drossall wrote: ... I find it very hard to see how someone could be a pedestrian, and propelling a vehicle, at the same time. The link I quoted gives case law (as I, a non-lawyer, understand it), to say that someone pushing a bike is, in law, a pedestrian. Are you saying that different parts of the law can disagree over this? I don't see how.
We are discussing the criminal law which prescribes sanctions for "criminal" behaviour. These sanctions can only be applied when the offence is proved to the highest standards. As part of this, statutes and regulations are - in theory at least - carefully worded. A pedestrian may disobey traffic lights because doing so isn't prohibited. The driver of a vehicle or somebody propelling it cannot. I don't see any inconsistency there.
Back to the pedestrian crossing, the driver
was eventually convicted because they failed to give precedence to a passenger on foot (who happened to be pushing a cycle. ie Pushing the bike didn't stop them being on foot. All I'm saying is that pushing a bike amounts to propelling it.
On the specific subject of the definition of "propel" if there has been any sort of legal precedent set, it will be in the roadtraffic law "bible" Wilkinson.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wilkinsons-Tra ... ad+traffic