|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
Phil W Lee wrote:
JNugent considered Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:09:49 +0100 the perfect time to write: JNugent wrote: Phil W Lee wrote: JNugent : Phil W Lee wrote: [ ... ] Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on the pavement by cars and bicycles respectively. How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get somewhere else) in the manner of bicycles? Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim to have arrived there through no fault of their own. [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes no practical differnce.] Maybe you should look it up? "The local law in the UK"? Where would one look that up? And how, come to think of it, would looking up a piece of law - whether "local" or otherwise - tell us how how many pedestrian injuries are caused by drivers of motor vehicles drivinmg along the footway? In this case, you could try http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._18470089_en_1 Section 28 Which tells us that: "Every person who causes any public carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, with or without horses, or any beast of burden, to stand longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods, or for taking up or setting down passengers (except hackney carriages, and horses and other beasts of draught or burthen, standing for hire in any place appointed for that purpose by the commissioners or other lawful authority), and every person who, by means of any cart, carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, or any animal, or other means, wilfully interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in any public footpath or other public thoroughfa" and "Every person who leads or rides any horse or other animal, or draws or drives any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow upon any footway of any street, or fastens any horse or other animal so that it stands across or upon any footway:" "shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale] for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justice before whom he is convicted, may be committed to prison, there to remain for a period not exceeding fourteen days," That is NOT (got it? ***NOT***) "local law", unless "local law" means "local to England and Wales". Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite? Perhaps I was being a little unkind to you there. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is national (and certainly not "local") law, but it is not law which actually applies anywhere unless a council which administers a town or borough adopts it, piecemeal. They don't have to have the whole menu. They can adopt á la carte. That's not what The Act says. Nevertheless it's the way the Act operates. Even dating from 163 years ago as it does, it is still the main source of some important permissive powers for local authorities (ie, district councils). 1 Extent of Act This Act shall extend only to such towns or districts in England or Ireland as shall be comprised in any Act of Parliament hereafter to be passed There's you answer. which shall declare that this Act shall be incorporated therewith; and all the clauses of this Act, save so far as they shall be expressly varied or excepted by any such Act, shall apply to the town or district which shall be comprised in such Act, and to the commissioners appointed for improving and regulating the same, so far as such clauses shall be applicable thereto respectively, and shall, with the clauses of every other Act which shall be incorporated therewith, form part of such Act, and be construed therewith as forming one Act. It is because not every council has adopted it - and because not every council which has adopted some of of it has adopted all of it - that the legal position is different from place to place. 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? It is. Moreover, it is variable in its relevance. Remember the remark about "á la carte"? In order for placing a vehicle on a footway to be illegal, the council has to have adopted that part of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which relates to such activities and which creates the "offence" (where none otherwise applies). So you are saying that it is legal to cycle on the footway, unless (and apparently there need be no sign warning of this) the local council has adopted the power to prohibit them. No. I am telling you how the TPCA 1847 operates. Which part of it operates in a particular place is a matter for the local authority. Its application is not geographically uniform, not even as between authorities which have adopted powers under it. So it is national law which may - or may not - apply locally. You cannot quote it and say "It applies everywhere". And that is because it simply doesn't. Well, as you pointed out, it doesn't apply outside England and Wales (although it claims Ireland as well, it also says later that the NI has the powers applied slightly differently). That came later (the NI bit). You may have heard about the changes in arrangements in Ireland not long after WW1. The fact that it doesn't apply outside England and Wales is a red herring (rthere is similar legislation for Scotland). The more important fact is that it doesn't apply everywhere *in* England and Wales, and where it does apply, not all of it need apply. Only the local authority and the police can tell you which bits - if any - apply in a particular location. Did you really not know that? |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
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'. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
"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? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
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). |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
"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? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
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? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
"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? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
"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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
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? They are both for pedestrian use. So no difference there. Of course, one can reasonably count on a certain minimum build quality (including surface evenness, gradients, etc) from a (paved) footway, whereas one cannot count on anything from a footpath, much beyond the farmer not being supposed to keep a bull adjacent to it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two killed in pavement collision. | D.M. Procida | UK | 6 | September 28th 09 10:31 PM |
"Boy killed as car mounts pavement" | Doug[_3_] | UK | 435 | May 10th 09 02:40 PM |
Two pavement deaths by killer motorist who also destroyed a wall | Doug[_3_] | UK | 31 | February 27th 09 06:25 PM |
Another pedestrian killed on the pavement | David Hansen | UK | 24 | June 5th 07 09:54 AM |
Pavement cyclist killed | Tony Raven | UK | 1 | November 4th 06 08:07 PM |