A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old June 13th 10, 01:13 AM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 11:32 AM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
Nick Finnigan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 531
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 01:39 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,111
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 02:05 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 02:09 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,111
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 02:17 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 02:46 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,111
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 03:14 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 03:53 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,111
Default 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  
Old June 13th 10, 04:00 PM posted to uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.