Review of Highways Act 1835

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Mar 2019, 11:54am

Unfortunately, it's behind the Daily Telegraph's paywall, but it seems that the government is spinning a review of the Highways Act, 1835 to deal with anomalies involving electric scooters, hoverboards etc. To anybody thinking "so what?" virtually the only surviving bit of this enactment is sec 72 which bans pavement cycling. IMO which any self-respecting body claiming to represent cyclists should already have its markers out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/ ... -minister/

Anything to distract from Brexit etc., so long as it doesn't cost £££

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14177
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby mjr » 19 Mar 2019, 12:25pm

thirdcrank wrote:Unfortunately, it's behind the Daily Telegraph's paywall, but it seems that the government is spinning a review of the Highways Act, 1835 to deal with anomalies involving electric scooters, hoverboards etc. To anybody thinking "so what?" virtually the only surviving bit of this enactment is sec 72 which bans pavement cycling.

Section 78, which is the legal basis of riding/driving vehicles on the left among other things, is also pretty important, isn't it?

Section 5 is still the current legal definition of "highway", too.

Those three sections are literally the only survivors, though.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 5957
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby Tangled Metal » 19 Mar 2019, 1:29pm

What happened to the other sections and how many in total and does it matter if other laws have taken on or updated the original laws?

User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 3756
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby NUKe » 19 Mar 2019, 2:23pm

Perhaps they are getting ready for post Brexit and will reinstate the 1835 act in full.
:D
NUKe
_____________________________________

CliveyT
Posts: 275
Joined: 13 Jun 2012, 2:55pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby CliveyT » 19 Mar 2019, 2:42pm

NUKe wrote:Perhaps they are getting ready for post Brexit and will reinstate the 1835 act in full.
:D

No I see a compromise. We leave with no deal, but change the act so we all drive on the right now

reohn2
Posts: 36746
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby reohn2 » 19 Mar 2019, 3:24pm

CliveyT wrote:
NUKe wrote:Perhaps they are getting ready for post Brexit and will reinstate the 1835 act in full.
:D

No I see a compromise. We leave with no deal, but change the act so we all drive on the right now

Yep to show Johnnie foreigner we'll drive on which ever side we choose as it's our sovereign right to decide :D
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 2086
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby Oldjohnw » 19 Mar 2019, 4:10pm

reohn2 wrote:
CliveyT wrote:
NUKe wrote:Perhaps they are getting ready for post Brexit and will reinstate the 1835 act in full.
:D

No I see a compromise. We leave with no deal, but change the act so we all drive on the right now

Yep to show Johnnie foreigner we'll drive on which ever side we choose as it's our sovereign right to decide :D


supporters of brexit on the right; a Remainers on the Left.
John

Cycling and recycling

User avatar
NUKe
Posts: 3756
Joined: 23 Apr 2007, 11:07pm
Location: Suffolk

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby NUKe » 19 Mar 2019, 4:50pm

Cars Change over on Monday Lorries and buses will change over at the end of the week
NUKe

_____________________________________

thelawnet
Posts: 2248
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby thelawnet » 19 Mar 2019, 5:46pm

thirdcrank wrote:Unfortunately, it's behind the Daily Telegraph's paywall,


direct link https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... rategy.pdf

Better version of the article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... he-segway/

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14177
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby mjr » 19 Mar 2019, 6:49pm

Tangled Metal wrote:What happened to the other sections and how many in total and does it matter if other laws have taken on or updated the original laws?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50 tells you what repealed each section. There were 120. No, it doesn't matter unless the substance is going to be changed (to permit hoverboards and so on), no matter how much well-intentioned fools rant about "Victorian laws" when they're used.

drossall
Posts: 4615
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby drossall » 19 Mar 2019, 7:36pm

Can anyone tell me why you can't use an electric scooter on the road? Seems a daft question, and I don't have one, nor any intention to get or use one. However, when I think about it, I'm not sure of the answer.

Cars are regulated by being required to be registered, driving licences, insurance rules and all that stuff. However, they are a bit of a special case. As I understand it, the general principle is that you can use something unless there's a reason why you can't.

And I'm curious because occasionally, riding to work, I've been overtaken by an electric scooter. Which made me laugh rather than bothering me. London is getting quite diverse these days (in transport terms).

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Mar 2019, 7:45pm

drossall wrote:Can anyone tell me why you can't use an electric scooter on the road? Seems a daft question, and I don't have one, nor any intention to get or use one. However, when I think about it, I'm not sure of the answer.

Cars are regulated by being required to be registered, driving licences, insurance rules and all that stuff. However, they are a bit of a special case. As I understand it, the general principle is that you can use something unless there's a reason why you can't.

And I'm curious because occasionally, riding to work, I've been overtaken by an electric scooter. Which made me laugh rather than bothering me. London is getting quite diverse these days (in transport terms).


