I’m still waiting to be pointed to a case where a ‘bicycle’ was determined to be within the meaning of the word ‘vehicle’.
Taylor is a case which equates bicycles with carriages – but predates the creation of specific offences relating to riding of bicycles (which actually is the mischief that the case was trying to address).
Since you can’t actually give me the name of a case where a court determined that a bicycle is a vehicle for the purposes of s36 of the RTA 1988, your point that “courts have done so with equivalent cases in the past” doesn’t have any weight.
I continue to wait to be referred to a case (or piece of legislation) which determines that ‘vehicle’ includes ‘bicycle’. I know you can’t point to it, because it doesn’t exist. You can search Westlaw, or NexisLexis, or Bailii all you want. It’s not there.
BTW I’m not wasting any of my money, because I don’t RLJ. And it’s not really much of a one-man crusade, given that others on here appear to agree with me. Suggests more of a ‘arguments on both sides’ kinda thing, really?