-
From a completely non-lawyer viewpoint, I'd suggest that to propel a bike is to make it move in its normal way, ie with its wheels turning, along the ground.
If you were to pick it up, it's moving but it's not being propelled.
If you were to take it to bits, it's moving but it's not being propelled.
What if you were to leap off it before the line and let it ghosty across whilst you run behind it (not touching it) then jump back on at the other side?
PS: IANAL
I'm not sure of this one. When it has come up elsewhere some people claim that the stop line should 'obviously' extend to include the pavement.
In doing the above, and getting nabbed by the police for it, I'm sure they'd just go with an inconsiderate cycling charge.
That's what The Cycling Lawyer thinks would be legal. The subsequent ride through the junction might get you an caseless/reckless/dangerous/inconsiderate cycling charge though.
I'm saying the bike remains as 'a vehicle being propelled', which is then specifically worded for in other laws.
The whole 'propelling a vehicle' clause is there to combat the silly ways you think you could get away with RLJ-ing, even in cars. Does 'driving' include:-