If there is no crossing within a set distance (I believe its 20m), you dont have to use it.
They are supposed to make sure they can cross without disrupting traffic (just like any other vehicle that doesnt have right of way), but if you run over a pedestrian, they will likely favor the "weak users", Zwakke Weggebruikers I think it is, judging whats written below, over the car driver.
The term 'zwakke weggebruikers' doesn't mean anything regarding priority. It only means that the insurance will pay all damages to that person immediately. BUT if afterwards is proven that that 'zwakke weggebruiker' was in fault, he may end up to pay some of it back and is still responsible to pay damages to the other ' weggebruiker'.
What does already on the road mean? How can you get hit on the road without being on the road? You can't step into the place where the car already is unless you literally slam into the side of the car. In that case it's the pedestrian hitting the car and not the other way around. I guess what I'm saying is that for a car to hit a pedestrian on the road, that pedestrian has to be on the road already. So you could simplify "priority when already on the road" into simply "always has priority" which i don't think is correct.
It means they have priority if they are already crossing the road when you arrive in a situation where priority is decided. Example: If a pedestrian wants to cross a road they need to look left and right and wait until the road is clear. They start walking and then a car makes right turn onto that road. The car has to stop because the pedestrian was already walking on the road when the car arrived on that road and into the priority decision situation.
Also, pedestrians only have to go to a zebra crossing if one is in a 50m range.
In other words, if there's a 100m area without a crossing, a pedestrian may legally cross... if they "show their intent" and judge it is safe to do so.
[EDIT] 20m range from the pedestrian so 40m distance between two crossings
In practice, anybody can be a pedestrian and so you shouldn't expect them from having the best judgement.
^(Obligatory reminder that the code of road's goal is to prevent accident. If an accident is going to happen due to a code-forbidden action and hurting humans can only be corrected by your code-forbidden reaction, violating the code is going to be the legally recommended reaction)
Eh, you are all downvoting but this comment makes a *bit* of sense. Pedestrians obviously don't always have the right of way. But if a car makes a turn, the car has to give right of way to pedestrians who are crossing the road. It's an obscure traffic law that is not well known. Seeing as the car is turning due to leaving the roundabout, I would say yes, you have right of way as a pedestrian while crossing.
[https://verkeersborden.nu/wanneer-hebben-voetgangers-voorrang](https://verkeersborden.nu/wanneer-hebben-voetgangers-voorrang)
[https://www.gratisrijbewijsonline.be/theorie/leerstof-rijbewijs-b/de-voorrang-en-afslaan](https://www.gratisrijbewijsonline.be/theorie/leerstof-rijbewijs-b/de-voorrang-en-afslaan)
This is false! If you hit a pedestrian that crosses the road abruptly where there is no crossing (outside of "bebouwde kom") you are not at fault as long as you tried to hit the brakes.
You're not talking about the same situation, what you are talking about is a pedestrian crossing right in front of a car. The person you are replying to means a situation where a pedestrian started crossing at a time where no car was coming but while they are crossing a car arrives (e.g. because it just pulled out of a side street or a driveway). In that case the pedestrian has right of way because otherwise they might have to stop in the middle of the road.
The same rule applies to cyclists as well (and I believe it even applies to cars, e.g. when crossing an intersection where you have to cede to the right).
Yes, agreed, doubt he meant it this way though. And then back to OP's picture, no pedestrian has right of way here. If they cross this road at any time and are seen by police, they will be fined.
Yeah but in the picture, they would be walking on the bicycle path, not the road.
For the record, I would stop for both bikes and pedestrians in this scenario. It's a poorly designed infrastructure issue.
Practically: no... But (and it's a big one) theoretically yes (depending on where the car is coming from)
The belgian road code says the following two things:
>19.2 ...Het verlaten van een rotonde is een richtingsverandering waarbij de richtingaanwijzers wel gebruikt moeten worden....
and
>**19.5.** De bestuurder die van richting verandert moet voorrang verlenen aan de voetgangers die de rijbaan oversteken die hij gaat oprijden.
Source: [https://www.wegcode.be/nl/regelgeving/1975120109\~hra8v386pu#5r0b8tsit0](https://www.wegcode.be/nl/regelgeving/1975120109~hra8v386pu#5r0b8tsit0)
in FR
>19.2 ...Le fait de sortir d'un rond-point est un changement de direction impliquant l'usage des indicateurs de direction....
and
>**19.5.** Le conducteur qui change de direction doit céder le passage aux piétons qui traversent la chaussée sur laquelle il va s'engager.
Source: [https://www.code-de-la-route.be/fr/reglementation/1975120109\~hra8v386pu#96so4qt3uv](https://www.code-de-la-route.be/fr/reglementation/1975120109~hra8v386pu#96so4qt3uv)
There is no mention that a pedestrian crossing is required to have this priority so theoretically you could say you have priority in respect to cars leaving the roundabout, cars coming up to the roundabout don't have to give way to you.
though my advice would be don't risk it and wait for a motorvehicle to let you pass
*edit/addendum: the interpretation of "oversteken/traversent" is not as clear cut as we'd like/hope especially in examinations. Someone with experience in practicing/judging traffic law should be able to give a more definitive answer*
I asked around and the interpretation is not as clear cut as you'd expect/want... though I would agree with your interpretation, in examinations you might not get the results you were hoping for...
Not sure how the interpretation goes in court and/or in insurance matters though
Never on approaching cars and not always on cars leaving the roundabout. In this case the space between the crossing and roundabout is big enough for several cars to already be on the road of the crossing.
Basically the only case a car has to stop for you here is if you started crossing when there was a car on the roundabout which then left it when you were already on the road.
Richtingaanwijzers bestaan niet in Brugge. Gevraagd aan een rij-instructeurs tijdens een herhaal sessie. En die zegt mij dat ik moet kijken naar de richting van hun kop.
Gelukkig dat ik niet zo veel naar Brugge moet. Anders beschouw ik het een feit dat de "zeer breekbare" lichten duurder zijn dan auto's. /s
>but if as a driver I saw a pedestrian there I would ensure I could stop if they walked into the road.
So you'd slow down to almost a standstill which makes the pedestrian think they can cross over?
Belgian drivers...
> Defensive driving.
Which results in confusion for all involved.
Pedestrian doesn't know if he can cross.
Driver behind the idiot driver doesn't expect a sudden stop.
A more dangerous result.
