Can somebody make clear what was wrong with the CTC case? I assume we are talking about the man on BBC Breakfast. I know that there is a difference between a child breaking the law and whether they can be prosecuted for it. Was that it?
My understanding is that the only real law on this is the one from the 1860s that forbids velocipedes being ridden on a footway beside a carriageway. The (presumably) CTC guy on TV said this had been modified by a Home Office ruling in 1999 that permitted cycling on the pavement as long as it was done considerately. Is that about right? This is all a bit theoretical as I do not, personally, ride on pavements, but I would like to know what the rules actually are.