The camera team from the programme "Bürgeranwalt" (Citizens' Advocate) carried out a local inspection with the man and had also invited a lawyer from the Austrian Road Safety Board (KfV), who assessed the respective danger spots from a traffic law perspective.
In one specific traffic situation, the situation could be remedied, for example, by replacing the traffic sign "cycle path requiring use" (= round) with a traffic sign "cycle path not requiring use" (= square). In another traffic situation, a cycle path ended directly in front of a zebra crossing. Riding on the zebra crossing is prohibited under the StVO. Accordingly, only pushing the bicycle would be permitted. The KfV traffic expert therefore suggested merely moving the traffic sign so that the cycle path could continue to the other side of the road.
According to the traffic expert, in the event of an accident, a court would not only examine the case according to the law, but would also take into account the guidelines for road traffic (RVS). However, these guidelines had been violated five times in the complainant's case.
The authority informed the Austrian Ombudsman Board in a statement that it had been aware of the problem described above for a much longer period of time. The authority promised to improve the situation in future.
Ombudswoman Elisabeth Schwetz pointed out that the Ombudsman Board does not only have to examine whether an authority's procedures comply with the law, but also whether they are citizen-friendly. Cyclists must also be able to follow the traffic signs intuitively and rely on the fact that their approach is legally compliant. Before the hearing in November, no action had been taken on the matter since April 2022, i.e. over 2.5 years. "This is unacceptable," says the Ombudswoman. "All road users have the right to road safety," emphasised Schwetz. Should someone actually have been injured on the Oberwart cycle paths due to the inaction of the traffic authority, an official liability claim could not be ruled out. Ombudswoman Schwetz draws attention to the connection between an overburdened authority and the actual endangerment of road users. The Ombudsman Board will continue to monitor the development of the cycle path network in Oberwart.
Inquiry: Reforestation in Kleinwalsertal - torrent and avalanche control authority fails to fulfil contractual obligation
In Kleinwalsertal in Vorarlberg, the Bregenz district authority issued a felling notice for some overaged trees in a protective forest in May 2020. The trees were felled by the torrent and avalanche control organisation and the net proceeds were to go to the family who owned the forest. The family made their land available for the storage of the wood - the torrent and avalanche control organisation was to reforest the forest in return, which was also recorded in writing in a contract. However, as the family did not want to subsequently make a private road available to hunters, the torrent and avalanche control authority refused to fulfil its contractual obligation. Without the right to hunt in the forest, reforestation would not make sense.
The case was first discussed on ORF in May 2024. Even then, the Austrian Ombudsman Board criticised the fact that the ministry had to adhere to valid contracts. Even after five years, the torrent and avalanche control authority had still not reforested the forest, as Ombudswoman Schwetz reported in the programme. The hunters' interest is justified, but is not part of the valid, existing contract. "The Republic of Austria is also a role model when it comes to contract compliance and must honour its contracts," concluded Ombudswoman Schwetz.
Auf ORF ON können Sie die Sendungen des Bürgeranwalts auch online sehen