Martin Underwood wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote in
:


The stop line usually goes across only the left hand side of the
carriageway, but nobody imagines that using the right hand side of the
road gets you past a red light legally. Cyclists can cycle past a stop
line if there is a marked cycle lane which is not covered by it.

Ah, so the absence of a stop line on a cycle lane in the road means it's OK
to go ahead, but the absence of a stop line on a pavement that is separated
from the road by a kerb still means you have to stop? Perverse.

Yep.

I'm not sure whether a shopping trolley could be classed as a vehicle, on
the grounds that it's not usually used for carrying people on/in it - unless
you count the obligatory pekinese that the LOL/LOM always seems to carry in
their trolley!

It would be a goods vehicle (even with pekinese dogs in it).

You'd think that speed limit and drink-driving laws, and the requirement for
3rd-party insurance, would apply equally to *all* vehicles (motor or
otherwise).

Only to those vehicles it is illegal for children under 10 to drive.

In my book, the law should be a servant not a master: society should decide
which acts it wants to permit and which it doesn't, and then frame its laws
accordingly. Making perverse laws and then expecting people blindly and
unthinkingly to keep them in all circumstances without applying common sense
is to put the cart before the horse. If a law cannot be justified, it should
be repealed. I'd love to see the so-called justification for making people
who are pushing bikes or shopping trolleys stop at traffic lights when they
are on the pavement!

Because they may be a nuisance to other road users.