Quick question

[-kev-]

In particular, care should be taken when siting Guns near public highways. Section 161 of the Highways Act 1980 (England & Wales) makes it an offence to discharge a firearm within 50 ft of the centre of a highway having vehicular rights without lawful authority or excuse, if as a result a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered.

 

 

How does that apply when shooting near a mottorway? where would be the centre of the highway? Central reservation? or middle lane?

[lumpy]

It would be centre of the lane nearest to the land you are intending to shoot on ie: the hard shoulder or possibly the slow lane

[bedwards1966]

As above, the centre of the hard shoulder would count as a carriageway.

[-kev-]

Thanks for the replys

[apache]

I'm not convinced by some of the answers. The hard shoulder is not for vehicles to drive along so I would say it would technically be the middle of the road.

 

It matters not. You can sit by the M6 and decoy pigeon 2 feet from the road so long as you have permission.

[JonathanL]

It would be centre of the lane nearest to the land you are intending to shoot on ie: the hard shoulder or possibly the slow lane

 

How is that the 'centre of a highway'? It would be the central reservation, surely?

 

J.

 

As above, the centre of the hard shoulder would count as a carriageway.

 

The 'carriageway' is the whole road, essentially. Hence the term 'Dual Carriageway'. The centre must surely be the centre of the central reservation?

 

J.

[MiLisCer]

None of the above are quite right although JL is the closest.

 

The "Highway" would be from verge to verge (Including any pavement etc) ‘The carriageway is that part of a road over which there is a right of way for passage of vehicles. Together the carriageway and the footway form a highway.’ (Lords Hansard 29 June 2004 Col. 245)

 

So for a motorway the centre would be the central reservation - the offence; however, is only complete if if as a result a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered.

 

So for example if you were to drop a pheasant on the M'way that would complete the offence.

[mossy835]

my self i would keep well away,from, a rd or not shoot it.

[JonathanL]

None of the above are quite right although JL is the closest.

 

The "Highway" would be from verge to verge (Including any pavement etc) ‘The carriageway is that part of a road over which there is a right of way for passage of vehicles. Together the carriageway and the footway form a highway.’ (Lords Hansard 29 June 2004 Col. 245)

 

So for a motorway the centre would be the central reservation - the offence; however, is only complete if if as a result a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered.

So for example if you were to drop a pheasant on the M'way that would complete the offence.

 

Almost! The mere dropping of a pheasant on the motorway is not sufficient, I don't think. Someone has to actually be interrupted, endagered or injured. If they are not then you have committed no offence.

 

Actually, you could be very pedantic about it if you wanted to. The offence is only committed if the person is interrupted, injured or endagered due to the discharging of the firearm. If a pheasant falls on them and injures them then they haven't been injured as a result of discharging a firearm but from being hit by a pheasant. If you discharge a firearm and the noise causes an accident then you commit the offence as the accident happened as a consequence of that act of discharing the gun.

 

In regards to motorways. It's probably the case that on most of them you could never actually committ the offence as even if you stood an inch away from the verge you would still be more than 50 feet away from the centre.

 

J.

[lumpy]

So let me get this straight ! some of you are actually trying to say that for motorway's you would count the center of the carrigeway to be the central reserve ! given that in some places the M25 has up to six lanes that would mean that you would class it as LEGAL to stand on the tarmac (being less than 50yds) and fire your guns It worries me that some of you have actually been granted licenses !

 

Good luck trying to argue that with your FEO

[Robin128]

The public highway

 

•Shoot managers and Guns must ensure that shooting does not obstruct, cause danger or alarm to users of the public highway, including roads, bridleways, footpaths and other rights of way.

•Guns should note that to shoot across a footpath or bridleway that is in use by walkers or riders may constitute a public nuisance or wilful obstruction. There may also be a liability in negligence if it is known that people are on, or likely to be on, the path.

•In particular, care should be taken when siting Guns near roads. Section 161 of the Highways Act 1980 (England & Wales) makes it an offence to discharge a firearm within 50 ft of the centre of a highway with vehicular rights without lawful authority or excuse, if as a result a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered.

•The Highways Act does not apply in Scotland but Procurators Fiscal may use common law offences of 'culpable and reckless conduct' and 'reckless endangerment' in situations in which the 1980 Act would be contravened in England and Wales.

•Information signs, if appropriate, should be erected on shoot days on footpaths or bridleways.

•The siting of release pens and feeding of game near highways should be avoided. Game managers should collect and dispose of road casualties where possible.

 

 

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/code-of-good-shooting-practice.cfm

[JonathanL]

It's really a lot better when you actually bother to read (and understand) what has been written NO ONE is advocating standing on the verge of a motorway shooting at things! It's a hypothetical question so that people know the precise extent of the law.

