"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:

"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...
Phil W Lee wrote:

Well, it's the exact piece of legislation that is used against
cyclists on the footway, so are you claiming that is variable in
it's
application?

No, it isn't. TPCA 1847 (as amended) does mention footway but
requires
'to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or
passengers, '

Highways Act 1835 72 (as amended) is usually quoted. However, that
legislation states 'footpath or causeway' rather than 'footway'.

And the practical difference between a footway and a footpath is what
exactly?

I'd have thought that was obvious.

One is a pedestrian-only strip which is adjacent to a carriageway
(both being part of the "road") and the other is a pedestrian-only
route which is not adjacent to a carriageway (eg along the margin
between two fields on a farm).

In what way is that a "practical difference" in terms of the use to
which a footpath/footway can be put?

One is almost always paved (though in rare instances, is not) and the
other is rarely (though not "never") paved.

How practical a difference were you looking for?

Usage, not construction. Care to try again?

Care to specify what you're talking about or looking for?

If you know, it would obviate the need for the guessing game.

See above, my original question was in response to Nick Finnigan's post.