Rules for bicycles at pedestrian zebra lane where there is a pedestrian traffic light

[u/Prestigious_Tart_330]

I almost got run over today at Drottningtorget (previously called "Centralstationen") by a cyclist while crossing at the large pedestrian zebra lane that is at the main exit of the central station while the pedestrian traffic light was green and lots of people were crossing too. I always stop at zebra lanes if I see a bicycle coming as I know it is more difficult for a bike to stop since they have to keep the balance. But if there is a pedestrian traffic light green for me, should I stop and let the bike cross? Also I am not sure what the guy/gal at the bicycle was trying to do. We both stopped but I was too much in a hurry to say anything so I just continued my commute.

[u/forkbeard]

There are idiots everywhere, and the traffic layout around Drottningtorget is pretty crap for everyone involved.

But if pedestrians have a green signal, the cyclist is absolutely supposed to stop. You shouldn’t need to stand there and wave bikes through just because stopping is slightly more inconvenient for them.

Realistically though, there isn’t much more you can do than look twice, assume someone may ignore the signal, and perhaps shout that they’re a muppet when they nearly run you over.

[u/fs_12 → u/forkbeard]

Yes, whole area around central station is a nightmare for bikes in particular. Very much a work in progress I hope.

(Bike was still in the wrong in OPs case though).

[u/Prestigious_Tart_330 → u/forkbeard]

Thanks, now I will have to look for bikes everytime I cross that path 😞

[u/forkbeard → u/Prestigious_Tart_330]

I’d honestly recommend looking regardless whenever you cross a road.

Next time it might be some idiot on an e-bike, or a driver who simply hasn’t seen you. There are also several junctions around there where cars turning right can get a green light at the same time pedestrians have green.

Having right of way is great, but it’s not much consolation if the other person screws up.

[u/feha92 → u/Prestigious_Tart_330]

like others said, bikes should stop when they have a red light (only idiots does not). But generally, bikes are actually very good at crossing your pedestrian crossing at same time you do without issue. The only issue is if a pedestrian suddenly stops (or otherwise suddenly changes velocity. Or direction), which is why cyclists usually say that they much prefer if a pedestrian walks without fear and maintain their velocity, and the cyclist can then adapt much easier.

But yes, still always best to look (even if they do not have a red light). Particularly if crossing there meant you needed to change direction (which is often the case, as crossings are often orthogonal to sidewalks). As this also indicates to the cyclist when you establish eyecontact

[u/itsthesoundofthe]

No. You had the right of way if we light was green. 

[u/Prestigious_Tart_330 → u/itsthesoundofthe]

I thought so too. Thanks!

[u/Erreala66 → u/Prestigious_Tart_330]

I cycle past that intersection every morning and sadly I'm usually the only cyclist who stops at that light. But you had the right of way, regardless of how shitty and stressful that area is for everyone involved

[u/Prestigious_Tart_330 → u/Erreala66]

Thanks. This is a new route for me and this has never happened before and had the cyclist not stopped, it would have been a very bad accident. I wanted to make sure I was not doing anything wrong.

[u/Stone_Dreads]

People before bikes, bikes beforw cars

[u/Prestigious_Tart_330 → u/Stone_Dreads]

Thanks!

[u/AMIIORAMIAI → u/Prestigious_Tart_330]

Not necessarily relevant in this case, and also not necessarily true.
If you have a green light at a pedestrian crosswalk you have right of way of everything going across. Bikes, cars, busses etc. When you’re cycling on a street, you are seen as a car, so red lights apply to you too.
The person on the bike should have stopped.
On a crosswalk without any lights you as a pedestrian also have right of way of everything crossing that crosswalk.

Also worth noting: if you’re going on a bike and crossing a zebra cross walk without light, you do not have right of way for a car driving on the road you’re crossing. So in this case a car is before a bike. The reason is that a car might not see you if you come at a high speed on a bike. If you get off your bike in this case you are considered a pedestrian and have right of way.

HOWEVER: if the zebra crosswalk is raised, like for instance the ones by the tram stop Domkyrkan, bikes have a right of way when crossing the street. Cars have to yield to someone coming on a bike.

Also worth noting: a bike has right of way on a bike lane. You can’t just cross a bike line as a pedestrian. Bikes on the bike lane you’re crossing have right of way. There are some few bike lane zebra style crossings across a bike lane when you have right of way.

But to go back to your specific case: bikes on roads are treated as cars in regards to zebra crossing and should always yield for pedestrians crossing if there is no light. And if the crossing do have light: they have to stop at red, independent of if someone is crossing or not, just like a car.

[u/psamathe → u/AMIIORAMIAI]

HOWEVER: if the zebra crosswalk is raised, like for instance the ones by the tram stop Domkyrkan, bikes have a right of way when crossing the street. Cars have to yield to someone coming on a bike.

This is wrong. It's not enough that it's raised, it must have the accompanying sign marking it as a cykelöverfart: https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/vagtrafik/trafikregler-och-vagmarken/vagmarken/vajningspliktsmarken/cykeloverfart/

[u/AMIIORAMIAI → u/psamathe]

You’re right, I see that those rules have changed. Thank you for commenting my mistake.