 

It's also about demonstrating the huge amount of **** legislation we have in relation to shooting. The fact that you could legally stand next to the M6 and discharge firearms and you would not commit the offence mentioned.

 

Also, yes, we are saying that to 'centre' of a motorway is the central reservation. Someone has even posted the relevant paragraph from Hansard to prove the fact. If you think that the centre is somewhere else then please feel free to give us your opinion and, importantly, provide a source of law to back it up.

 

J.

 

Further to the above; it's not relevant where the centre of the carriage way is. It's the centre of a road which HAS a carriageway.

 

J.

[Blackstone]

Again, demonstrating the lovely intricacies of British firearms laws

[lumpy]

How is that the 'centre of a highway'? It would be the central reservation, surely?

 

J.

 

 

 

The 'carriageway' is the whole road, essentially. Hence the term 'Dual Carriageway'. The centre must surely be the centre of the central reservation?

 

J.

Duel as in TWO yeh ? so that would be TWO carrigeways would it not ? before you try and make statements be sure your not making yourself look a fool in the process ! :hmm:

[Mr_Logic]

Duel as in TWO yeh ? so that would be TWO carrigeways would it not ? before you try and make statements be sure your not making yourself look a fool in the process ! :hmm:

As has been posted, the carriageways form the highway. The centre of this on a motorway is the central reservation.

 

So i would observe your own advice!

 

Is the law daft? Yes it is, a frequent occurrence. Does if really matter to anyone? No! Not really for motorways anyway. You could get into an argument for country lanes and horses and things, but motorways? No! Let's be frank here, unless you actually shot someone on the motorway, people go by so fast they won't notice anyway!

[JonathanL]

Duel as in TWO yeh ? so that would be TWO carrigeways would it not ? before you try and make statements be sure your not making yourself look a fool in the process ! :hmm:

 

It's called a dual carriageway, not a dual highway. Both carriageways are part of one highway. As someone else has kindly pointed out the 'highway' extends from the verge/footway, etc on one side right accross to the verge/footway on the other side. The fifty feet is measured from the centre of the highway so, assumiung that the carriageways are the same size on each side and the verge/footway is too then the centre of the highway for the purposes of our discussion here is the centre of the central reservation.

 

The word 'carriageway' is there to restrict the scope of the offence to those highways which actualy have a carriageway. Some don't as they are only for travel on foot or by horse, cycle, etc.

 

J.

[poontang]

It's pretty academic really.

 

If you shoot 50ft from the central reservation of a 3 lane motorway, you'd have to set up your hide on the hard shoulder.

 

Legal arguments aside, you'd never get your hidepoles in the tarmac.

[MiLisCer]

Almost! The mere dropping of a pheasant on the motorway is not sufficient, I don't think. Someone has to actually be interrupted, endagered or injured. If they are not then you have committed no offence.

 

Actually, you could be very pedantic about it if you wanted to. The offence is only committed if the person is interrupted, injured or endagered due to the discharging of the firearm. If a pheasant falls on them and injures them then they haven't been injured as a result of discharging a firearm but from being hit by a pheasant. If you discharge a firearm and the noise causes an accident then you commit the offence as the accident happened as a consequence of that act of discharing the gun.

 

In regards to motorways. It's probably the case that on most of them you could never actually committ the offence as even if you stood an inch away from the verge you would still be more than 50 feet away from the centre.

 

J.

 

JL

 

You are now letting yourself down by stating things which you "believe" to be correct but which are in fact wrong - Danger does NOT have to be actually caused.

 

You clearly have a high opinion of what you "Believe" but seem to be more and more just posting conjecture!

 

If you want to be pedantic - which you are, then I am happy to oblige

 

If you want act and section and actual example - then I have plenty - having spent more than enough time policing the motorways.

[JonathanL]

JL

 

You are now letting yourself down by stating things which you "believe" to be correct but which are in fact wrong - Danger does NOT have to be actually caused.

 

You clearly have a high opinion of what you "Believe" but seem to be more and more just posting conjecture!

 

If you want to be pedantic - which you are, then I am happy to oblige

 

If you want act and section and actual example - then I have plenty - having spent more than enough time policing the motorways.

 

Then your bosses need to send you to the re-education camp as their indoctrination is growing weak.

 

 

"161 Penalties for causing certain kinds of danger or annoyance.

 

(2)If a person without lawful authority or excuse—

 

(b)discharges any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of such a highway,

and in consequence a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.]"

 

If you do not injure, interrupt or endager anyone then you do not commit the offence. Potential injury, endangerment or interruption are not sufficient. It must be an actual person using the highway who is so affected.

