Stopped by the Police, did I break the law?

Not a law, but breach of Highway code for a pedestrian.
Rule 18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should....always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.

bikebot. The section I read this on and cut and pasted it does not have any case law with it. Generally when there is its usually listed as ??? v ???.

I agree though, just don't do it and you wont get in the clarts.

I think you would need to test the rule on what propel a vehicle is, and pushing a vehicle with you hand or feet seems to satisfy that.

The point about being a pedestrian would perhaps make his action one of crossing the road, and so that rule would not be in point, but I think that a judge would look to see if the cyclist made an effort to become a pedestrian I.e. Walk on a pavement and join with other pedestrians and in this case he just runs across the junction to avoid stopping to walk on the pavement. At no point does he enjoin with other pedestrians. If he wanted the rules to apply to him as a pedestrian he wouldn't be using the main carriageway and would be on the pavement - therefore he is a vehicle, and acting as a vehicle and so therefore breaking the rules, if not in law, then also in spirit.

I think people that do it are frankly dicks. I think people that sit their cars in bike boxes are dicks too.

My take on the whole thing is that you've been operating a vehicle/carriage on the road. You've then dismounted to cross the road making use of the 'green man' then remounted and gone on your way whilst never leaving the road. Now while there is no jay walking law in Great Britain and pedestrians can use the roads wherever. Everything hinges on the fact that you were operating a vehicle on the road. NOW. If you had dismounted. Stepped on the pavement. As far as the law is concerned you are a pedestrian pushing a bicycle as has been mentioned in other posts and the police would have had no grounds to challenge.

The peeler has been bang to rights to challenge you on the error of your ways if not issue you with a FPN.

Can you imagine our indignation if motorcyclists, motorists and, horse and cart operators did the same thing?

The law is an ass.

It seems to hinge on an exact definition of "propelling", despite being on foot at the time.

If he had picked the bike up and carried it on a shoulder, he probably would not be committing this offence. But in reality, would not have actually behaved in a substantially different manner.

This vehicle that may not be propelled. Is this the same type of vehicle for which speed limits apply? So not a bike. Or does vehicle change its meaning as and when desired.

Not sure what the precise legal position is here but anyone who arrives at a red light and gets off and runs through it it is definitely guilty of the crime of taking the piss

I didnt think bicycles were classified as "vehicles" as such, which is why all that stuff about propelling a vehicle isnt necessarily relevant IMO.

certainly Ive sometimes walked red lights when they fail to pick my bike up, or even hopped off and joined the crossing as thats the route I wanted to go.

the only thing I think you did wrong was made it obviously "running a light", if youd dismounted and just walked across the road, or even done a more obvious green cross code look,listen etc type crossing, and not done the whole triathlon running style transition thing,mr bored policeman might not have felt the need to interject, the whole its a one way conversation highlights he thinks he wasnt on dead sure ground either, he was just annoyed you did it.

and Ive no idea why so many are chucking their toys out of the prams for on it.

In case your in any doubt as to whether a cycle is a vehicle; the legislation that governs what lights & reflectors you must have and when is

The Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989.

The law I quoted is NOT about vehicles but pedal cycles so whether people want to call it a vehicle or not is irrelevant as this law is about pedal cycles.

Google found it. The stuff you quoted is a template from the Police National Legal Database.

The PNLD is basically a collection of guidance widely used by the Police to simplify what would otherwise require years of legal training to understand. It's not legislation.

100% taking the piss. I can't even believe you posted this.

Regardless of whether "propelling" the bike, you weren't following the spirit or intended application of the rules.

We have rules so other road users can anticipate what we'll do, and so we can anticipate what other road users do. This helps improve safety all round. "Accidents" usually happen because someone hasn't followed the rules - speeding, priority at junctions, passing distance...

If the pedestrian lights were green then use the pedestrian crossing area to push your bike across - not the road. Do one thing, or do the other. It isn't mix and match to suit your personal convenience.

Why couldn't you wait for "up to 3 minutes"? What is so special about your time or your journey? Isn't that the same attitude as we experience from drivers who "must get in front", who won't wait to pass in a safe place?

