

[–] my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 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

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 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

[–] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 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