Interestingly - and rather train spottingly -  the original enactment of the 1988 RTA contained a glaring cockup which reinforces just how little attention was paid in parliament at the time: 

31. (2) (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations authorise, or provide for authorising, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, the holding on a public way other than a bridleway— (a) of races or trials of speed of any class or description, or (b) of a particular race or trial of speed,

31. (6) In this section “public way” means, in England and Wales, a public highway and, in Scotland, a public road and includes a bridleway but not a footpath

Now, why state that its ok on a bridleway in Scotland in para (6) when you've already stated that it cannot be permitted on a bridleway in para (2)?

This was later substituted by a consequential amendment under RTA 1991 to:

(6) In this section “public way” means, in England and Wales, a highway, and in Scotland, a public road but does not include a footpath

See what I mean, come the revolution brothers!

Yep, agreed theres a case - I did however raise the concern, since of course the legal niceties of dual status routes is one of those areas of law which is a fine combination twixt mess and muddle   - oh, if only they had actually understood the logic behind listing something as a "road used as public path" all those years ago...

As you rightly point out, its going to take something big happening for someone to shake a stick at the current ridiculous situation, but we saw the classic "defra are looking into it" response last time this came up in Westminster - too busy legislating against children playing football in the street or whatever...

Politico's? Guy fawkes had the right idea!

Chapeau jeremy, I've gotta agree that you're absolutley right on this one - we need our house to be in order on stuff like this.

I recall having a similar conversation with the YDNPA over the three peaks CX, over the stretch that comes back along the railway line to the steps by the viaduct - which appears to carry dual status as both BW and UCR - The answer was reminiscient of the three wise monkeys! (saying that theres a stretch of the route which riders do have to dismount on too, I think the response at the time was pointed more towards not wanting to raise doubt on the status of the route and opening themself to another can of worms)

I'm not sure if it would invalidate the insurance - your Car insurance isnt automatically invalid if you're breaking the law, however I'm sure that there would be some obscure clause on which they would try and weedle out of liability.

The annoying thing was that the concerns over the publishing of times etc with the Mary Townely event was that these concerns had been expressed, but everyone just seems to think its a silly little quirk of the law and ignore it till something happens...