I skimmed this whole topic just now, as I regularly walk across signalled junctions on my commute (sometimes two or three times on a single journey) against red lights.
It's never caused me any loss of sleep, as it's hard to see who is disadvantaged (and often there is a big advantage for all concerned, in that thirty or so straight-ahead vehicles at my back won't be held up when the lights change and solitary me is sitting in the middle of the lane with my right arm out - I just hop off and walk to the right instead).
It seems clear that, for instance, the 'effect' of a red light extends across the whole highway and can't be avoided just by going around the white line (which is fair enough, esp. if you think of cars doing so). However it gets pretty bizarre when you think it through.
For instance, cyclists are officially advised that they might like to dismount to effect a right turn, that they can ride across a pelican crossing alongside pedestrians and even that (via Crank v. Brooks) they 'count as' a pedestrian providing they start on one pavement and end on the other. However, a cyclist who wants to turn right onto a cycle facility at a pelican crossing would be breaking the law if they take advantage of the crossing being red to dismount and walk across; they'd have to dismount in front of traffic and wait for the light to go green, or dismount, walk to the left pavement (potentially from the right hand side of the lane, if they moved over in preparation for the turn), jump onto it, and immediately hop off and cross to the desired side.
It also seems childishly easy to deconstruct to absurdities. The operative bit of law seems to be in the word 'propel' (which includes carrying, since the definition of carry includes "To give impetus to; propel") so, for instance, while nobody could argue that carrying a solitary wheel was to propel a bike, a folded Brompton in a carry bag certainly is a bicycle, so technically it's an offence to pass red lights with your folded bike (or an ordinary bike in a travel case or bag).
I'm hardly going to change my behaviour (especially as some of the laws behind this predate both motor cars and bicycles) but wouldn't it be wonderfully simple if the government just defined anyone who was not actually being carried along by / riding a bike as a straightforward pedestrian?
They did that thing about extraneous laws quite recently too
.