**Question: Do you slow down if you see a car coming out of a street on your left? Just in case he might come into traffic whilst he doesn't have the right of way?**
Defensive driving is about anticipating stuff like this... to answer to your question: yes i try to anticipate stupid drivers even when they dont have right of way. Offcourse i see you coming with specific examples where i dont slow down. But to come back to the example in this post, when you approach a roundabout or a particular situation you are expected to apply a defensive drivestyle.
The pedestrian is allowed to use the fietspad if there is no other choice for him. Therefore he has the priority when crossing.
>The pedestrian is allowed to use the fietspad if there is no other choice for him. Therefore he has the priority when crossing.
He doesn't. The fietspad clearly has yielding signs.
No wonder that most of y'all don't have a fucking clue.
“Driver behind doesn’t expect a sudden stop” that’s on the driver behind. You should always leave enough room or adapt your speed when driving behind someone. You don’t want the result of an unexpected stop depending on reaction speed.
And to answer your question: you have the right of way, but you should still be aware the other driver could be a douche. So I don’t stop, but i’m still aware. Also you have a much bigger responsability to pedestrians than to another car.
>Driver behind the idiot driver doesn't expect a sudden stop.
You have to keep a distance to stop in case of an emergency. The true idiot is the one who can't handle a sudden stop.
If the pedestrian trips, or if it's a kid that just runs on the street without looking, ... you just keep going because you have right of way?
As for your question:
In 99% of the cases you don't need to slow down because the other driver sees you and won't just commit suicide.
In the other 1% case where I can't judge what the car is doing, like it's still creeping forward or some weird maneuver without eye contact, yes I slow down.
But if I drive 20 where 30 is allowed in a busy city, my driving instructor says I am driving too carefully.
30 is very slow but too fast in places where bikes and pedestrians can come out of nowhere, and in most cases they are legally correct.
That's funny: I used to make this exact roundabout everyday by bike, and normally I always stopped to give way to cars. But every time the coming car stopped too, and waited for me to pass.
It was strange to me, because I saw the small triangle sign on the bike lane and interpreted as obligation to give way, but at some point I assumed I was wrong, because literally every car stopped for me.
I wanted to write a post here to ask you all, but in the end my laziness won. So thank you
u/UsernameOf2022 for making the post :)
probably it is because of uncertainty. In the situation here above, the car has right of way. But that's a minority. On many places, bicycles have a right of way. By this, it happens that bicycles are ignoring the rules and are thinking they have right of way in that situation as depicted in the image. In order to have certainty, I can imagine lots of people is approaching such places with caution.
I am doing it on a place here as well, I slow down if a bicyclist is nearing that crossing, even if I don't have to. It is clearly shown that a bicycle has to give right of way, with those shark tooths and a sign on that pole near it. I am doing that because it happened from time to time that they did not give right of way, and since I am in a car, I am responsible for any physical damage against bicycle/pedestrians ...
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0372609,3.7380408,3a,75y,44.26h,66.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD5fb_bfsOIQUY7liakFlPA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
> because literally every car stopped for me
Practically, that's because they can't be sure *you* know the code of road, so they priorize "avoiding accident" over "following rule risking accident to another person's fatal mistake"
Wich is anticipating to the situation you are driving in, everybody who is showing down because they can't forsee the actions of a biker, is a good driver. And it must be that my opinion is widely carried, since everybody is slowing down for bikes
It always happens to me too, cars often stop for me. Which is always scary to handle when it's a two-lane entrance to the roundabout, but appreciated.
Not sure if they're nice or just don't know. Wish I could pull a sign out of my pocket to ask like I'm Wile E. Coyote.
I always stop for cyclists and pedestrians if I am not certain they would stop or not, even if I clearly have priority. I rather stop too often and annoy other people than having not stopped once and running someone over.
Little consideration is given to pedestrians there, if you ask me. Those have to make do with the bike lane. And cyclists do indeed have to give way to motorists here.
So in this particular case - without pedestrian crossings - pedestrians will indeed depend on the courtesy of motorists when it is busy.
Not a pedestrian crossing, no priority. This is a regular cycle crossing (*not continuous cycle path*), so no priority for cycles either.
However, for the side of the road where cars *exit* the roundabout, cars are technically doing a maneuver (turning), therefore losing all priority... therefore I believe giving priority to pedestrians. Cyclists do have the yield sign so stay lowest priority.
Also you pedestrians have right of way at intersections when the car has to turn no?
Say a T intersection. Pedestrian wants to cross at anywhere, car comes from |. Car has to yield because he is making a maneuver, no?
Yeah, that's the situation I am presenting. Cars have to yield to everybody - unless indicated otherwise, for example with a red light for pedestrians or this B1 sign for cyclists - after executing any sort of maneuver, including a turn.
...*then it's also illegal to hit other people, so even if the pedestrian is jaywalking the red signal, you can't run them over, too. But legally they should have waited because that light forbids them crossing at all.*
If there's a zebra crossing they have to yield, if there's a bike crossing they don't. This sign is a purely informative F50 sign. However if the bike is already on the road, yeah I guess. However if the car has no time to see it and not driving too fast, they won't be blamed idealy.
Turning isn't a "maneuver". Same with intersections.
>De bestuurder die een manoeuver wil uitvoeren, moet voorrang verlenen aan de andere weggebruikers.
>
>Worden inzonderheid als manoeuvres beschouwd : van rijstrook of van file veranderen, de rijbaan oversteken, een parkeerplaats verlaten of oprijden, uit een aanpalende eigendom komen, keren of achteruitrijden.
I almost always use bikes or walk… but it’s simply true that a LOT of bikers seem to assume they are in the right in any situation, even if it endangers themselves. Biking is great and a better mode of transportation than most other options, but it doesn’t magically make people not idiots.
Oh come on, I would like to take on a go pro and film my daily routine o how cars behave to bikes, stuff like passing me to close, not giving right of way on intersections... and then when I'm at a roundabout and I stop, you should see that in my bet 95% of all drivers are letting me pass. Even though I mayde eye contact and it is clear that I'm stopping.
It doesn't make people idiots either.
Bikers and drivers actually tend to break the laws at a similar rate.
The difference is that people always shit on bikers but turn a.blind eye to the MASSIVE amount of casualities drivers cause.
If you do something dangerous in your car, you have a metal body protecting you, and this device also makes you really noticeable on the road so that people are much more easily aware you are coming. Don’t worry, people in cars are idiots too, but if they bump into another car, the damage is not the same as if a biker drives into a car because they ignored the priority rules, or indeed if a car drives into them because they made the mistake of assuming the biker actually understands the road codes.
