Whoever laid it out has clearly been reading the Swedish instructions for traffic management, because here the bold bit is not a bug but an explicit, intentional feature of many environments.
Most obviously, and not limited to Sweden, is
priorité à droite, which rather than assigning priority to a given stretch of tarmac, makes priority relative/conditional on the direction of travel of any given road user, meaning that at any given junction you can have priority over one other user while needing to give way to another, at precisely the same time.
Sweden takes that further, especially with cycle crossings of motor roads. Some give the cycle path explicit priority, while others don't (and the difference in markings is very subtle, such that few cyclists or drivers reliably know the difference). On the ones that don't, the relevant legislation says that cyclists must give way to motor vehicles and that motor vehicles should "give cyclists the opportunity" to cross. "Vague" doesn't even begin to describe it. In practice, virtually everyone, drivers and cyclists, treats these as cycle priority, except for a minority of drivers who don't pay attention to anyone's priority anywhere. But I've always thought it's unnecessary to introduce this kind of uncertainty, especially in a situation which can't really be described as "low speed". The cars may well be limited to 30 or 40 km/h in most cases, but for the cyclists these crossings are usually on through routes. It's a completely different dynamic from the situation in housing estates etc. where generally everyone's speed is much lower.
