Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 13 Jun 2010 09:09 "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message news:87k3djFhqgU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Brimstone wrote: >> >> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:hv2c3a$3d7$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> 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?
From: JNugent on 13 Jun 2010 09:17 Brimstone wrote: > > "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message > news:87k3djFhqgU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> Brimstone wrote: >>> >>> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:hv2c3a$3d7$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> 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?
From: Brimstone on 13 Jun 2010 09:46 "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message news:87k445FliiU2(a)mid.individual.net... > Brimstone wrote: >> >> "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message >> news:87k3djFhqgU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Brimstone wrote: >>>> >>>> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:hv2c3a$3d7$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> 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?
From: JNugent on 13 Jun 2010 10:14 Brimstone wrote: > > "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message > news:87k445FliiU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> Brimstone wrote: >>> >>> "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message >>> news:87k3djFhqgU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> Brimstone wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>> news:hv2c3a$3d7$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> 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.
From: Brimstone on 13 Jun 2010 10:53
"JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message news:87k7ddFas5U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Brimstone wrote: >> >> "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message >> news:87k445FliiU2(a)mid.individual.net... >>> Brimstone wrote: >>>> >>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message >>>> news:87k3djFhqgU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> Brimstone wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>>> news:hv2c3a$3d7$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>>> 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. |