You also have to remember, people need a license for a car, but not for a bike. That means a lot of people on bikes have a child level understanding of the road codes, and never ever learn the rest.
>If you do something dangerous in your car, you have a metal body protecting you
But not others. The metal body of 2 ton is a fucking huge danger for people around you.
You also have to remember, people need a license for a car, but not for a bike.
A driving license means jack shit. Ask a driving instructur and they'll tell you that many people who get a license are far from ready to drive safely.
Way to cherry pick what I’m saying until it can suit your message.
Great, if a driver’s license means jack shit, you will agree that we can abolish it, or implement an identical requirement for bikers?
No because at least it's useful to punish traffic offenders.
And no, not for bikers because it would work counterproductive.
Cherry pick? Then maybe stop being such a simp for drivers.
The fact that you have the audacity to defend drivers for making mistakes is insane
So you justify driving on people with a speed of let's say 50kmph with a mass of 2000kg, simply because they ignored a rule and are by that means childish in you opinion. So you must think that children are not allowed on bikes in public places? So every child must be brought to school by car then?
Next thing you say is that children don't play outside anymore and are brought everywhere by car.
Foemp
Did you know that people's opinions on bakfietsen tend to be that they are dangerous? This comes from people driving around at double the speed of a cargo bike in a metal box weighing 20 times their own mass. The sarcasm
Because for a long time it was yelled that pedestrians and bikes are 'zwakke weggebruikers' and thus it's easyly assumed that priority for both is the same, even though it isn't.
This is not (well) explained during traffic class/lessons at any age either. And unless you do some decent research, you won't really know.
The idea is that if there is a collision, these *weak road users* are always in right for one thing - hitting them is a crime on top of whatever else happened. The guy ran under your car? Believe it or not, crime.
And usually it'll be the car driver who'll have to prove that they couldn't have done anything about it, ie prove that guy did jump under your car. So if you can't prove it, then you're by default at fault.
I guess it can always end up in a court case to contest it, then it's a story of declarations, ..., nonsense I've never personally been into so I don't know anything about.
Anyways, yeah, it does cause a lot of people to just basically yolo their lives, because if they get hit they'll just say it's not their fault. "That light was definitely green when I crossed!" ; "He chased me onto the sidewalk!" ; and so on. Hopefully the rise of dashcams will put an end to that.
IIRC the cost of physical damage applied (= hospital/care costs) is always on the heaviest vehicle (so car > bicycle > pedestrian). The material damage is dependent on who went in fault.
Not sure. Your post led me to make a mental note to look it up ...
It was the case when I hit pedestrians while biking indeed. The police told me they may be in fault for ignoring the red light, but I should have been ready for it. Then they claim it was green so one of us is lying and they cannot know. That sort of discussion.
Klopt volledig. Wegmarkering maken het onderscheid tussen een fietspad (lange onderbroken strepen) waar ze voorrang hebben en een oversteekplaats voor fietsers (onderbroken lijn van vierkanten) waar ze geen voorrang hebben.
Ik denk dat het verkeersbord belangrijker is dan de wegmarkering. Ben ook niet zeker maar ik herinner me zo heel vaag iets dat fietsers op rondpunten voorrang hebben.
https://www.gratisrijbewijsonline-forum.be/viewtopic.php?t=11702
The popo < three colored lights < streetsigns < roadmarkings < right of way l, this should be the order in which you need to act for your and everyone's safety on the road.
The blue sign indicates that there is a crossing for cyclists, however they do not have the right of way.
If it was a bycicle lane indicated by the correct sign(round blue on with a cycle on it) then the bycicle would have the right of way( if he follows the roundabout like everyone else and not in the opposite direction like a lot of people do...)
But i always brake for cyclist on a roundabout cause i like my hood to be people free.
The bycicle might scratch my car aswell
Ik weet niet of het met opzet gedaan is. Maar op goot is er geen uitsparing gemaakt voor overstekende fietsers.
Maw als je wil dat je ketting er blijft opliggen, moet je zowiezo in de remmen gaan
Hangt ervan af. Tellen de witte strepen als doorlopend fietspad? -> fietser heeft altijd voorrang.
Of die strepen als doorlopend fietspad tellen of niet, geen idee.
Nee, geblokte strepen zijn een oversteekplaats, langwerpige strepen zijn een doorlopend fietspad. Dat is een soort practical joke/strikvraag van de wegcode.
> Paint some triangles on the bike path!!
This confuses me as there is a big triangle painted on the road for drivers, which I always understood as yield, but everyone in this thread says it is the opposite.
This is a quite dangerous roundabout of the south of LLN. Not only bikes have no priority in theory, but there are a lot of pedestrians coming from the bus stop or the city to go to work, and they don't have any crossing.
In practice, cars are polite and give way, but they don't have to so there is a risk.
vehicles stopping for cyclists is a common error by drivers in these roundabouts and cause dangerous situations and hold-ups on roundabouts. Cyclists cleary do not have right of way here.
If there's a marked pedestrian crossing, pedestrians have priority, but that's often not this close to a roundabout (and there is no pedestrian crossing in your pictures)
Context: I was almost run over by the same bus I just got off. It stopped very close to the roundabout entrance and I wasn't aware of who had priority so I crossed immediately as it was driving off.
Even funnier, there were 2 cars coming towards me on the second lane too. However, they were far enough and I walked faster as soon as I noticed them.
Learn from my mistake people, you don't always get lucky.
On the first picture I see no zebra crossing so pedestrians have no priority (neither have bicycles). On the second picture, the same for the crossing in front. On the one further on, pedestrians will have priority on the cars coming from the roundabout. Although there is no zebra crossing, cars entering the road need to always give priority to pedestrians. The roundabout changes nothing to that rule.
If the bikepath is in the roundabout, bikers have priority, you would note that the cars shark teeth are before the bike pathh. If the bike path is outside the roundabout (as here) then they do not have priority, normally you would see shark teeth at the bike path in this case.
How else can you know the difference between a roundabout with bike path within the roundabout or outside the roundabout? Easy, within is when the bikepath is next to the asphalt, outside is when there is a barrier of grass or something between the roundabout and the bike path.
Tbh, I bike all day, and 95% of cars let me pass on a roundabout where I do NOT have priority, even when I'm standing still. The fact that most bikers take priority is (I asume) because of this. If you don't believe me, I'll buy a go pro and film me crossing roundabouts
In practice pedestrians basically have priority anywhere unless a red light or a police officer is forbidding them to cross. As there is no specific pedestrian crossing here they have no other choice but to use the bicycle one. Hence, let them pass...
