Footways and Footpaths - what's the difference in law?
Tony Raven
I'm interested in what the difference is in law.
The law cited against pavement cycling (Highway Act 1835 s32) uses the
wording "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart
for the use or accommodation of foot passengers"
However the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 s3(2)b says the FPD
offence is "b) cycling on the footway contrary to section 72 of the
Highways Act 1835." and the The Police Reform Act 2002 (Standard Powers
and Duties of Community Support Officers) Order 2007 allows CSOs to
enforce "(a) an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835(2)
(riding on a footway) committed by cycling;"
However there are indication elsewhere that a footway is part of the
highway set aside for foot use whereas a footpath is a highway for use
only on foot. e.g. p3 of http://tinyurl.com/2ew8ut
Can anyone clarify the situation. On the one hand the recent
legislation above would indicate that either they are interchangeable or
the parliamentary draughtsmen screwed up whereas other indications would
seem to suggest that most pavements are not footpaths but footways and
therefore not caught by the 1835 Act.
--
Tony
?Thinking you know when in fact you don't is a fatal mistake, to which
we are all prone?
Bertrand Russell
Mark Goodge
and typed:
There's no single law which defines the words. Each word has whatever
meaning is used by whatever specific law is relevent at that point.
The fact that the 1835 Act uses the words "footpath" and "causeway"
rather than "footway" doesn't mean that pavements are not included in
it, since the explanatory wording is clearly intended to include the
part of the road that we commonly refer to as a pavement. The name
isn't important, what matters is the definition of it being a part of
the road set aside for the use of people on foot.
Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Yes, I know the truth, how 'bout you?"
Alex Heney
>There seems to be a lot of confusion about footpaths and footways and
>I'm interested in what the difference is in law.
>
>The law cited against pavement cycling (Highway Act 1835 s32) uses the
>wording "footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart
>for the use or accommodation of foot passengers"
>
>However the Fixed Penalty Offences Order 1999 s3(2)b says the FPD
>offence is "b) cycling on the footway contrary to section 72 of the
>Highways Act 1835." and the The Police Reform Act 2002 (Standard Powers
>and Duties of Community Support Officers) Order 2007 allows CSOs to
>enforce "(a) an offence under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835(2)
>(riding on a footway) committed by cycling;"
>
>However there are indication elsewhere that a footway is part of the
>highway set aside for foot use whereas a footpath is a highway for use
>only on foot. e.g. p3 of http://tinyurl.com/2ew8ut
>
that is generally true, although different legislation can define them
differently.
>Can anyone clarify the situation. On the one hand the recent
>legislation above would indicate that either they are interchangeable or
>the parliamentary draughtsmen screwed up whereas other indications would
>seem to suggest that most pavements are not footpaths but footways and
>therefore not caught by the 1835 Act.
If it is a footway, then it is certainly caught by S72 of the Highways
act.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Tony Raven
says...
>
> If it is a footway, then it is certainly caught by S72 of the Highways
> act.
>
Can you explain that comment please? The Highway Act 1835 s72 doesn't
refer to footways only footpaths and causeways so your comment is at the
heart of my question.
--
Tony
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
John Briggs
> In article <3k9np3t8ec3hdpt1c...@4ax.com>,
> m...@privacy.net says...
>>
>> If it is a footway, then it is certainly caught by S72 of the
>> Highways act.
>
> Can you explain that comment please? The Highway Act 1835 s72 doesn't
> refer to footways only footpaths and causeways so your comment is at
> the heart of my question.
I'd say the meaning was crystal clear, wouldn't you? Or would you prefer
"causepath or footway"?
"If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side
of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot
passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule,
swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge,
upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule,
swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered
animal to be thereon; . . . every person so offending in any of the cases
aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not
exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages
occasioned thereby."
--
John Briggs
Tony Raven
@ntlworld.com says...
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > In article <3k9np3t8ec3hdpt1c...@4ax.com>,
> > m...@privacy.net says...
> >>
> >> If it is a footway, then it is certainly caught by S72 of the
> >> Highways act.
> >
> > Can you explain that comment please? The Highway Act 1835 s72 doesn't
> > refer to footways only footpaths and causeways so your comment is at
> > the heart of my question.
>
> I'd say the meaning was crystal clear, wouldn't you? Or would you prefer
> "causepath or footway"?
>
That's just playing word games and not answering the question. We can
ignore causeways as they are a specific type of path according to the
OED that doesn't cover most of the pavements in the UK. So we come back
to is a footpath, which in most legislation is a right of way on foot
only generally across fields and marked as such on the definitive maps,
the same as a footway which generally in legislation is the thing we
would call pavements.
--
Tony
?The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.?
Bertrand Russell