I think this is the CPS's take on this. Although there's quite a lot of it, the CPS site is so poor that a direct link to this sub-heading seems impossible.
Self-balancing Personal Transporters – Segway etc.
Personal transporters, such as the Segway Personal Transporter are powered by electricity and transport a passenger standing on a platform propelled on two or more wheels. They are capable of speeds up to 12 mph. Under current legislation, the Department for Transport considers Segway Personal Transporters as motor vehicles, subject to road traffic laws.
The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (VERA) requires a mechanically propelled vehicle used or kept on a public road to be registered and licensed. As self-balancing scooters are mechanically propelled they require registration and a vehicle registration licence (tax disc). Additionally, the user would need a driving licence and motor insurance. Other legal requirements relate to construction and use, and to lighting.
Because self-balancing Personal Transporters do not meet the relevant requirements for use on UK roads, and because there is no separate legislation here for public road use by non-EC type-approved vehicles, they cannot be registered and licensed for use on a public road. As a consequence, any user of such a vehicle on a public road is likely at the very least to be committing the offences of using the vehicle without insurance and using the vehicle without an excise licence. Self-balancing scooters do not currently meet the legal requirements and therefore are not legal for road use. They cannot be licensed for use on a road and they do not come within the categories of vehicle covered by a driving licence. Therefore, any person using a Segway on a road will be driving otherwise than in accordance with a driving licence.
Self-balancing scooters such as Segways, mini Segways, Hoverboards and single wheel electric skateboards) may not be driven on a pavement in England and Wales. Under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835 (extends to England and Wales only) it is an offence to wilfully ride on the footway. Certain vehicles used by disabled drivers are exempted from these requirements but only where they use Class 2 or Class 3 "invalid carriages". Self-balancing scooters are not classed as "invalid carriages" and so cannot be used on pavements.
Self-balancing Personal Transporters can be used on private property with the permission of the landowner. An example of this is where BAA has deployed a Segway Personal Transporter at Heathrow airport.
Where the police refer a case involving a Self-balancing Personal Transporter to the CPS, the prosecutor should, as is usual, consider the facts of the case, having regard to the licensing considerations set out above, and apply the two stages of the full code test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors when deciding whether or not a prosecution should proceed.
DPP v Hay [2005] EWHC Admin 1395 - Where a defendant is charged with driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence and driving without insurance, and the Crown have proved that the defendant was driving a vehicle on the road, the non-issue by the police of form HO/RT/1 (requesting production of the documents) is not fatal to the prosecution case.
An analogy can be drawn from the case of DPP v Hay where it was held that once the prosecution has proved that the defendant drove the motor vehicle on a road, it is then for the defendant to show that he held a driving licence and that there was in force an appropriate policy of insurance, since these are matters that are peculiarly within his knowledge.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/r ... y-offences

==========================================================================

PS Some of that article from Carlton Reid seems weird, eg the bit that says E-Scooters cannot be used on highways because they have not been included in the list of "carriages" that fall within the scope of the 1835 Highways Act and then quotes s72 on what's banned from footways.

drossall
Posts: 4615
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby drossall » 19 Mar 2019, 10:01pm

That's interesting. I'm not sure however that I understand on what basis it's possible to argue that a Segway or electric scooter is a motor vehicle, and an e-bike is not. For that matter, "the DoT considers that..." doesn't seem much of a basis anyway. Surely there has to be some kind of legislation or other instrument?

Am I right in thinking that, in general, you can use anything that isn't a danger to everyone else? What about skates for example (which I believe I have seen on occasion). Not that I'm sure I want to find myself suddenly confronted with a pogo stick emerging from a side road, you understand.

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 4572
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby RickH » 19 Mar 2019, 10:44pm

drossall wrote:That's interesting. I'm not sure however that I understand on what basis it's possible to argue that a Segway or electric scooter is a motor vehicle, and an e-bike is not. For that matter, "the DoT considers that..." doesn't seem much of a basis anyway. Surely there has to be some kind of legislation or other instrument?

Probably because an e-bike has a set of regulations laid down in legislation that says that, if it conforms to those, it is considered to be the same as a conventional pedal cycle (with the exception of the minimum age limit of 14).

drossall wrote:Am I right in thinking that, in general, you can use anything that isn't a danger to everyone else? What about skates for example (which I believe I have seen on occasion). Not that I'm sure I want to find myself suddenly confronted with a pogo stick emerging from a side road, you understand.

If it has a motor or an engine then it has to be approved to be used on the public highway. Cars, for instance, have specific criteria they must meet to be legally used. A powered vehicle that does not have approprite regulations that cover it simply isn't allowed to be legally used until there are regulations in place. Whether it is possible to draw up suitable "catch all" regs for things like electric scooters I really don't know.

basingstoke123
Posts: 145
Joined: 13 Feb 2008, 10:05pm

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby basingstoke123 » 20 Mar 2019, 12:27am

One problem with laws and regulations is that they lag behind new ideas and new developments.

Sometimes this results in laws failing to regulate new developments, or having requirements that have become irrelevant.

Other times, out of date laws and requirements can inhibit new developments or improvements. The laws and requirements were never intended to cover something like the Segway, and so, in my view, they fail to give appropriate regulation. To make using a Segway illegal just because it doesn't fit previous 'vehicle' categories is plain stupid. To declare them illegal because they are considered unsafe would be different. But, according the the posts above, they are illegal just because the law and requirements were written before the Segway was invented, and so does not know how to make provision for them.

I do not know whether Segways should be allowed or not, whether they are a 'good thing'. But to effectively make their use illegal because a Segway isn't something that it isn't, is nonsense.

We had a similar situation when LED cycle lights were first introduced. The technical standards were written based on the assumption and thus requirement to use a filament bulb. The difference here was that common sense prevailed. The police were not bothered that your much brighter light was illegal, and did not insist you replace it, or supplement it, with a far dimmer but legal light.