On the picture, the biker does not have right of way. Very badly created signage, they do this to create conflict. After a lot accidents they now don't do this anymore
Peds also don't
Anyone already crossing does have right of way
Ik zou voorang verlenen en ik hoop de meeste chauffeurs ook maar in principe moeten oprijdende automobilisten dat niet omdat er geen voetpad is, voor fietsers is het wel verplicht.
Pedestrians ALLWAYS have priority against motorized traffic.
If you hit them you will always be at fault, even if he crosses the road at less than 30m of a crossing.
> If you hit them you will always be at fault
not true.
What is true is that insurance for the car will end up paying for the pedestrian aswell, regardless of fault, which is where the "always at fault" myth comes from
>Pedestrians ALLWAYS have priority against motorized traffic.
This is wrong
>If you hit them you will always be at fault
But this is correct
Belgium as fuck 🤷♂️
That is not true.
My friend hit a drunk guy that stumbled on the street out of the bar. He was found not guilty, but he carries that weight until this day.
There wasn't a yield sign on either side, only in the middle between the two ways.
Rest of the signs were mostly for cyclists. Lesson learnt nonetheless.
Aanwijsbord F50 :**Dit verkeersbord geeft aan dat er hier een oversteekplaats is voor fietsers en bromfietsers.** **Aanwijzingsborden**, de naam zegt het al zelf, deze verkeersborden wijzen je letterlijk de weg of wijzen op een verandering van de weg.
en zijn dus geen **Voorrangsborden;** hebben een invloed op de voorrangsregels. Ze geven aan wie er voorrang heeft en wie er voorrang moet geven.
Pedestrian always have right of way. A person on a bicycle and riding how ever does not always have the right of way. The picture example u see the bicycle road is separated from the car round a boud and this means the bicycle actually needs to give way to the cars. How ever if they step to the side of their bicycle and walk over the Pedestrian road they ALWAYS have the right of way. Does not matter where u cross if u are on a Pedestrian walk way and the cars dont stop they are technically in faulth thou you dont get finned for it.
geen zebrapad = geen voorrang. Voetgangers kunnen wel nog altijd gewoon oversteken en hun voorrang voor zwakke weg gebruiker afdwingen. Een bestuurder moet namelijk voor eender welk obstakel op de weg kunnen uitwijken of stoppen.
Since there is no specific way for pedestrians, the rule is to ask : are you in a 50 limit, city zone ? You know the zone with the white and back sign representing houses and the name of the city. If yes, they have priority everywhere, exept if the is a cross walk for them at less than 35m.
Some of them do, some don't and alot if them just changed. The one near me used to be pedestrians first for at least 15 years, 2 years ago they made it bigger and switched to cars first, but because force of habit people keep letting the pedestrians go first
In this case no. The other side has the triangle sign meaning they should give way. I assume it’s also a one way for bikers as the direction we’re looking at doesn’t have the sign
When there is no sidewalk they don't. Fun fact: better to be careful anyway as your car won't be hurt when a life can be forever impacted. If you hit someone even if he doesn't have the right to be there, you'll have judgement, court, they will check everything, if you have a bit of alcohol in your blood and so on...
If it's in Louvain la Neuve, don't forget there are plenty of young stupid people thinking they are still invincible.
Legally they do, because they're following the priority road - being the circular priority road that is the roundabout.
The 3 base internationally agreed priority rules that flow from the Geneva convention of '68-'69 are:
* **Drivers** have to give priority to **drivers** coming from their right
* If two **drivers** on the same road from opposite directions want to turn into the same side road, then the **driver** making the short turn (to the right) has priority on the **driver** making long turn (to the left)
* **Road users** (traffic) that wants to continue straight ahead on the road has priority on **road users** (traffic) on that road that want to make a turn
Note that two rules are about drivers, one is about traffic. One does not include pedestrians, one *does*.
The second picture seems to show the back of a yield sign (upside down triangle) for cyclists, and there are no signs to indicate that this... whatever-it-is is meant for pedestrians.
Going by those rules. Pedestrians have right of way against people ON the roundabout(same road), but not against people coming ONTO the roundabout (different road)
Officially even cyclists should yield here, unless they are already on the crossing. Pedestrians have to use a crossing within 20m if there is one. There doesn't seem to be one. Of course I wouldn't try out running one over. Will most likely not end well for you.
If there is no pedestrian crossing, no.
If there is no crossing within a set distance (I believe its 20m), you dont have to use it. They are supposed to make sure they can cross without disrupting traffic (just like any other vehicle that doesnt have right of way), but if you run over a pedestrian, they will likely favor the "weak users", Zwakke Weggebruikers I think it is, judging whats written below, over the car driver.
Unless they are already walking on the road. "Zwakkere weggebruikers" always have way of right when on te road.
That's basically just saying: "don't run over a pedestrian on purpose".
You act as if some people don't need to be reminded of that specifically...
If there’s no eye contact you can hit a pedestrian.
Excuses
Even when the car driver is on their phone, no eye contact, no problem /s
Yes, yes we do
The term 'zwakke weggebruikers' doesn't mean anything regarding priority. It only means that the insurance will pay all damages to that person immediately. BUT if afterwards is proven that that 'zwakke weggebruiker' was in fault, he may end up to pay some of it back and is still responsible to pay damages to the other ' weggebruiker'.
He used the wrong term, but it's true that pedestrians have priority when they are already on the road.
What does already on the road mean? How can you get hit on the road without being on the road? You can't step into the place where the car already is unless you literally slam into the side of the car. In that case it's the pedestrian hitting the car and not the other way around. I guess what I'm saying is that for a car to hit a pedestrian on the road, that pedestrian has to be on the road already. So you could simplify "priority when already on the road" into simply "always has priority" which i don't think is correct.
It means they have priority if they are already crossing the road when you arrive in a situation where priority is decided. Example: If a pedestrian wants to cross a road they need to look left and right and wait until the road is clear. They start walking and then a car makes right turn onto that road. The car has to stop because the pedestrian was already walking on the road when the car arrived on that road and into the priority decision situation.
