Transport for all

When a friend put out a tweet suggesting their home city get real about e-scooters, I replied it’s tough citing a Guardian story on 19 June 2021 about two e-scooter riders who killed a pedestrian.

This death has rekindled, according to the story, the controversy about the place of e-scooters in Paris. Hailed by some as an ecological means of urban transport and a welcome alternative to motor vehicles, others have claimed they pose a risk to pedestrians. Both sides find it convenient to gaslight each other.

Same paper, the Guardian, in February 2020, published a piece on how Pedestrians ‘will face danger if e‑scooters get road approval’. This piece cited the road safety charity Brake, who noted that although car alternatives were vital, “the safety of e-scooters and their impact on all road users must be assured before they are permitted on our roads”.

In Brighton and Hove, barriers at the Aldrington tunnel in Hove fell without proper consultation last month. While the cycling lobby celebrated (mobility scooter users, cargo bike users, disabled cyclists), pedestrians and vulnerable residents in the vicinity complained that the barriers were removed by the city council without notice or consultation.

The council’s political leadership and officers have defended their decision to fell the barriers. Not only was this change vital for disabled people on bikes, they said, it also made it much easier for people with wheelchairs & buggies. Nothing about pedestrians and no debate similar to that on the safety of e-scooters.

The political leadership admitted to political representatives for this part of Hove that they should have been consulted beforehand and duly apologised. Highways officers, for their part, noted that ‘it was agreed’ (by whom?) that the barriers would be removed and bollards installed in their stead to give room for larger cycles claiming that this was done with the ‘best intentions given the feedback had received from disabled cyclists’. Nothing on pedestrians this time either.

What does this anecdote tell us about how we organise our streetscape? It tells us that when local authorities listen to those who shout loudest, they end up paying little or no regard for equalities.

Of course, we all have to work hard to pave the way for inclusive streetspace but, a local authority, a municipality, has a duty of care to look at the impact of their actions on people, ALL people. The local authority or municipality should identify the pros and cons of their actions for different members of society. The onus is, after all, on the city or municipality as the service provider to mitigate against negative impacts. 

Transport for All has recently published a report that identified fundamental problems with the ways decisions are made and communicated to the local residents they affect. Transport for All is a pan-impairment organisation, guided by the passionate belief that all disabled and older people have the right to travel with freedom and independence.

Transport for All highlights the importance of Equality and Impact Assessments, a document that allows someone who has decided to do something, such as a local council, to look at the impact that what they are proposing will have on people.

Like the decisions on e-scooters or the felling or barriers at the Aldrington tunnel in Hove, officers and political leaders have to look at the impact of their proposals. A good consultancy process should tell these officers and politicians things they did not already know, from the people they need to hear it from. It is not acceptable to bring people on board at a late stage to confirm a decision that has already been made or, even worse, tell them after the decision has been taken.

Failures of leadership aside, highways engineers are not generally highly skilled at public consultation. It is not in their DNA. Although this has been picked up in some quarters, highways engineers have not been able to grasp how important (to politicians) the issue of mobility is and they (highways) have to get better at looking at open spaces and how they make sure they offer something to all of us. Engineers should be challenged, yes, but so should the politicians and the lobbyists.

When illiberal liberals are in charge

If you live in Brighton and Hove, or any other city looking at local headlines struggling with hastily installed cycle lanes brought about by the pandemic, you will be wondering just how temporary are the temporary cycle lanes being installed.

Our own experience in Brighton and Hove, judging by a somewhat lengthy Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee, would suggest that these cycle lanes are not very temporary.

Two engines drive this thought, this idea of the ‘not very temporary’ temporary cycle lane. The first engine is that that the city does not have data on usage of the cycle lane. Not before, not after. For a number of years, the city has not gathered the evidence base it needed to gather in order to drive informed and resident-supported policy initiatives.

The second engine is lined to this latter component, public support. There is none. Or, there is no proof – data – that there is any. With both of those, components in place, what can only be described as illiberal liberals are having a field day.

The idea or concept of the illiberal liberal is not a new one. Back in 2001, Brian Anderson wrote that liberals used to be the staunchest advocates of reasoned, civil debate. No more, he argued back then. Now (2001), he points out, ‘it’s argument by name-calling’.

The tendency to use close-minded and uncivil language, he noted, betrayed what was (and is?) liberal in liberalism.

Citing the American political project, he goes on to say that, without reflection or reason, politics degenerates into tyranny or mob rule. This is especially true where politicians, or anyone for thar matter, dismisses the views of out of hand.

John Locke, liberalism’s father, believed that general good will and regard for all people were very important. One must not show contempt, disrespect, or neglect of others.

Cycle lanes introduced under COVID financial support packages are a good example of this. A councillor recently wrote of the Brighton and Hove cycle lanes that a ‘dogmatic approach [to transport policy] is only serving to turn many people against the positives of having better active travel solutions precisely at the time when the council needs to gain as much support as possible. The illiberal in the liberal appears to be winning the day.

Writing about public debates some 20 years ago, Brian Anderson explores how recent (2001) public discussion, ‘liberals haven’t engaged in much reasoned argument with conservatives or shown much civility toward them’.

In those 20 intervening years, this debate has not gone away. In fact, it gets picked by Paul Krause in 2019 when he writes of the myth that is illiberal liberalism.

Krause hits back at those who believe in the ‘true’ classical liberalism, or authentic liberalism, set against various strands of leftism today, which, some argue, aren’t in any way, shape, or form meaningfully liberal.

The good life, according to the classical liberal fathers like Hobbes and Locke, consists in avoiding harm, writes Krause. This good life, he points out, is freedom from harm, or avoidance of harm.

Thinking in terms of this harm, where does this leave our cycle lanes or the dogmatic decision to keep them when residents have already identified them as harmful?

We cannot pick and choose our fights. We cannot support green spaces and opt to build on gardens. We cannot choose some petitions over others because it is convenient.

This position we find ourselves in today, in Brighton and Hove, is Krause note, akin to wanting the economics of Smith without the moral theory of Smith or the anthropology of Locke without the political and logical implications of Locke’s anthropology.

This is why the illiberal liberals in our midst will eventually be called out. It is inevitable.