Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Were sidewalks not included in these developments due to cutting corners as was done with the home building, or was it a short sighted mistake of thinking people would always have no more than 2 cars per household?
Were sidewalks not included in these developments due to cutting corners as was done with the home building, or was it a short sighted mistake of thinking people would always have no more than 2 cars per household?
Neither. In my neighborhood anyway.
The local code goes something like "if you have a sidewalk, you must maintain it, else you are responsible if someone gets hurt using it. But, if you don't have a sidewalk, whatevs."
So, many people choose NOT to have a sidewalk if they can. Some street have them in by default so it's not like you can take them out, but other streets, like mine, it's a hodgepodge.
The local code goes something like "if you have a sidewalk, you must maintain it, else you are responsible if someone gets hurt using it. But, if you don't have a sidewalk, whatevs."
So, many people choose NOT to have a sidewalk if they can. Some street have them in by default so it's not like you can take them out, but other streets, like mine, it's a hodgepodge.
No. The homeowner didnt choose to have a sidewalk installed. That decision was made by the developer or zoning board.
I wasn't being smug regarding her and didn't assume to know all the exact circumstances of her walking path (how could I know? you didn't share those more-exacting details until now). The point is that one can't always avoid every possible risk of calamity in our day-to-day lives, as the world-at-large doesn't always bend to our needs, wants , or demands (re: she fought for sidewalks there but they didn't get built in time, if they ever would get built ever, to change the tragic outcome for her). But we can otherwise take wise precautions to minimize the possibility of calamity for ourselves and/or for others. For instance (regarding your example regarding your friend), I have never chosen to live in a residential and general area (a jurisdiction of whatever type, whether a hamlet or town or village or city) without any sidewalks and it is exactly because of risks such as what your friend incurred. That is one way to make a choice that can minimize the risk to one's life and well-being. So, for instance, instead of choosing to live in most of Dix Hills (which, to my inspection, seems to consist of relatively few sidewalks anywhere . . . whether on a main road such as Vanderbilt Motor Parkway or a purely residential road in one of its many housing developments), I would instead live in parts of Melville or Farmingdale or Huntington or East Northport or Northport or <wherever else> . . . .wherever the layout of the land is characterized by paved sidewalks through-and-through -- alongside all the traffic roadways). There are many desirable areas that I like otherwise but, if they don't have sidewalks at all or hardly at all, that is a great demerit that would likely have me rule against such a location for my residence.
(By the way, I wasn't myself living in Dix Hills at the time I described in my earlier posting but just staying with others for an extended visit and they weren't there but on a trip and therefore I had no one to drive me around during that time while my car was in repair for a few days. I myself wouldn't live in that area of Dix Hills, as it is too remote from civilization with no walkability and no sidewalks.)
I didn't imply you were smug. Were you fortunate not to meet the same fate? Yes. Be grateful.
No. The homeowner didnt choose to have a sidewalk installed. That decision was made by the developer or zoning board.
Then why the hodgepodge of sidewalks on my street? My property doesn't have one, and neither does the one to my left, but the neighbor to my right, does.
You're telling me that it was planned it like that?
Were sidewalks not included in these developments due to cutting corners as was done with the home building, or was it a short sighted mistake of thinking people would always have no more than 2 cars per household?
The village area of my community (a couple of hundred years old) has a sidewalk which encircles it but not down the side streets. The homes on the immediate periphery do not -- they were built as summer homes 100 years ago, when people arrived out here on the LIRR and took a carriage to their home. The roads are narrow, many homes are close to the street. LI wasn't built up, a lot of people didn't own cars when many of these homes went up.
Further south, the developments of the 60's lack sidewalks. Then families had one car and the town was still largely rural.
Where I live, the only biking lanes I know of are in the parks, not on the streets. But late last year the Village announced a Complete Streets policy where they are planning to change that (at least for some streets where the design is possible). Here is the article. With the article there is an artist's rendering of what they want it to look like:
Some of the features of a Complete Street are bike lanes, better marked crosswalks, pedestrian islands in the middle and road strips, which alert drivers about a reduction in the speed limit.
you must live in a special town. although my street was a dead end, we had to stay on the sidewalks because of the careless drivers speeding to the beach at the end of my block and i was hit by a car when i was a child. let me congradulate you for lving on a block where sidewalks were something you mocked at.
She wasn't walking on a busy road such as those you've listed. Be grateful you're here to talk about it, and that you didn't leave behind two children. The tragedy behind her passing was that she fought for sidewalks...the strret on which she was killed has none.
How many lanes was the road and how fast was the car that hit her going?
Just IMO, I think 30 mph is max for pedestrians and cars to be mingling in the same roads. 20 mph preferably. If cars frequently go above that speed in a place where people regularly walk then an accident is bound to hapen some day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but
Where I live, the only biking lanes I know of are in the parks, not on the streets. But late last year the Village announced a Complete Streets policy where they are planning to change that (at least for some streets where the design is possible). Here is the article. With the article there is an artist's rendering of what they want it to look like:
Just for the record, I don't think sidewalks aren't the issue. Bike paths and other by-ways for pedestrian and cyclist are hard-to-find on LI. You can't ride a real bicycle on the sidewalk.
It would seem, since there's no money to be made off of building these kind of quality of life features, there's no political interest. LI's politicians are so lame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