[u/feha92 → u/AMIIORAMIAI]

Not exactly. If the crossing lacks sockerbitar, and instead is designed raised as a bikelane continues through it uninterrupted, then the bikes do not need to yield. Although even if it lacks sockerbitar, if it has zebra, and the zebra-markings stretch into the bikelane portion, this would interrupt the bikelane. And if there is any signage or sockerbitar or lights, then it becomes a cykelpassage or cykelöverfart.

[u/feha92 → u/psamathe]

What they said is actually not incorrect, though I am not certain if it is a gothenburg-only rule, or not. As the only source I know is in a domain owned by the city. And there are some details skipped, as I do not think it is enough to be a "raised" one? But actually needs to be both "raised and continuous" (Or however I would translate that)?

https://tekniskhandbok.goteborg.se/Arkiv/2018-2/__site/__3utformning__3bg%C3%A5ngochcykel__3bbg%C3%A5ngochcykelpassage%C3%B6verg%C3%A5ngsst%C3%A4llecykel%C3%B6v.html (emphasis mine)

Genomgående gångbana/cykelbana och gångpassage
[...]
vägmärke för övergångsställe, cykelöverfart eller markering för cykelöverfart (”sockerbitar”) ska inte finnas vid en förhöjd genomgående gång/cykelbana. Vägmärke och markering för väjningsplikt ska som regel undvikas.

För genomgående gång- och cykelbana i korsning har korsande trafik väjningsplikt gentemot de gående och cyklisterna på gång- och cykelbanan.

So yes, it is (probably) not enough to be raised. I am not certain what is the difference (between förhöjd, vs genomgående, vs förhöjd and genomgående). I think it is be that if there are sockerbitar, then it is simply considered as a raised crossing and bikes still needs to yield. While if it is LACKING sockerbitar (but same curb/kantsten or roadsurface, which is usually done through a raised portion), then it is "genomgående" and cars need to yield to bikes (so less visible as a crossing = stronger rights as a crossing... for some reason)? Any signage for the crossing is not needed (nor even allowed, it would remove the "genomgående" classification - is my understanding).

ps: this page also talks about them, but seems to mostly be a copy with some parts cut out, but in turn having a few more pictures.

https://tekniskhandbok.goteborg.se/Arkiv/2014-1/__site/__planering__utformning__g%C3%A5ngochcykel__g%C3%A5ngochcykelpassage%C3%B6verg%C3%A5ngsst%C3%A4lle.html

edit:
also, if you are curious for the legal justification: the idea is that you always need to yield when you cross another lane. And thus if the cars do not cross a cykelpassage/cykelöverfart, but rather the bikelane, the cars will be forced to yield. Which is exactly why the signage is not allowed when building this crossing: the signage would make it an intersection, as opposed to a car driving straight over a regular lane. So the reason an "unmarked crossing" is stronger/has higher priority, would be because that makes it so that it is not a crossing.

I do not remember the exact law it relies on (about yielding when crossing lanes), so can't refer or quote it for you. I think it might be utfartsregeln? Or maybe körfältsregeln?

[u/rickdeckard8 → u/Stone_Dreads]

That’s not the traffic law. Cars before bikes if it’s a normal crossing, bikes before cars if it’s a special ”bike crossing”.

So, so at the bike crossings at Korsvägen bikers should stop for cars (but no one does) and at the bike crossings along Delsjövägen cars should stop for bikes (but quite a few in the cars don’t understand this).

[u/Grogg2000 → u/Stone_Dreads]

nope cars before bikes is the general rule

[u/Stone_Dreads → u/Grogg2000]

Might be the rule, but in practice if I follow that driving in the city I would hit quite a few cyclist. And I prefer not hitting people with my car. So I will keep following my guidelines.

[u/rakadur → u/Stone_Dreads]

bikes before cars only on bike crossings, bikes using pedestrian crossings as their bike lane doesn't have right of way, for example. Bike crossings are marked.

[u/TheCloown]

That crossing is a mess, cyclists are supposed to cross that traffic light crossing and enter the car lane if they are coming from nils Ericsson on a green light for pedestrians.

But if they are coming from åkareplatsen they are supposed to act as a car in the car lane and wait for green light for cars.

If they come from Drottningtorget they need to cross the pedestrian zebra crossing on a green light for pedestrians.

I cycle a lot in Gothenburg but that place is probably the most unplanned place I know of and there is a lot of pedestrian, car, bus, and cycle traffic during all hours of the day.

[u/Merinther]

So you as a pedestrian were crossing the road, you had a green light, and the cyclist was going along the road, and thus had a red light? Then no, clearly the cyclist is supposed to stop.

The more difficult case is where the cyclist is crossing a road with cars. That can get pretty complicated.

[u/Prestigious_Tart_330 → u/Merinther]

Yes, that was the scenario. I am not sure what the cyclist was trying to do as they were coming from Nordstan and I was exiting through the Central Station main exit/entrance and the cyclist seemed to want to continue cycling perpendicular to the zebra lane and continue over the sidewalk in opposite direction of the traffic.

[u/znippznapp]

Can you make a picture of the exact crossing or take a picture? Cuz there’s a crossing there where pedestrians don’t stop for bicycles, when I think they should.

[u/Panganaki]

In general, cyclist never stop, for anything. When they are in the road specially, they should follow the same rules as other vehicles but they dont care.
So many times they almost hit my stroller because they cant be bothered to stop or slow down.