No Cycle Path: Yielding at Junctions

Sept 24, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) was required to consider whether cyclists riding their bike along an unmarked path enjoy priority over a motor car turning into a road when crossing a junction.

Collision at a junction without a cycle crossing

The claimant in the case at hand was riding his bicycle on a path which, viewed from his direction of travel, ran on the left-hand side parallel to a provincial road and was separated from it by a grass verge; that path intersected a municipal road joining the provincial road.

The path was not signposted either as a footpath or as a cycling road, nor were there any road markings in the junction area, in particular no cycle crossing within the meaning of Section 2(1)(12a) of the Austrian Road Traffic Regulations (Straßenverkehrsordnung, StVO).

Meanwhile, the second defendant approached the junction intending to turn right onto the priority provincial road, in accordance with the “Give Way” sign.

In the junction area, approximately at the level of the notional continuation of the path used by the claimant, a collision ultimately occurred between the bicycle and the motor car.

No unqualified effect of the “Give Way” traffic sign

A “Give Way” sign generally requires a driver to yield throughout the junction that follows. However, where the local circumstances give no reason to expect traffic from a particular direction, the driver may proceed on the basis that no such traffic will appear.

In the present case, a wall running parallel to the municipal road restricted the second defendant’s view on approaching the junction to the provincial road alone. The path ahead, which ran parallel to the provincial road and was not marked as a cycle track, was neither visible to him nor apparent from the road layout. He therefore had no reason to expect a cyclist to approach from the right across the carriageway.

OGH: No priority breach

Since the claimant was subordinate in priority to the second defendant and could not rely upon a duty to wait under Section 19(4) of the StVO, the question of the relationship between the various priority rules was not material to the decision. The lower courts were therefore correct in finding that the second defendant had not breached any rule of priority.

OGH, 2 Ob 109/26g (28 July 2026)