-
Cyclist has right of way
-
'Right of way' is often used when people mean 'priority' or trying to describe a 'give way' situation. This is wrong usage. Over here, the term refers to established rights of way, e.g. the alignment of a bridle path.
The drawing that marcomarcos has is obviously correct (and has the correct terminology).
I don't have any experience of the Selborne Road crossing, so I'll take your word for it that it doesn't work in the way you describe. I'd say the reason for that may well be that it's not apparent to drivers why riders should want to cross here--there are railings on the south side of Selborne Road, and the idea that the crossing is there because cyclists might want to continue on the footway on that side (alongside Selborne Road) probably doesn't occur to most drivers.
A better implementation of the same type of crossing is in Lower Clapton Road, and although there are still serious problems with this design, drivers are generally very good at giving way there:
I'd say this is because there's a clear alignment that crosses the main street here, so that the crossing visibly has that purpose. Other factors are probably that the street is less wide and less straight.
What they should have done in Selborne Road is to install a (signalised) toucan crossing, old-fashioned and cumbersome though they are. It does happen that some design that happens to be modish goes in in lots of places, and in some cases it'll be good (also in Richmond Road, E8) and in other places it doesn't really work. Horses for courses.
You are reading a single comment by @exteroceptive and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
marcomarcos
Oliver Schick
@exteroceptive
What's the right of way situation at a combined pedestrian and cycle path crossing? Most of these crossings it seems like traffic will stop for a pedestrian but not a cyclist, despite being on essentially the same path.
An example outside the shopping centre in Walthamstow:
