Review of Highways Act 1835

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9510
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby Cunobelin » 9 Apr 2019, 6:52am

Oldjohnw wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
CliveyT wrote: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.



Given the increasing input from the Right Wing, BNP etc, Brexit Supporters would be restricted to a small area on the far right.... bit like a cycle path

madbitz
Posts: 2
Joined: 16 Oct 2019, 1:14am

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby madbitz » 16 Oct 2019, 1:43am

HI, i am new here, i was researching pavement and highways for cyclists and came accross this forum, which seems pretty clued up.

But, I am having difficulty getting my head around the rules on riding on 'pavements' or 'footpaths', the highway code states and i quote: “You must not cycle on a pavement.” The offence of riding a bike on the pavement is punishable by an on-the-spot fine, a fixed penalty notice of £30. This is charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

Well the definition of pavement is also as follows as per oxford dictionary: pavement
Any rock that is exposed at the Earth's surface in the form of a more or less horizontal surface

So, does this mean bycles can not ride anywhere there is a rock surface including the road?

Also another issue is in the comment below which i have highlighted in bold 'mechanically propelled' which was posted by another member here form CPS site:
I ask this question too, isnt a bycle mechannical? it has moving parts etc?

My final question for anyone to answer, is that the footpath is part of the highway, so does any law detailing footpaths overide other legislation such asSection 72 of the Highway Act 1835.

I have posed what i found about this legislation here:

Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.F4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 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;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.


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.[/quote]

jgurney
Posts: 526
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby jgurney » 16 Oct 2019, 9:10am

madbitz wrote: I am having difficulty getting my head around the rules on riding on 'pavements' or 'footpaths', the highway code states and i quote: “You must not cycle on a pavement.” The offence of riding a bike on the pavement is punishable by an on-the-spot fine, a fixed penalty notice of £30. This is charged under Schedule 3 and Section 51 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988

Well the definition of pavement is also as follows as per oxford dictionary: pavement
Any rock that is exposed at the Earth's surface in the form of a more or less horizontal surface

So, does this mean bycles can not ride anywhere there is a rock surface including the road?


The HC is trying to use everyday expressions rather than legal terms.

A footway is a part of a road provided for the sole use of pedestrians. As they are often surfaced with paving slabs, some people took to calling them 'pavements' and the HC is adopting that usage. It really means that it is illegal to cycle on a footway.

A footpath is different from a footway, as a footpath is not part of a road but is a highway in it's own right, and is one where only pedestrians have a public right of way. The law does not forbid other classes of user from footpaths but gives them no rights to go there, so it would be up to the owner of the land crossed to decide whether they will permit other kinds of use.

jgurney
Posts: 526
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby jgurney » 16 Oct 2019, 9:42am

madbitz wrote:Also another issue is... 'mechanically propelled'
I ask this question too, isnt a bycle mechannical? it has moving parts etc?


Mechanically propelled means with an artificial power source such as an electric battery or a heat engine (steam, petrol, Diesel, etc), as opposed to muscle power (human or other animal), a sail, gravity downhill, etc.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13761
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby mjr » 16 Oct 2019, 12:35pm

madbitz wrote: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.

I'm not sure what "that article from Carlton Reid" is but I think that would be a mistake. As I understand it, e-scooters are basically regarded as small unapproved motorcycles under current law, so they cannot be used on footways due to the Highways Act 1835 because they are motorcycles and they cannot be used on carriageways due to the Road Traffic Act 1988 because they are unapproved.
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.

drossall
Posts: 4577
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby drossall » 16 Oct 2019, 10:45pm

In essence there are three types of "footpath", each with its own set of rules. The distinctions can be lost on people:
  • Footways that are the part of a highway designated for pedestrians (see above); riding on these is a breach of highway law. Necessarily therefore this applies only to "footpaths" alongside roads.
  • Paths in places that are governed by local bye-laws and similar regulations (such as public parks, sea fronts and other places away from roads).
  • Public footpaths; these run over private land, where there is nonetheless a public right to walk, and since the right is only to walk then cycling over them is a trespass against the landowner, which is quite a different situation from riding on a footway above.
The first two categories explain why, for example, it's common to have a footway alongside a road with no specific indication of no cycling (because there's no need - quite the opposite - you need an indication that cycling is allowed, for example on a shared-use path). However, where a passageway runs away from the road, say between two houses, there's a No Cycling sign. That's because the passageway is not a footway alongside a highway, so a local bye-law or similar is needed to prevent cycling, and the sign indicates that that is in place.

thelawnet
Posts: 2210
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby thelawnet » 18 Oct 2019, 11:37am

There are at least six situations

* public footpaths (which can sometimes come with a 'permissive' allowance to ride horses but not to ride bikes) - no FPN
* footways - FPNable
* roads/paths subject to local bylaws , see individual case
* normal roads under which cycling/all vehicles has been prohibited by a TRO - FPN not possible, prosecution is
* 'cyclists dismount' - purely advisory, cycling is permitted
* roads/paths/footways under PSPOs - cycling may be restricted, possibly only part time, and possibly only after a warning - FPNs can be issued by rentacop private security goons on commission, see signage in different areas for details

mattheus
Posts: 730
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby mattheus » 18 Oct 2019, 4:36pm

thelawnet wrote:There are at least six situations

* public footpaths (which can sometimes come with a 'permissive' allowance to ride horses but not to ride bikes) - no FPN
* footways - FPNable
* roads/paths subject to local bylaws , see individual case
* normal roads under which cycling/all vehicles has been prohibited by a TRO - FPN not possible, prosecution is
* 'cyclists dismount' - purely advisory, cycling is permitted
* roads/paths/footways under PSPOs - cycling may be restricted, possibly only part time, and possibly only after a warning - FPNs can be issued by rentacop private security goons on commission, see signage in different areas for details

Near me we have a 1-way road under a railway. Footway alongside - used by pedestrians, and from the above I assume bikes are FPNable.
But weirdly they recently erected a "Cyclists Dismount" at one end!

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13701
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Review of Highways Act 1835

Postby gaz » 19 Oct 2019, 11:32am

mattheus wrote:Near me we have a 1-way road under a railway. Footway alongside - used by pedestrians, and from the above I assume bikes are FPNable.
But weirdly they recently erected a "Cyclists Dismount" at one end!

Probably the wrong sign*, streetview?

*Example of a "wrong sign".
Hand wash only. Do not iron.