September 12, 2026: the deadline that the MIT (Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) had indicated to us at ZERO DEATHS and to other involved associations, to send the response to the request for consultations for drafting the new traffic code. No more than five points, with identified critical issues and solutions, these were the rules to be able to contribute to the formation of the reform.

We will not repeat here the number of accidents, cyclists killed, assaults that we have recorded this year as well, too many and in constant increase, and how today the culture is far from that of other European countries, but that there is urgency is now an established fact.

The regulatory and cultural gaps would be far more than five, starting from the obligation to wear a helmet, from the commitment that local territorial authorities should make in cultural change, but also on a practical level, acting on dangerous situations that repeat themselves, such as for example at roundabouts, at turns or during overtaking…

One rule, however, should always apply in every situation: CAUTION, which must be doubled and tripled when vulnerable road users are present—cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists— avoiding any maneuver that could even hypothetically endanger someone's life.

Among all of them we had to choose 5: we propose them to you in a series of articles to facilitate reading, understanding and, if you wish, also debate.

2) PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ON BIKE

The regulation of pedestrian crossings, read together with the rules on cyclist behavior, has generated uncertainty about whether or not the cyclist is obliged to dismount from the bicycle and about the right-of-way rules applicable when he uses the pedestrian crossing in the absence of a cycling crossing.

Interpretive uncertainty is a source of disputes, when fines are issued, but also of litigation in case of accident, where the cyclist could suffer, in addition to being hit by a motorist who does not slow down near the crossing, also being blamed for not dismounting from the bicycle.

It is therefore appropriate to clearly distinguish the cyclist's right to cross while mounted, when this can be done without obstruction or danger to pedestrians, from the obligation to adopt prudent conduct before and during the engagement of the roadway.

Obviously the cyclist should not rush onto the crossing at high speed but at the same time, the fact that he does not lead the bicycle by hand should not, in itself, exclude protection in case of accident.

To clarify any doubt, the regulation should be as follows: «At pedestrian crossings, drivers of vehicles shall stop and give way to pedestrians who are about to cross or who have started crossing.
The same provisions apply to cyclists who engage the pedestrian crossing in cases where, in the absence of a cycling crossing, they are permitted to cross without leading the bicycle by hand. In such cases, the cyclist, before engaging the roadway, reduces speed to the point where he can stop and proceeds at moderate speed, avoiding creating obstruction or danger to pedestrians.
When the intensity of pedestrian flow or crossing conditions do not allow transit while mounted without danger or obstruction, the cyclist leads the bicycle by hand and is subject to the rules provided for pedestrians.»

The formulation must be coordinated with article 182, so that the two provisions use the same assumptions and do not produce conflicting rules regarding stopping, right-of-way and the obligation to lead the bicycle by hand.

The reference to respect for pedestrians preserves the primary function of the pedestrian crossing and imposes leading by hand when the presence or flow of pedestrians makes it necessary.

2 - to be continued