Please report dangerous drivers to the police - Roadsafe. Report to plod, not just whinge here.

Crank vs Brooks was an appeal case concerning a motorist who knocked someone down on a zebra crossing and the defence team argued that because the person was pushing a bicycle they were not a 'foot passenger' and therefore there was no requirement for the motorist to accord precedence to them at the crossing. Rather shockingly, this argument was successful in the original case and the case against the motorist was thrown out with no case to answer. It was the appeal (which is the Crank vs Brooks case) that overturned this.

The point of all of this is that the wording of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Regulations refers simply to "foot passenger" and there was no reason why this should not have covered someone who just happened to be wheeling a bicycle by their side.

Quoth the judge: "But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger."

This is where most people misunderstand CvB. The ruling doesn't make the bicycle disappear, it just means that someone can be classed as "foot passenger" whilst wheeling a bicycle along side them. The bicycle is still there being wheeled.

The wording in the RTA 1998 specifically points to "a person driving or propelling a vehicle". With Crank vs Brooks in mind the person pushing a bike over a stop line at a red light can be similarly classed as a "foot passenger" but the vehicle (bicycle) is still there, and if the vehicle is propelled over the stop line at a red light then an offence has been committed.