Can you ban PUSHED bicycles from a road??

[Jakob W]

If bikes (even pushed) are restricted somehow (e.g. a TRO) then that's what is going to apply. The question in the restriction is not the status of the person but the presence of a bicycle. Crank vs Brooks doesn't change anything or help in this case.

You can't try and take a bicycle into a cinema with you and just claim Crank vs Brooks. (I know it's not quite the same thing as a cinema isn't a public place, but you get the idea.)

From my reading, whether a pushed bicycle is permitted on a footway or footpath is a legal grey area. The older test was whether something was a 'natural accoutrement'; prams and shopping trolleys are considered to be these, but bicycles haven't ever been tested in court. The modern test seems to be one of 'reasonableness' (in DPP v Jones); as long it does not interfere with the primary right to pass and release, a reasonable activity is legal. I suppose in the context of a TRO like this, for purposes of public safety, wheeling a bicycle might no longer be considered reasonable.

[frankenthorn]

How many parts do you need to remove before it stops being a bicycle and starts being a collection of bike parts?
Maybe you need 2 people to carry bits of bikes?

A tandem with S&S couplings, each person takes half?

[Greenbank]

If bikes (even pushed) are restricted somehow (e.g. a TRO) then that's what is going to apply. The question in the restriction is not the status of the person but the presence of a bicycle. Crank vs Brooks doesn't change anything or help in this case.

You can't try and take a bicycle into a cinema with you and just claim Crank vs Brooks. (I know it's not quite the same thing as a cinema isn't a public place, but you get the idea.)

From my reading, whether a pushed bicycle is permitted on a footway or footpath is a legal grey area. The older test was whether something was a 'natural accoutrement'; prams and shopping trolleys are considered to be these, but bicycles haven't ever been tested in court. The modern test seems to be one of 'reasonableness' (in DPP v Jones); as long it does not interfere with the primary right to pass and release, a reasonable activity is legal. I suppose in the context of a TRO like this, for purposes of public safety, wheeling a bicycle might no longer be considered reasonable.

Indeed. The Home Office Guidance on pavement cycling is still relevant: http://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement

But this is a specific TRO to prevent even pushing a bike for the duration of this event. That's going to make for a much higher bar for pushing for 'reasonableness' and, during the event itself, it's just going to land people who try and flout it in trouble (except if the enforcement at the time applies common sense) especially if the bridge is rammed with people.

[Jaded]

Your last phrase is the key. This is a very short term temporary arrangement for a specific dated activity. A bicycle, buggy, wheelchair or shopping trolley in a seething throng of people is less than ideal.

I’d imagine that there’d very few buggies around at that time and no shopping trollies. I’d have sympathy for the wheelchair user, but practical safety of a mass may trump individual rights. Bicycles? Well, sadly, you get on it and go across a different bridge.