Substitute the word "sidewalks" with the word "roads" in that sentence and it makes as much sense. Neighborhoods without sidewalks are places where children cannot organize their own play and rely on being chauffeured to do anything. It's one of the reasons kids grow up to be so helpless and why helicopter parenting is the norm in the US.
Not at all. I grew up in a classic 1960-style neighborhood (long meandering main road loop with a lot of cul-de-sac and a few connector streets, all most all the the houses were one of a handful of basic designs, no businesses and no sidewalks. We biked all over the place, walked to friends houses (mostly cutting through other peoples yards), played impromptu games in vacant lots that hadn't been built yet, explored the wooded areas at the edges of the neighborhood. We were away from home for hours at a time, organizing what we did all on our own. No cell phones either, but we naturally gravitated back home at around sunset.
Likewise here in Wisconsin, but we're expected to shovel our walks. I once got a ticket for failing to do so. They only ticket people if somebody complains to the city, so I probably deserved it.
Depending on where and when, sidewalks are optional for new subdivisions, and face a couple of dis-incentives: 1) You pay if the sidewalk in front of your house has to be repaired. 2) You have to shovel it.
So, there are seemingly new and nice subdivisions with no sidewalks. In addition, a lot of those neighborhoods are laid out with lots of twisty streets and cul-du-sacs that make it hard to get through by bike or on foot, so that bike commuters have to ride on the busy main roads.
The top sign indicates "no parking zone", i.e. you cannot park at curb unless it is marked as a parking space.
The next sign is 30 km/h area (maximum speed limit in the area, no need to put a separate speed limit sign on each street)
The bottom one indicates that the road splits to cul-de-sacs for motor vehicles on left and right, but you can get through by bike. (Here it is misleading, you can get through also to the left, not just to the right).
Over here (Finland), it is very common that a road is cul-de-sac for motor vehicles but you can get through riding bike or on foot.
This is common in USA if the cul-de-sac is a retrofit to a previously-through road. (If not by design, then in the breach, because someone has knocked a hole in the fence and it hasn't been fixed.) However, in the sorts of housing-only developments that have culs-de-sac designed in, the typical cul-de-sac is completely surrounded by houses with yards backed by other houses with yards, so there's nowhere to go.
Personally, I've never lived in such an environment, and when I've visited those who do it has driven me to distraction. You can't get anywhere directly! My impression is that this sort of development design is growing less popular, although maybe it's just that I more rarely visit people who live in such places.
Right, so the point is that property owners do not want to have anyone walk by on foot, because they fear they could be trespassers or loiterers that are not welcome in the area? And this is why a cul-de-sac stops not only cars but everything, with a fence.
But then that also stops e.g. children from moving about on their own in the neighbourhood.
Yes. A lot of newer neighborhoods are not laid out on a grid, but are designed with lots of winding streets an cul-de-sacs. Maybe it seems more pleasant that way, and it forces through traffic out onto the main roads, but does the same to bikes.
Cyclists really benefit from a "network" of alternative routes that have low traffic, and what you describe in Finland is a great idea.
Are the roads unusable? I'm guessing not; you can clear sidewalks too - central European countries seem to use a small snowplough for the pavements (ie sidewalks), the snow is ploughed on to the road, the road plough lifts the snow to a truck and it's trucked away.
Here in the US it's typical for every house to be responsible for its own sidewalk. So everybody gets it done somehow, by hand, or with a gas powered snowblower, or they hire a service. The same people who mow lawns in the summer, clear snow in the winter. Where the land is public-owned, e.g., parks, the city brings a little machine that's the same width as the sidewalks. Its main attraction is a heated cabin for the driver.
We share a snowblower with our neighbor, but it takes a pretty good snowfall for the machine to be quicker than my shovel. The city plows the streets.
No. 90% of people get it done somehow. The failure of the other 10%, and inability to ride your bike more than ten or twenty houses of sidewalk down the line, stands as testament to concept of professionalized public infrastructure.
That's true. During the winter, I ride my bike in the street. My route is 100% on "tame" neighborhood streets or dedicated bike paths. The city plows the bike paths with the same priority as main roads.
We rarely had an issue with people not having sidewalks shoveled before they left for work in the very snowy city I grew up in. Perhaps it's a YMMV situation.
The city of Rochester, NY also plows its sidewalks, I suspect because it would be unreasonable to expect property owners to do it themselves due to the amount of snowfall. Still, it's nice to be able to walk around in the winter. Technically, the law says property owners are still responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear, but that's mostly to encourage people to disperse salt on sidewalk ice after the city plows come by and to shovel what the plows may miss.
In my experience, driving is less safe than walking in snow. Granted I am still fairly young and fit so falling over is not a serious or life threatening concern. Road users significantly overestimate their ability to drive on difficult terrain and chances of accidents are greatly increased.
