Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JNugent on 13 Jun 2010 11:00 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? 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.
From: Brimstone on 13 Jun 2010 11:07 "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message news:87ka3gFmriU3(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? > > 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.
From: JNugent on 13 Jun 2010 11:12 Brimstone wrote: > > "JNugent" <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message > news:87ka3gFmriU3(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? >> >> 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.
From: Nick Finnigan on 13 Jun 2010 15:06 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? 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).
From: Adrian on 13 Jun 2010 17:14
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"? |