Why sidewalks?

I was out for a walk today in the subdivision my daughter lives. It really was not a particularly special walk in that I was trying to avoid the rain and had nothing important to occupy my mind. A little way into my walk the thought overwhelmed me (as thoughts often do to me), "why did the developer spend the money to put in these nice wide sidewalks?"

I am sure most every subdivision that has been put in during the past 10 - 15 years has sidewalks. So maybe it was competitive pressure? or maybe the developer included sidewalks because it was just the thing developers were doing? Maybe the question was not even asked because not putting sidewalks in was never an option?

Of course there are positive reasons for sidewalks: added safety for walkers, especially kids, and some people just like how they look. But all I could do was think about the negatives: it added costs and it was unfair to the property owners who had the sidewalks on their side of the street because they had much more lawn care requirements in edging both sides of the sidewalk in addition to the street border.

The streets were nice and wide already and most of the streets were a cul-de-sac with very limited traffic. Many walkers used the streets to walk anyway and there was no accommodation for bikers. So, I pondered, "why didn't they just widen the street some, eliminate the sidewalks, and put walking and bike lanes in the streets?" Would this not provide sufficient safety for walkers and bikers and cost less to build and maintain? But the bigger question is, did anyone consider any alternative to what the developer did or was sidewalks just a given without asking the question - 'why'?  

After returning from my walk, I asked my son-in-law if he knew the answer to my question - why sidewalks? He immediately answered, without any hesitation and with great authority - "it is required by law." Oh I see now. Some bureaucrat decided that subdivisions should have sidewalks for the safety of kids because drivers are likely to be texting or otherwise not paying attention, maybe even speeding. So, again the solution to people not taking responsibility for their actions is government regulation. Again, the government requires citizens add cost to whatever they are doing to avoid risks.

Maybe subdivisions should have sidewalks, maybe not. Maybe the trade-off between costs and safety is worthwhile? BUT more likely and the question I really was pondering was, "did anyone really consider the question of  'why sidewalks?' or were sidewalks put in because that is just what developers do or because their is no constraint on government regulators to cost/justify their impact on society and to consider at some point people must accept responsibility for their actions?"    

The bigger question, way more than 'why sidewalks?' is, "at what point does society reign in government regulation? What are appropriate boundaries on decisions government makes for members of society? Where should markets determine what businesses choose to do or not do? Who answers these questions - government bureaucrats or 'we the people'?"

Healthcare, Energy, Education, Housing - I can go on and on with choices members of society no longer make because the government knows better. Where does this stop? What are the boundaries on regulation? These are the really big questions society must answer.

I ponder it often, do you? ......