Comment & Analysis: My hometown of Ballina has several uncontrolled crossings with solid line markings that appear to lack a legal basis and do not appear in design guidance from the relevant national authorities. These crossings are found in other towns and minor access points and side streets in cities, but they are unusually prominent in a few locations in Ballina.It should be said that nothing in this article is legal advice, and the point of this article is to ask Mayo County Council to stop holding onto the past and do the right thing. A local media report recently covered how councillors think the crossings are dangerous. Especially the crossings along the one-way system which goes around the two main bridges in the town. The report on Independent.ie calls these crossings courtesy crossings, but there is no such concept in Irish road traffic law.If you do a Google search of the law at irishstatutebook.ie for courtesy crossing/s, it will tell you it did not match any documents.As far as I can tell, it is a concept that Mayo County Council (and maybe some others) borrowed from the UK, and it led to it being mentioned in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets. It mainly was used to refer to these types of raised crossings that can be found in Westport (pictured), Ballina, Castlebar, etc., and many similar towns around the country.Heres an example of one of the raised courtesy crossings in Westport going by local media reports, they also seem to be the bane of some local councillors there:And thats where there starts to be a large problem starts with media reports and councils implying that X road user does or does not have the right of way at these locations. Without legal backing, the yielding situation at these crossings should be treated as the same as locations where there is no crossing. This adds even more danger as these crossings at different locations (at or away from junctions) seem like they might have a different level of priority for pedestrians.Legislation on yielding The Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations 1997, as amended, include the following:(3) A driver of a vehicle approaching a road junction or a cycle track crossing shall yield the right of way to another vehicle which has commenced to turn or cross at the junction or cycle track crossing in accordance with these Regulations and to a pedestrian who has commenced to cross at the junction in accordance with these Regulations.Note that this refers to general situations, not at crossings. Theres a semi-official myth that the above means something that it does not, that it means a foot needs to be on the carragway. The phrase commenced crossing as far as I can tell is not defined in the regulations or the primary law, the Road Traffic Acts.A Judge might not have the same view as a traffic engineer. In plain English and going by basic physics, commencing crossing does not mean a foot on the carriageway; most people commence or start crossing when theyre still on a footpath. You set off to cross from the footpath, not when youre already on the carrageway. Traffic Signs ManualThe Traffic Signs Manual is not the law, but is generally based on law and is often seen as a bible for engineers I know some councils and consultants refused or at least were wary to implement Cycle Design Guidance until it was backed by the Traffic Signs Manual. So, it is very odd that engineers stick by It is of significant note that the Traffic Signs Manual section on markings does not include the type of crossing markings used at the bridges in Ballina.While the Traffic Signs Manual is not the law (there are actually some errors which are being corrected at the moment) and councils sometimes use designs that might not fully comply with it, theres good reasoning why road/street designers generally want to follow it.Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets While it is only a statement which could be seen as wishful thinking given our current roads and streets, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets states that To encourage more sustainable travel patterns and safer streets, designers must place pedestrians at the top of the user hierarchy.Councils using crossings which they think have little or no pedestrian priority clearly goes against the hierarchy.The Rules of the RoadOn yielding the Rules of the Road states: You must always yield to: pedestrians already crossing at a junction. To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety, a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians It is important to understand that the right-of-way is not an absolute right-of-way. You must proceed with caution, having regard for other road users.On uncontrolled crossing places, the Rules of the Road state:Generally uncontrolled crossing places (courtesy crossings) are designated shared areas of road. They are coloured, slightly raised or patterned cobbled sections of road, and drivers should be aware of the potential dangers of pedestrians approaching or crossing on them. It is also important to point out that pedestrians do not have an automatic right of way when using these crossings. Pedestrians need to be alert and aware that traffic may suddenly approach from either direction.The last point that there is no automatic right of way is a weird one. Theres actually no automatic right-of-way. The funny thing about the phrasing is that even a push-button-activated fully signalled crossing isnt automatic. So, even if a road user does not have automatic right of way, the questions motorists must ask is: Should you yield your right of way? Do you have, give or take right of way? There was a good explainer from the old National Cycle Manual on understanding on who has the right of way:Road users frequently ask Who has right of way? in particular circumstances. Under Irish law, all road users have equal right of way. Rather, the question is Who is expected to yield their right of way?, as opposed to Who has right of way?Thats why old yield signs said yield right of way. The old manual added: All road users, including emergency vehicles and cyclists alike, are expected to proceed with due care and consideration for other road users in all cases, irrespective of who has right of way.Lets look at all the context togetherUnder the principle of Who is expected to yield their right of way?, the majority of people, including local motorists, have decided that it is indeed pedestrians who have a right of way at the bridges, even if the designs of the crossings are non-prescribed and not backed by law.Regular users of designs have more insight into how such a design can safely work than visitors to an area can. So, theres an expectation that motorists should yield.The problem is when visitors or the odd local are not following the norm. Then you have a child walking, and a motorist doesnt yield, and the motorist will likely be found at primary fault by the Courts. Like in this situation where the person had their foot on the carragway, but the motorist still did not yield:IMAGE: This was a UK-reg SUV.And regardless of legal liability, the council will be at fault at least morally for not providing clear crossings that are backed by law and instead using a non-standard design.The council are risking both the safety of residents (especially vulnerable groups such as children, disabled people, older people, etc.).I dont know if the councils also risk liability because of their old-school thinking on how roads work and making up designs that do not follow the law or national guidance. But they should own up to the design of their own roads and not keep pointing to a lack of funding or other issues. If a lack of funding is the issue, what funding application has been made to fix these crossings?The solutionAdd zebra markings and two signs some locations may need raised crossing to slow motorists down, but at the bridge crossings in Ballina, most motorists are going slower on those turns than they are at zerbras elesewhere in the town. I know some people will claim that more zebras will slow things down too much. The zebras are often unfairly blamed for traffic, but given that the vast bulk of motorists are already yielding at the crossing, adding zebras will not really change that. In fact, removing the current uncertainty should help remove some delays. And sometimes theres just no crossingsThe council is also likely in breach of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to people with disabilities by not providing crossings in all directions at the lower bridge. The lack of crossings means people using wheelchairs are forced into the carriageway to navigate their way.Arguabelly they are also in breach of these requirements for using unclear crossings.