I find this discussion of law interesting. See, I'm not really a cyclist at all: I'm really an inline skater who just uses a bike for cross-training, and to get around the place when conditions/surfaces/luggage requirements are not suitable for skating.
And the law relating to skating on our roads is ... well, nobody knows. There is no statute law and no relevant case law (at least, none known to me and apparently none known to the DfT either) which defines whether a skater is a vehicle, or his pair of skates comprise a vehicle, or he is wearing a vehicle on each leg. If he is, then that raises some challenges which are even more slightly absurd than the "where do recumbent riders put their pedal reflectors to be visible fore and aft" example, and if he isn't then, well, 98% of traffic law does not apply to him: legally he can skate wherever he wants and ignore pretty much all road signs and signals, subject only to the "wilful obstruction" clause in (I think) the Highways Act 1980, and the one about following the instructions of a uniformed police officer (RTA 1988? maybe)
So should he? Of course not. I expect that all here (and indeed, most skaters of my acquaintance) would agree that just because it's legal doesn't make it right, and the best way to avoid being squished is to act considerately, predictably, and sensibly. And we don't need a raft of tightly-woven and enforced-to-the-letter-even-when-it-makes-no-difference legislation to tell us that, so I'm slightly at a loss to see why cyclists in general should be any less permeable to common sense. Getting a "head start" on red+amber and getting hit by an amber gambler crossing you: bad idea. Getting a "head start" on a clear road when there is nothing else approaching; if as HJ says we need to ask "why the rules are there in the first place" we kind of have to conclude that this one is not relevant int he circumstances