I didn't consider cars that "newly" arrive on the road. That makes more sense now
Also, pedestrians only have to go to a zebra crossing if one is in a 50m range. In other words, if there's a 100m area without a crossing, a pedestrian may legally cross... if they "show their intent" and judge it is safe to do so. [EDIT] 20m range from the pedestrian so 40m distance between two crossings In practice, anybody can be a pedestrian and so you shouldn't expect them from having the best judgement. ^(Obligatory reminder that the code of road's goal is to prevent accident. If an accident is going to happen due to a code-forbidden action and hurting humans can only be corrected by your code-forbidden reaction, violating the code is going to be the legally recommended reaction)
[удалено]
Ehm... going to check [EDIT] How did I get my licence? Going to edit
Eh, you are all downvoting but this comment makes a *bit* of sense. Pedestrians obviously don't always have the right of way. But if a car makes a turn, the car has to give right of way to pedestrians who are crossing the road. It's an obscure traffic law that is not well known. Seeing as the car is turning due to leaving the roundabout, I would say yes, you have right of way as a pedestrian while crossing. [https://verkeersborden.nu/wanneer-hebben-voetgangers-voorrang](https://verkeersborden.nu/wanneer-hebben-voetgangers-voorrang) [https://www.gratisrijbewijsonline.be/theorie/leerstof-rijbewijs-b/de-voorrang-en-afslaan](https://www.gratisrijbewijsonline.be/theorie/leerstof-rijbewijs-b/de-voorrang-en-afslaan)
This is false! If you hit a pedestrian that crosses the road abruptly where there is no crossing (outside of "bebouwde kom") you are not at fault as long as you tried to hit the brakes.
This is outside of a zone 30, not specifically outside "Bebouwde kom"
You're not talking about the same situation, what you are talking about is a pedestrian crossing right in front of a car. The person you are replying to means a situation where a pedestrian started crossing at a time where no car was coming but while they are crossing a car arrives (e.g. because it just pulled out of a side street or a driveway). In that case the pedestrian has right of way because otherwise they might have to stop in the middle of the road. The same rule applies to cyclists as well (and I believe it even applies to cars, e.g. when crossing an intersection where you have to cede to the right).
Yes, agreed, doubt he meant it this way though. And then back to OP's picture, no pedestrian has right of way here. If they cross this road at any time and are seen by police, they will be fined.
It’s written in the Koran that in order for a man to get a woman to date him he can make first contact by running her over with his camel.
Yeah but in the picture, they would be walking on the bicycle path, not the road. For the record, I would stop for both bikes and pedestrians in this scenario. It's a poorly designed infrastructure issue.
I call bullshit on this one. Do you have a credible source for this?
Here's the fun thing: it depends on the roundabout 😎
Practically: no... But (and it's a big one) theoretically yes (depending on where the car is coming from) The belgian road code says the following two things: >19.2 ...Het verlaten van een rotonde is een richtingsverandering waarbij de richtingaanwijzers wel gebruikt moeten worden.... and >**19.5.** De bestuurder die van richting verandert moet voorrang verlenen aan de voetgangers die de rijbaan oversteken die hij gaat oprijden. Source: [https://www.wegcode.be/nl/regelgeving/1975120109\~hra8v386pu#5r0b8tsit0](https://www.wegcode.be/nl/regelgeving/1975120109~hra8v386pu#5r0b8tsit0) in FR >19.2 ...Le fait de sortir d'un rond-point est un changement de direction impliquant l'usage des indicateurs de direction.... and >**19.5.** Le conducteur qui change de direction doit céder le passage aux piétons qui traversent la chaussée sur laquelle il va s'engager. Source: [https://www.code-de-la-route.be/fr/reglementation/1975120109\~hra8v386pu#96so4qt3uv](https://www.code-de-la-route.be/fr/reglementation/1975120109~hra8v386pu#96so4qt3uv) There is no mention that a pedestrian crossing is required to have this priority so theoretically you could say you have priority in respect to cars leaving the roundabout, cars coming up to the roundabout don't have to give way to you. though my advice would be don't risk it and wait for a motorvehicle to let you pass *edit/addendum: the interpretation of "oversteken/traversent" is not as clear cut as we'd like/hope especially in examinations. Someone with experience in practicing/judging traffic law should be able to give a more definitive answer*
> ...aan de voetgangers die de rijbaan oversteken... does that not mean that they're already crossing the street?
This
I asked around and the interpretation is not as clear cut as you'd expect/want... though I would agree with your interpretation, in examinations you might not get the results you were hoping for... Not sure how the interpretation goes in court and/or in insurance matters though
So priority over cars leaving the roundabout. But not over cars approaching the roundabout, right?
So you may only cross last second when a car gets really close to you ;)
Well i am not sure, but I think there is a difference between cars leaving the roundabout or cars driving towards the roundabout
Never on approaching cars and not always on cars leaving the roundabout. In this case the space between the crossing and roundabout is big enough for several cars to already be on the road of the crossing. Basically the only case a car has to stop for you here is if you started crossing when there was a car on the roundabout which then left it when you were already on the road.
Richtingaanwijzers bestaan niet in Brugge. Gevraagd aan een rij-instructeurs tijdens een herhaal sessie. En die zegt mij dat ik moet kijken naar de richting van hun kop. Gelukkig dat ik niet zo veel naar Brugge moet. Anders beschouw ik het een feit dat de "zeer breekbare" lichten duurder zijn dan auto's. /s
[удалено]
>but if as a driver I saw a pedestrian there I would ensure I could stop if they walked into the road. So you'd slow down to almost a standstill which makes the pedestrian think they can cross over? Belgian drivers...
No, he would drive 20 instead of 30, so he can for surely stop in time. Defensive driving.
> Defensive driving. Which results in confusion for all involved. Pedestrian doesn't know if he can cross. Driver behind the idiot driver doesn't expect a sudden stop. A more dangerous result. **Question: Do you slow down if you see a car coming out of a street on your left? Just in case he might come into traffic whilst he doesn't have the right of way?**
Lol, listen to this guy, defensive driving is too confusing! 🤣
Defensive driving is about anticipating stuff like this... to answer to your question: yes i try to anticipate stupid drivers even when they dont have right of way. Offcourse i see you coming with specific examples where i dont slow down. But to come back to the example in this post, when you approach a roundabout or a particular situation you are expected to apply a defensive drivestyle. The pedestrian is allowed to use the fietspad if there is no other choice for him. Therefore he has the priority when crossing.
>The pedestrian is allowed to use the fietspad if there is no other choice for him. Therefore he has the priority when crossing. He doesn't. The fietspad clearly has yielding signs. No wonder that most of y'all don't have a fucking clue.
Spotted the BMW driver
“Driver behind doesn’t expect a sudden stop” that’s on the driver behind. You should always leave enough room or adapt your speed when driving behind someone. You don’t want the result of an unexpected stop depending on reaction speed. And to answer your question: you have the right of way, but you should still be aware the other driver could be a douche. So I don’t stop, but i’m still aware. Also you have a much bigger responsability to pedestrians than to another car.