 

Similarly, if you are 51 feet from the centre and you discharge a firearm and actually do cause injury, endangerment or interruption to a user of the highway then you do not commit the offence.

 

Please provide the references/examples you mention.

 

J.

Edited April 22, 2012 by JonathanL

[lumpy]

It seem's a shame that some people are just hell bent on creating argument's, The answer to the OP is the 50yd guideline would be from the centre of the nearest point of road used by traffic, Feel free to ask your FEO regarding this. Any other interpretation of this would surely bring into question as to whether you should even be trusted with a firearm.

[Mr_Logic]

It seem's a shame that some people are just hell bent on creating argument's, The answer to the OP is the 50yd guideline would be from the centre of the nearest point of road used by traffic, Feel free to ask your FEO regarding this. Any other interpretation of this would surely bring into question as to whether you should even be trusted with a firearm.

It's 50 feet, not 50 yards.

 

I am annoyed that you suggest that going back to the Act is grounds not to have a firearm! Complete and utter codswallop. The interpretation of Law is a subjective point generally, but in this case Jonathan is completely right. The centre is the centreline on a highway, and a road user does have to be affected by the shooting for an offence to be committed. This is an absolute, it's written in law and nobody can say otherwise. There is an argument to be had as to whether the road user has been affected, but that is all.

[lumpy]

It's 50 feet, not 50 yards.

 

I am annoyed that you suggest that going back to the Act is grounds not to have a firearm! Complete and utter codswallop. The interpretation of Law is a subjective point generally, but in this case Jonathan is completely right. The centre is the centreline on a highway, and a road user does have to be affected by the shooting for an offence to be committed. This is an absolute, it's written in law and nobody can say otherwise. There is an argument to be had as to whether the road user has been affected, but that is all.

Clearly 50ft from the centre of a 6 lane motorway would count as stupidity plain and simple, anyone who could condone such a thought is a fool !!

 

I'd like to see both you and johnathan explain to your FEO your right to use a firearm within 50ft of the centre of a 6 lane motorway and we'll see how long it takes him to revoke both your liceses

Edited April 22, 2012 by lumpy

[Asa Bear]

Duel as in TWO yeh ? so that would be TWO carrigeways would it not ? before you try and make statements be sure your not making yourself look a fool in the process ! :hmm:

 

 

 

Or

 

 

[Mr_Logic]

Clearly 50ft from the centre of a 6 lane motorway would count as stupidity plain and simple, anyone who could condone such a thought is a fool !!

 

I'd like to see both you and johnathan explain to your FEO your right to use a firearm within 50ft of the centre of a 6 lane motorway and we'll see how long it takes him to revoke both your liceses

Not quite sure why it is that you can't understand this concept. But let's try again shall we....

 

The law says that an offence is committed if:

 

(2)If a person without lawful authority or excuse—

 

(b)discharges any firearm or firework within 50 feet of the centre of such a highway,

and in consequence a user of the highway is injured, interrupted or endangered, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.]"

 

It's very clear. Is it particularly stupid to try to apply this law to a motorway which is more than 50 feet from the centre to the edge of the highway? Yes, kinda.

 

The key point is that with a road that big, you are not likely to cause any issue with road users if you stand at the edge of the boundary where your permission intersects with public land (ie the highway) since the road is so large. If you start sending bullets/shot into the road, you have the issue of shooting on land without permission.

 

The law is very simple in regard to shooting near a highway, it's been explained many times just on this particular thread! I am quite happy to explain the law to an FEO that doesn't know it, and I really struggle to see how obeying the letter of the law could be grounds for you to consider my ticket in need of revocation.

 

Just what do you think is so bad standing on land over which I have permission to shoot, and then firing a firearm on that land, immediately next to the road? It is perfectly legal, since it's over 50 feet and nobody is affected in any way.

[JonathanL]

Clearly 50ft from the centre of a 6 lane motorway would count as stupidity plain and simple, anyone who could condone such a thought is a fool !!

 

I'd like to see both you and johnathan explain to your FEO your right to use a firearm within 50ft of the centre of a 6 lane motorway and we'll see how long it takes him to revoke both your liceses

 

You are clearly one of the crowd who suffers from the affiction of reading what you want to read rather than what has actually been written.

 

Nowhere has anyone advocated or encouraghed what you have said. My original point was nothing of the sort; I said that in the case of a motorway that it was essentially impossible to commit the offence as no one would actually be dim enough to be be shootng in such close proximity to the centre of the highway (ie; on the carriageway its self) to be able to do so.

 

No one has said anything about anyones 'right' to shoot 50ft from a highway. I fail to see where you have got that idea from.

 

J.