You are reading a single comment by @Greenbank and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
See the Cycling Silk link above. Specifically: https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/606042459424972801
The question doesn't come down to whether it's a pedestrian or not but whether a vehicle was propelled or not.
Greenbank
My take (IANAL etc...) is that the CvB sets a precedent, in a certain situations, that a person wheeling a bike is a de facto pedestrian, as part of the ruling states that it is irrelevant whether the person walking has a bike with them or not. The question is whether the precedent can be extended to cases like these, especially as the full ruling also states something about the person starting from one footpath and proceeding to another footpath. I would guess that, if it can be demonstrated that the cyclist dismounted specifically to circumvent the signs/markings etc. and remained on the carriageway, then a judge would probably not feel the CvB precedent applied.