What Does "Family Friendly" Mean anyway?

[rnc2mbfl]

Originally Posted by lovebrentwood

Wow, this is an old thread.

But to answer NRG's four-year-old question: I've always wondered about the street named, "Rue sans famille" in Raleigh. It's French, and it means "Street without family."

Doesn't sound too friendly to me.

Sans Famille was a 1970s era adults only community geared toward empty nesters. I don't think it's exclusive to adults anymore. I thought there was some sort of law that prevented it from continuing as such. I am sure there's a realtor here that can set us straight on it.
In the early 90s, I looked at a home there. Though barely 30, I liked the homes because they had fewer but larger rooms on tiny lots that didn't need to be maintained. There are more contemporary styles and the whole place has an interesting vibe that feels more like a California development than one in NC. Clearly by the design of the neighborhood and the homes, most families wouldn't consider as a place to raise kids.

[Francois]

Originally Posted by 84 Camaro

I would have to disagree with you about a car hitting a child in the street being a "cut and dried" case where the child would automatically be at fault!
Somehow I think most parents whose child was struck by a car(even if the child was at fault) would secure an attorney who would do a a very good job in a courtroom convincing a jury that the driver was at fault.

This is precisely why everyone should see children in the street as something to be avoided. It is not a "parents vs non-parents" issue; it is a safety issue. And everyone, even parents, could be that unfortunate driver who was driving 100% legally down a street when a child who wasn't paying attention darted out frm behind a parked car, in front of them, because said child's parents had taught him that it is fine to play in the street or that "cars will always stop for you" (I heard a parent tell their kid that once in a parking lot).

Even in quiet, "deserted", cul-de-sac streets (I grew up on one of these, myself), it is a dangerous thing to teach a child that a street is for playing in, because then one day they'll be at a friend's house, perhaps a friend whose street is not so deserted and quiet, with the belief that the street is there for their playing and that all cars will go 15 MPH and be on the lookout for them. Maybe, maybe not, but why risk it?

Children WILL play in the streets sometimes, of course, but at least if they are taught that this is not the purpose of streets and they are in danger when they do so, the kids might be looking out for the cars that belong on streets instead of thinking "I can do what I want because I'm a pedestrian". We all know how distracted many drivers are nowadays, with phones and GPS and satellite radio with 1000 channels, and (god fobid) texting...I sure wouldn't want a hypothetical child of mine out there on the pavement where a ton of metal operated by such a person was coming at them at 35 MPH (or even 25) without understanding that while a person can play in the yard *or* the street, a car doesn't have that option, so streets are best left to the things they were built for.

Sans Famille was a 1970s era adults only community geared toward empty nesters. I don't think it's exclusive to adults anymore. I thought there was some sort of law that prevented it from continuing as such.

Yes, this was a "child-infriendly" neighborhood in the 1970s where a lot of childless adults chose to live, but then the law was passed that you cannot forbid children in a neighborhood unless it is specifically designated a 55+ community. So while the name remains, children technically can live there, although if I had kids, I don't know why I would want to live on a street clearly named with "no kids" in mind and around neighbors who may have specifically chosen to be there because they didn't like kids! With such a smorgasbord of subruban streets in this region to live that were never designed to avoid children, why pick the one that was?