A Step In The Right Direction?

One might hope so, but the lack of signage might make it the most dangerous!!

My thought was that our European colleagues might be particularly vulnerable. If a Dutchman or Dane were to use that crossing as they would in Amsterdam or Copenhagen, they could well be taken out by a Brit Cage Jockey, using the tactics usually employed to negotiate Hyde Pak Corner!

The trouble with the zebra crossing model is that pedestrians only have right of way once they have already stepped on the crossing. This rather invites drivers to only look a relatively short distance either side of the crossing, meaning that cyclists can only safely make use of the priority if slowing to walking speed. This negates much of the advantage, therefore still making it preferable to just cycle on the road.

In any case it could be argued that the zebra crossing markings only apply to pedestrians, so that if cyclists want priority they have to dismount. This interpretation is particularly reinforced by the fact that the zebra crossing near the main road has signs telling cyclists to dismount to use the crossing.

So if it is to be treated as a normal give way, where drivers have to be prepared to give way to bicycles travelling at normal road speed, it really needs proper give way markings (double dashed line and triangle). Then there can be no argument about it. It is still helpful for sake of pedestrians to have the zebra crossing markings there as well, but the priority for cyclists would not depend on them.

(“Drivers” used above for convenience to refer to all intersecting traffic. Can of course include cyclists.)

Just so you know, quote from Highway Code:

“Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.”

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/crossing-the-road-79-to-82

Indeed, but I think the main thing is for them to decide whether or not the *intention* is for allow cyclists to ride across with priority.

If so, then proper give way markings are imperative, and also for the reason you mention it would have been better to only draw the zebra crossing markings across the portion of the width that is to be used by pedestrians, though realistically I can’t see them changing that now.

Or if not, then so be it, but in that case it offers next to no extra incentive to use the path rather than the road.

I’d be interested to know what the split is between road/path cyclists. Certainly among the group of 6/7 cyclists I work with it’s definitely weighted to the road largely due to the lack of priority on the roundabout. I don’t think uncertainty over this crossing is going to change any attitudes on that.