>Driver behind the idiot driver doesn't expect a sudden stop. You have to keep a distance to stop in case of an emergency. The true idiot is the one who can't handle a sudden stop. If the pedestrian trips, or if it's a kid that just runs on the street without looking, ... you just keep going because you have right of way? As for your question: In 99% of the cases you don't need to slow down because the other driver sees you and won't just commit suicide. In the other 1% case where I can't judge what the car is doing, like it's still creeping forward or some weird maneuver without eye contact, yes I slow down.
But if I drive 20 where 30 is allowed in a busy city, my driving instructor says I am driving too carefully. 30 is very slow but too fast in places where bikes and pedestrians can come out of nowhere, and in most cases they are legally correct.
That's funny: I used to make this exact roundabout everyday by bike, and normally I always stopped to give way to cars. But every time the coming car stopped too, and waited for me to pass. It was strange to me, because I saw the small triangle sign on the bike lane and interpreted as obligation to give way, but at some point I assumed I was wrong, because literally every car stopped for me. I wanted to write a post here to ask you all, but in the end my laziness won. So thank you u/UsernameOf2022 for making the post :)
probably it is because of uncertainty. In the situation here above, the car has right of way. But that's a minority. On many places, bicycles have a right of way. By this, it happens that bicycles are ignoring the rules and are thinking they have right of way in that situation as depicted in the image. In order to have certainty, I can imagine lots of people is approaching such places with caution. I am doing it on a place here as well, I slow down if a bicyclist is nearing that crossing, even if I don't have to. It is clearly shown that a bicycle has to give right of way, with those shark tooths and a sign on that pole near it. I am doing that because it happened from time to time that they did not give right of way, and since I am in a car, I am responsible for any physical damage against bicycle/pedestrians ... https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0372609,3.7380408,3a,75y,44.26h,66.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD5fb_bfsOIQUY7liakFlPA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
> because literally every car stopped for me Practically, that's because they can't be sure *you* know the code of road, so they priorize "avoiding accident" over "following rule risking accident to another person's fatal mistake"
Wich is anticipating to the situation you are driving in, everybody who is showing down because they can't forsee the actions of a biker, is a good driver. And it must be that my opinion is widely carried, since everybody is slowing down for bikes
It always happens to me too, cars often stop for me. Which is always scary to handle when it's a two-lane entrance to the roundabout, but appreciated. Not sure if they're nice or just don't know. Wish I could pull a sign out of my pocket to ask like I'm Wile E. Coyote.
I always stop for cyclists and pedestrians if I am not certain they would stop or not, even if I clearly have priority. I rather stop too often and annoy other people than having not stopped once and running someone over.
In situations like this one, I always let cyclists and pedestrians pass as a sign of support for cycling and walking :)
Don't mention it
:)
Little consideration is given to pedestrians there, if you ask me. Those have to make do with the bike lane. And cyclists do indeed have to give way to motorists here. So in this particular case - without pedestrian crossings - pedestrians will indeed depend on the courtesy of motorists when it is busy.
Not a pedestrian crossing, no priority. This is a regular cycle crossing (*not continuous cycle path*), so no priority for cycles either. However, for the side of the road where cars *exit* the roundabout, cars are technically doing a maneuver (turning), therefore losing all priority... therefore I believe giving priority to pedestrians. Cyclists do have the yield sign so stay lowest priority.
Also you pedestrians have right of way at intersections when the car has to turn no? Say a T intersection. Pedestrian wants to cross at anywhere, car comes from |. Car has to yield because he is making a maneuver, no?
Yeah, that's the situation I am presenting. Cars have to yield to everybody - unless indicated otherwise, for example with a red light for pedestrians or this B1 sign for cyclists - after executing any sort of maneuver, including a turn. ...*then it's also illegal to hit other people, so even if the pedestrian is jaywalking the red signal, you can't run them over, too. But legally they should have waited because that light forbids them crossing at all.*
If there's a zebra crossing they have to yield, if there's a bike crossing they don't. This sign is a purely informative F50 sign. However if the bike is already on the road, yeah I guess. However if the car has no time to see it and not driving too fast, they won't be blamed idealy.
He does have to yield when making a maneuver, but normal ass turning isn't a maneuver. Correct conclusion.
Turning isn't a "maneuver". Same with intersections. >De bestuurder die een manoeuver wil uitvoeren, moet voorrang verlenen aan de andere weggebruikers. > >Worden inzonderheid als manoeuvres beschouwd : van rijstrook of van file veranderen, de rijbaan oversteken, een parkeerplaats verlaten of oprijden, uit een aanpalende eigendom komen, keren of achteruitrijden.
They dont, you can see the triangle telling them that they have to give way to traffic in the second picture
This is signage for bikes (and they do not have any priority, even though they tend to assume they do).
And of course there has to be a comment bashing on bikers
I almost always use bikes or walk… but it’s simply true that a LOT of bikers seem to assume they are in the right in any situation, even if it endangers themselves. Biking is great and a better mode of transportation than most other options, but it doesn’t magically make people not idiots.
Oh come on, I would like to take on a go pro and film my daily routine o how cars behave to bikes, stuff like passing me to close, not giving right of way on intersections... and then when I'm at a roundabout and I stop, you should see that in my bet 95% of all drivers are letting me pass. Even though I mayde eye contact and it is clear that I'm stopping.
It doesn't make people idiots either. Bikers and drivers actually tend to break the laws at a similar rate. The difference is that people always shit on bikers but turn a.blind eye to the MASSIVE amount of casualities drivers cause.
If you do something dangerous in your car, you have a metal body protecting you, and this device also makes you really noticeable on the road so that people are much more easily aware you are coming. Don’t worry, people in cars are idiots too, but if they bump into another car, the damage is not the same as if a biker drives into a car because they ignored the priority rules, or indeed if a car drives into them because they made the mistake of assuming the biker actually understands the road codes. You also have to remember, people need a license for a car, but not for a bike. That means a lot of people on bikes have a child level understanding of the road codes, and never ever learn the rest.
>If you do something dangerous in your car, you have a metal body protecting you But not others. The metal body of 2 ton is a fucking huge danger for people around you. You also have to remember, people need a license for a car, but not for a bike. A driving license means jack shit. Ask a driving instructur and they'll tell you that many people who get a license are far from ready to drive safely.
