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?

They are both for pedestrian use. So no difference there.

As I suspected, NF is attempting to introduce a red herring. Thank you.

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.

Indeed.

Brimstone wrote:

"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?

They are both for pedestrian use. So no difference there.

As I suspected, NF is attempting to introduce a red herring. Thank you.

Not necessarily.

If one piece of law mentions a "footway", it does not refer to a footpath.
And vice-versa. The context would be important (which is what I think he was
saying).

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.

Indeed.

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?

You can drive, park (outside London), ride, perambulate, lead animals or
cycle on a footway without asking permission (provided there are no
residents to annoy). You may not interfere with the surface without
permission from the authority (if the road is adopted).

The owner of a footpath may do whatever he likes on or to the footpath
provided it remains passable. No vehicles nor animals are allowed on it
without his permission (expect bitches and dogs).

Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

You are clearly too ****ing stupid to appreciate that parking
'partially' on the pavement is perfectly legal in many cases.

Being legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

No, but being "wrong" does make it illegal.

Not necessarily.

Depends, of course, on your definition of "wrong".

and of course motorists often park and drive illegally on pavements.

Outside London, it is not inherently illegal to park on a pavement. If
an obstruction is caused - whether on the road or the pavement - then
it automatically becomes illegal, since obstruction is illegal.

Its wrong too. Parking on pavements is obviously wrong but it is
sometimes legal.

If it's legal, then it's legal because nobody is inconvenienced. What's
the problem in that?

The point you are evading is that cars are much bigger and heavier than
bicycles

I'm not evading it, since it's rather blatantly obvious.

and that is why they damage pavements

Only if the pavement is incompetently and inadequately built or repaired.

and out pedestrians at more serious risk there.

Eh?

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Maybe you should check the construction standards before making
yourself look foolish.
There is a CONSIDERABLE difference in the standard required for a
section of footway with a dropped kerb, as you'd find out if you ever
had to have one installed (say, for a new driveway).

There's about three inches difference.

And how deep do you think the standards require for a footway that is
not suitable for motor vehicles?

Umm, no, the three inches is the top.

As you'd know if you'd ever had to pay for one. All they do is remove
the top layer and kerbstones, then relay.

And - oooh, look - it works just fine.

With the extra structural depth, yes.

What "extra structural depth"?

Doug wrote:
On 11 June, 07:21, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

You are clearly too ****ing stupid to appreciate that parking
'partially' on the pavement is perfectly legal in many cases.
Being legal doesn't necessarily make it right.
No, but being "wrong" does make it illegal.

Not necessarily.
Considerable latitude is given to the car culture to leave their bulky
machines lying about all over the place
It's a lovely soundbite, Duhg, but you're in danger of wearing it out.

I know, Adrain, but until something better comes along...
and of course motorists often park and drive illegally on pavements.
Outside London, it is not inherently illegal to park on a pavement.
If an obstruction is caused - whether on the road or the pavement - then
it automatically becomes illegal, since obstruction is illegal.

Its wrong too. Parking on pavements is obviously wrong but it is
sometimes legal.
Don't forget also, the motorist only needs to drive a few feet slowly
to kill someone who has collapsed, unlike cyclists.
Sorry, are you really suggesting that an average person would drive
slowly, a few feet forward, straight over somebody lying unconscious on
the pavement?

Sometime backwards too, though not necessarily knowingly.
If they did, I think you'll find that would most certainly be charged as
murder.

Not if there were no witnesses or it wasn't intentional. The point you
are evading is that cars are much bigger and heavier than bicycles and
that is why they damage pavements and out pedestrians at more serious
risk there.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug, you have not replied to my statement that the paving slabs near my
house are damaged & uneven & the only vehicles that have been driven on
them are the occasional road sweeper & grass cutter.

--
Tony Dragon