You are reading a single comment by @Brommers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
If walking over a stop line with a bike constitutes 'propelling' it across the stop line, then I don't think it's stretching the usual use of language to describe walking a bike down the pavement as leading it on the footpath. But as you say, until there's a decision on the point (which there probably never will be) it's all a matter of opinion. And as, we all know, opinions are like arseholes.
Brommers
Hefty
NotThamesWater
Don't want to get into the armchair lawyering (especially with a lawyer) but isn't that covered by the full wording of s72 of the Highway Act 1835:-
“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.”
One would assume that riding a bike is covered by either the 'ride' part or the 'drive' part of the second clause. But pushing a bike along the footway is neither 'ride', 'drive' or 'lead'.
The law for red lights and stop lines specifically mentions 'propel a vehicle' over the stop line, but s72 of the Highway Act doesn't use 'propel'.