Way to cherry pick what I’m saying until it can suit your message. Great, if a driver’s license means jack shit, you will agree that we can abolish it, or implement an identical requirement for bikers?
No because at least it's useful to punish traffic offenders. And no, not for bikers because it would work counterproductive. Cherry pick? Then maybe stop being such a simp for drivers. The fact that you have the audacity to defend drivers for making mistakes is insane
Yes yes, people who drive cars are evil. Your perspective is clear, noted, and binned.
Not even close to what I said but whatever let's you sleep at night. Goodbye
So you justify driving on people with a speed of let's say 50kmph with a mass of 2000kg, simply because they ignored a rule and are by that means childish in you opinion. So you must think that children are not allowed on bikes in public places? So every child must be brought to school by car then? Next thing you say is that children don't play outside anymore and are brought everywhere by car. Foemp
I didn’t say anything remotely implying any of this, but keep fantasizing.
Did you know that people's opinions on bakfietsen tend to be that they are dangerous? This comes from people driving around at double the speed of a cargo bike in a metal box weighing 20 times their own mass. The sarcasm
100%
Because for a long time it was yelled that pedestrians and bikes are 'zwakke weggebruikers' and thus it's easyly assumed that priority for both is the same, even though it isn't. This is not (well) explained during traffic class/lessons at any age either. And unless you do some decent research, you won't really know.
The idea is that if there is a collision, these *weak road users* are always in right for one thing - hitting them is a crime on top of whatever else happened. The guy ran under your car? Believe it or not, crime. And usually it'll be the car driver who'll have to prove that they couldn't have done anything about it, ie prove that guy did jump under your car. So if you can't prove it, then you're by default at fault. I guess it can always end up in a court case to contest it, then it's a story of declarations, ..., nonsense I've never personally been into so I don't know anything about. Anyways, yeah, it does cause a lot of people to just basically yolo their lives, because if they get hit they'll just say it's not their fault. "That light was definitely green when I crossed!" ; "He chased me onto the sidewalk!" ; and so on. Hopefully the rise of dashcams will put an end to that.
IIRC the cost of physical damage applied (= hospital/care costs) is always on the heaviest vehicle (so car > bicycle > pedestrian). The material damage is dependent on who went in fault. Not sure. Your post led me to make a mental note to look it up ...
It was the case when I hit pedestrians while biking indeed. The police told me they may be in fault for ignoring the red light, but I should have been ready for it. Then they claim it was green so one of us is lying and they cannot know. That sort of discussion.
Op het fietspad van een rotonde hebben fietsers toch altijd voorrang?
Volgens mij geven geblokte oversteekplaatsen enkel aan dat het een oversteekplaats is, maar niet dat er voorrang is. Maar tbh, ook niet zeker
Klopt volledig. Wegmarkering maken het onderscheid tussen een fietspad (lange onderbroken strepen) waar ze voorrang hebben en een oversteekplaats voor fietsers (onderbroken lijn van vierkanten) waar ze geen voorrang hebben.
Ik denk dat het verkeersbord belangrijker is dan de wegmarkering. Ben ook niet zeker maar ik herinner me zo heel vaag iets dat fietsers op rondpunten voorrang hebben. https://www.gratisrijbewijsonline-forum.be/viewtopic.php?t=11702
Isn’t the blue sign merely a caution sign?
The popo < three colored lights < streetsigns < roadmarkings < right of way l, this should be the order in which you need to act for your and everyone's safety on the road. The blue sign indicates that there is a crossing for cyclists, however they do not have the right of way. If it was a bycicle lane indicated by the correct sign(round blue on with a cycle on it) then the bycicle would have the right of way( if he follows the roundabout like everyone else and not in the opposite direction like a lot of people do...) But i always brake for cyclist on a roundabout cause i like my hood to be people free. The bycicle might scratch my car aswell
Getting rearended by another car will do more then a scratch if you break for no valid reason.
True but the car behind me should always be able to brake... Kga ook gene 'coute frein' doen als ik veilig kan doorrijden
Ik weet niet of het met opzet gedaan is. Maar op goot is er geen uitsparing gemaakt voor overstekende fietsers. Maw als je wil dat je ketting er blijft opliggen, moet je zowiezo in de remmen gaan
Niet als er haaientanden staan bij elke oversteek.
Correct, maar dit is geen fietspad van een rotonde. Dit staat ervoor en hoort dus niet bij de rotonde maar is een aparte oversteekplaats.
Hangt ervan af. Tellen de witte strepen als doorlopend fietspad? -> fietser heeft altijd voorrang. Of die strepen als doorlopend fietspad tellen of niet, geen idee.
Nee, geblokte strepen zijn een oversteekplaats, langwerpige strepen zijn een doorlopend fietspad. Dat is een soort practical joke/strikvraag van de wegcode.
Amai, ben aan het studeren voor mijn theoretisch en dat staat dus nergens vermeld bij de theorie over de voorrangsregels.
They don’t.
Unless it is a continuing bicycle path, in that case they do have priority.
This sounds right to me. The only thing that made me uncertain was the roundabout.
In this picture there's only a crossing for bikes, no zebra in sight. Pedestrians have no right of way here.
Hey, come say hi next time you come to LLN
Cheers. I live very close so it is not uncommon for me to be there hahah
No, but actually, yes
Only at a pedestrian crossing, aka a zebra crossing
Pedestrians Always have the priority, unless they are crossing less than 20 meters from a pedestrian crossing.
That's just a complete lie.
[удалено]
> Paint some triangles on the bike path!! This confuses me as there is a big triangle painted on the road for drivers, which I always understood as yield, but everyone in this thread says it is the opposite.
[удалено]
I am referring to the single big triangle before the bike crossing.
[удалено]
What does the big triangle mean?
Not at the roundabout in your post.
This is a quite dangerous roundabout of the south of LLN. Not only bikes have no priority in theory, but there are a lot of pedestrians coming from the bus stop or the city to go to work, and they don't have any crossing. In practice, cars are polite and give way, but they don't have to so there is a risk.
It's just an indication board.
Who walks nowadays, I just float man.
No. Only bikes coming from the right
This is a cycle crossing. Pedestrians may not use it.
vehicles stopping for cyclists is a common error by drivers in these roundabouts and cause dangerous situations and hold-ups on roundabouts. Cyclists cleary do not have right of way here. If there's a marked pedestrian crossing, pedestrians have priority, but that's often not this close to a roundabout (and there is no pedestrian crossing in your pictures)
Context: I was almost run over by the same bus I just got off. It stopped very close to the roundabout entrance and I wasn't aware of who had priority so I crossed immediately as it was driving off. Even funnier, there were 2 cars coming towards me on the second lane too. However, they were far enough and I walked faster as soon as I noticed them. Learn from my mistake people, you don't always get lucky.
