"It's equivalent to asking why a motorist, stuck behind someone walking in the road, didn't just overtake by driving along the pavement"
the use of the pavement by motor vehicles as an extension of the roadway is all too common in my experience.
I actually don't think it's the equivalent at all, it's an arbitrary white line painted there by some council wonk, with exactly the same path and surface on either side. It's much more like crossing into the opposite carraigeway to pass, you aren't "meant" to drive on the wrong side of the road, but you have to do it if you want to pass.
Based on my calculations, a family car (I picked a Ford Focus) "cruising" at 30mph has c. 61 times the kinetic energy of a bicycle (I used my own bike and weight) cruising on the cycle path at 15mph. Same cyclist would need to go at 85mph to have the same kinetic energy of a car at 20mph. The two are completely different scenarious when it comes to the risk they pose to other road users, it's probably why 100% of pedestrian deaths, and 99% of serious and minor injuries between 2004-2010 on Edinburgh's roads and pavements were not caused by bicycles.
And don't get me started on poor path layouts that actually force you to cross the line unless you have some sort of magic powers of transmaterialisation.
posts