Essentially any rule applied to a person pushing a bicycle has to also apply to a person pushing a wheelchair or a buggy.
If they are all pedestrians they have to obey constables in uniform or traffic officers who are governing traffic flow on a road.
If they are vehicles they all have to obey traffic lights.
It seems that invalid carriages are treated as vehicles on the road, and as pedestrians on pavements.
Therefore you need to move onto the pavement to make running a bike across a road legal.
If you pick the bike up however you are definitely a pedestrian, and therefore by carrying your bike you ensure what you did is defintely not illegal.

Regardless of the legalities, if you did this in front of me I'd think you were a bit of a nob.

Interesting and vaired points of view here. I head north daily through Southwark bridge and up Queen Street and won't hesitate to get off my bike and use the pedestrian crossing to walk across the junction because it is a horrible design with two lanes of traffic that can turn right from the left lane (usually without indicating) and it is often chock full of tipper trucks/industrial traffic and the lights go green for a very short cycle, making drivers more aggressive and jumpy. So perhaps it makes me "a bit of a dick" in the eyes of some but I'd rather that than a dead compliant person.
Rules are for the guidance of men and the obeisance of fools (sometimes)
For the record, I have contacted TfL about the dangerous design of this junction several times (and sweet fa changes) and have testified as a witness in a hit and run case arising at this junction

I understood that if you crossed the traffic light line, having arrived at the junction as a vehicle, either on foot or by cycle, you were breaking the law. As others have pointed out, case precedent establishes that pushing your bike on the footway makes you a pedestrian from the point of view of the Road Traffic Act. So, I interpret that set of rules like this:
- If you pedaled up to the lights, then got off and pushed through, you'd be breaking the law by going through a red light;
- If you pedaled up the lights, then stopped, got off the bike and took to the pavement without crossing the line, you'd have become a pedestrian and, from that point, you're free to walk your bike across the junction, even if this was against a red light.

Where I'm not clear is when you're riding on a shared-use path - if you come across a red man at a toucan crossing, are you legally bound to observe it as a cyclist? As a pedestrian you aren't, I don't think...

For what it's worth, I pull this manoeuvre regularly when westbound at the eastern end of Shandwick Place in Edinburgh, to go through Charlotte Square to George Street, rather than face the rubbish that is the Princes Street/Lothian Road junction.

If you are pushing a hand-cart in the public road and you come to a traffic signal on red then you are legally obliged to stop at the stop-line. You are deemed to be a vehicle for the purposes of the legislation even though you are on foot.

If you extrapolate from this then - If you arrive at the junction as a vehicle then you will remain a vehicle for your transit of and exiting from the junction.

Conclusion:
OP is in the wrong.
Police Officer is right.

To all those whose defence is that he is pushing the bike therefore a pedestrian, please explain at what point does either the bike or the rider/pusher enter, traverse along a pedestrian area i.e. the footpath/pavement call it what you like.

He arrives at the red light on the main carriageway, proceeds along the same carriageway on foot and remounts on the said carriageway the other side of the junction. Ergo he failled to stop at a red light, jumped/ran or otherwise did not obay the red light. You stop at a red light regardless of if you are on foot, cycle, car or lorry.

It is totally irrelivent as to if the "green man" was on for pedestrians to cross on the pedestrian crossing as he didn't use the actual crossing he remained on the main carrigeway.

And this parrot is dead, ceased to be..........

Interested to know what does the OP make of the responses...

On the commute one morning there was a big jam at the traffic lights at the junction of Victoria Embankment and Horse Guards Avenue. I was heading towards Parliament Square and there were cops in the road holding up traffic for whatever reason, so I just waited at the front of the queue of traffic. One of the cops pointed at me and shouted "you can always just push it across!" so I did, while the lights were red, in front of half a dozen other cops, got back on my bike at the other side of the junction and carried on.

I don't think that each cop has the same understanding of the law as the next one.

The law is largely irrelevant to the police in almost every interaction you will have with them - it's complicated and messy (and often lengthy), which is why it tends to get left to lawyers. Knowing it - the law - doesn't help them perform their (difficult) day to day job. The police are given what are essentially rules of conduct that are for the most part designed to prevent them breaching the law in a manner that would prejudice subsequent prosecutions but (as Sanderville's example shows) they retain a massive discretion as to its application as they are primarily responsible for enforcement. There is no practical use in knowing the answer to the question originally posed by the OP. And it stopped being an interesting theoretical discussion a while ago. (Who knew there were so many frustrated legal professionals using this site?)

"Legal professionals" might be a bit generous mate