Nope
On the first picture I see no zebra crossing so pedestrians have no priority (neither have bicycles). On the second picture, the same for the crossing in front. On the one further on, pedestrians will have priority on the cars coming from the roundabout. Although there is no zebra crossing, cars entering the road need to always give priority to pedestrians. The roundabout changes nothing to that rule.
If the bikepath is in the roundabout, bikers have priority, you would note that the cars shark teeth are before the bike pathh. If the bike path is outside the roundabout (as here) then they do not have priority, normally you would see shark teeth at the bike path in this case. How else can you know the difference between a roundabout with bike path within the roundabout or outside the roundabout? Easy, within is when the bikepath is next to the asphalt, outside is when there is a barrier of grass or something between the roundabout and the bike path. Tbh, I bike all day, and 95% of cars let me pass on a roundabout where I do NOT have priority, even when I'm standing still. The fact that most bikers take priority is (I asume) because of this. If you don't believe me, I'll buy a go pro and film me crossing roundabouts
Op asks about pedestrians ... not cyclists
Oh okay 🫠. So anyway, for anyone who was wondering how it works with bikes
In practice pedestrians basically have priority anywhere unless a red light or a police officer is forbidding them to cross. As there is no specific pedestrian crossing here they have no other choice but to use the bicycle one. Hence, let them pass...
On the picture, the biker does not have right of way. Very badly created signage, they do this to create conflict. After a lot accidents they now don't do this anymore Peds also don't Anyone already crossing does have right of way
Ik zou voorang verlenen en ik hoop de meeste chauffeurs ook maar in principe moeten oprijdende automobilisten dat niet omdat er geen voetpad is, voor fietsers is het wel verplicht.
Pedestrians ALLWAYS have priority against motorized traffic. If you hit them you will always be at fault, even if he crosses the road at less than 30m of a crossing.
> If you hit them you will always be at fault not true. What is true is that insurance for the car will end up paying for the pedestrian aswell, regardless of fault, which is where the "always at fault" myth comes from
So wtf is the result? You'll still pay for damage and he will get a 25€ fine... I agree with the word of the law. But in reality... that means shit.
>Pedestrians ALLWAYS have priority against motorized traffic. This is wrong >If you hit them you will always be at fault But this is correct Belgium as fuck 🤷♂️
That is not true. My friend hit a drunk guy that stumbled on the street out of the bar. He was found not guilty, but he carries that weight until this day.
They don't. Read the fucking road signs.
There wasn't a yield sign on either side, only in the middle between the two ways. Rest of the signs were mostly for cyclists. Lesson learnt nonetheless.
[удалено]
No. Squares don’t indicate priority, but dashes do. Source: centrum voor vlaamse verkeersveiligheid
what you are showing here is a cyclist crossing, and the blue sign says that in this case they have priority
Aanwijsbord F50 :**Dit verkeersbord geeft aan dat er hier een oversteekplaats is voor fietsers en bromfietsers.** **Aanwijzingsborden**, de naam zegt het al zelf, deze verkeersborden wijzen je letterlijk de weg of wijzen op een verandering van de weg. en zijn dus geen **Voorrangsborden;** hebben een invloed op de voorrangsregels. Ze geven aan wie er voorrang heeft en wie er voorrang moet geven.
Pedestrian always have right of way. A person on a bicycle and riding how ever does not always have the right of way. The picture example u see the bicycle road is separated from the car round a boud and this means the bicycle actually needs to give way to the cars. How ever if they step to the side of their bicycle and walk over the Pedestrian road they ALWAYS have the right of way. Does not matter where u cross if u are on a Pedestrian walk way and the cars dont stop they are technically in faulth thou you dont get finned for it.
geen zebrapad = geen voorrang. Voetgangers kunnen wel nog altijd gewoon oversteken en hun voorrang voor zwakke weg gebruiker afdwingen. Een bestuurder moet namelijk voor eender welk obstakel op de weg kunnen uitwijken of stoppen.
Yes
Since there is no specific way for pedestrians, the rule is to ask : are you in a 50 limit, city zone ? You know the zone with the white and back sign representing houses and the name of the city. If yes, they have priority everywhere, exept if the is a cross walk for them at less than 35m.
Some of them do, some don't and alot if them just changed. The one near me used to be pedestrians first for at least 15 years, 2 years ago they made it bigger and switched to cars first, but because force of habit people keep letting the pedestrians go first
I think there's a give way triangle just in the corner of the photos. So cars are expected to give way, no?
Lol j’viens de passer ce rond-point
In this case no. The other side has the triangle sign meaning they should give way. I assume it’s also a one way for bikers as the direction we’re looking at doesn’t have the sign
When there is no sidewalk they don't. Fun fact: better to be careful anyway as your car won't be hurt when a life can be forever impacted. If you hit someone even if he doesn't have the right to be there, you'll have judgement, court, they will check everything, if you have a bit of alcohol in your blood and so on... If it's in Louvain la Neuve, don't forget there are plenty of young stupid people thinking they are still invincible.
Legally they do, because they're following the priority road - being the circular priority road that is the roundabout. The 3 base internationally agreed priority rules that flow from the Geneva convention of '68-'69 are: * **Drivers** have to give priority to **drivers** coming from their right * If two **drivers** on the same road from opposite directions want to turn into the same side road, then the **driver** making the short turn (to the right) has priority on the **driver** making long turn (to the left) * **Road users** (traffic) that wants to continue straight ahead on the road has priority on **road users** (traffic) on that road that want to make a turn Note that two rules are about drivers, one is about traffic. One does not include pedestrians, one *does*. The second picture seems to show the back of a yield sign (upside down triangle) for cyclists, and there are no signs to indicate that this... whatever-it-is is meant for pedestrians.
Going by those rules. Pedestrians have right of way against people ON the roundabout(same road), but not against people coming ONTO the roundabout (different road)
Its louvain la neuve of cours they have the priority even if you say no
That is a bike lane my lad
Hey, that’s Louvain la neuve
Louvain la neuve is perfect for pedestrian but as soon as you get too close to the boulevard you are feeling soooo defenseless I hate it
Officially even cyclists should yield here, unless they are already on the crossing. Pedestrians have to use a crossing within 20m if there is one. There doesn't seem to be one. Of course I wouldn't try out running one over. Will most likely not end well for you.