The meaning of a red man is "should not" so the highway code is inaccurate to turn that into "do not":
If you choose to disregard the automated advice, the normal road rules apply, so it's effectively give way because you shouldn't unnecessarily cross a kerb or line to move into another road user's path.
This ability has been used by highways authorities to reject requests to make lights respond quicker to beg buttons.
I see, thanks.
Looking through the HC, I infer that the only parts of it which mean there is a legal sanction involved, are those that use the words "must" or "must not". They often have a reference to specific legislation. Have I got that right?
Is "another road user's path" defined anywhere? Common sense would say if they have to brake (or maybe consider braking) to avoid you that constitutes being in their path.
I sometimes wonder if it would be better if pelican/toucan crossings had no lights except
a green. So adult or sighted pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users could make up their own mind if it is safe to cross ("give way"), but those who wanted or needed certainty, could press a button and wait for the green. Though that might be confusing, at least on first introduction. And might need some sort of "walking without due care and attention" type law. I tried out a new bit of cycle path the other day (Leeds ring road, Moortown). At one point it crosses a dual carriageway, with a central refuge. The posts are up for the toucan crossing, but the lights aren't installed yet. So I just watched the traffic and crossed when safe. I remember thinking "even when the lights are working, this would be a very safe place to just wait for a gap". There's excellent sight-lines, it's all 40mph, in one direction there are lights further up which will cause traffic to wait, and no side roads. I'll probably just ignore the little red man, even when it's installed.