All road users have rights... we must ‘give way’ to rage over exclusivity

Few public debates are as likely to provoke fury online as much as cycling. Despite the inevitable abuse involved, it is worth examining to see the debate as a symptom of how and whether we are civil and tolerant.

One of the most troubling issues is how the anonymity of social media allows discourtesy to be used to defend opinions, especially when these concern disputed rights to exclusivity.

The right to move is a fundamental freedom. Roads encapsulate the very essence of rights, which benefit all at a cost to a few. Freedom of movement has always been about rights as well as rules. Since people first controlled land, society learned to accept the principle of the right-of-way. Each landowner had to surrender a little portion of the edge of their holding to establish networks of movement rights for all.

Rules and regulations emerged in parallel with these rights. For example, laws in ancient Ireland safeguarded the rights of the “bóthar”. This had to be wide enough for one cow (bó) to be able to pass while another stood across (thar).

Hardly a week passes without a call for new rights to be respected. It is undeniable that society improves by the recognition, respect and enforcement of rights. But this is not the whole truth.

A greater truth is that new rights need to exist in a context of all other rights. Pluralism is where different people of different values co-exist but continue to have the right to their own views.

The right to the co-existence of views based on mutual respect and tolerance was the key achievement of the Enlightenment. It helped to end the series of religious wars that had plagued Europe for more than three centuries.

The solution was for postEnlightenment societies to place great emphasis on the idea of “civility” — a word that expresses the need for courteous and respectful behaviour. It recognised this as a prerequisite for the harmony needed for peaceful, pluralist co-existence.

Current rights-based opinions may lead to a type of tribalism that is the exact opposite of the stabilising ideals of the Enlightenment.

Cycle and bus lanes are good and important. These have a critical part to play in meeting the mobility needs of modern cities — but only a part. Can their needs for exclusivity be treated as such special circumstances that these are exempted from the give-and-take required by the vast majority in a tolerant and civil pluralist society?

This complex issue tends to become an over-simplified battleground where the rights of private cars are set against the rights of buses and bicycles. In reality, the situation is much more complex.

First, there is the consideration of numbers and proportionality. According to figures from the European Cyclists Federation, bicycles only meet a tiny portion (7pc) of

Irish mobility needs. Even the most cycle-friendly societies in the world, the Netherlands and Denmark, only manage to reach 27pc and 16pc respectively of movements by bicycle.

Official CSO figures from 2022 for Ireland are much lower. These only measured cycling being used by 3pc of those commuting to work. This same source shows that, despite our prodigious recent expenditure of €1m a week on Active Travel, the numbers of those cycling to work has now fallen to half of what it was in 1986, with public transport, trains, and buses, now only accounting for 9pc of all commuting. In all, 79pc of us travel to work by cars, vans and trucks, which is comparable to the EU average of 79pc.

Second, there is the matter of respecting the needs of all other vehicles and types of users. Traffic exclusion does not just stop private cars. It also excludes or delays road use for public transport, taxis, deliveries, emergency vehicles, trades and social service personnel — not to mention workers who need to travel with tools and materials.

Then there is the disrespectful exclusion of the majority, including large cohorts based on their ability, age, gender, income, employment opportunities and social standing.

According to the CSO, cycling is overwhelmingly male, discretionary and middle-class. Half of these cycling commuters are an elite comprising professionals, managers and technical staff.

How have we arrived at a stage where the occasional desires of a finger-wagging few have come to dominate the daily needs of so many?

What would happen if our mobility planning became more tolerant of the needs of others?

What would happen if our traffic planning became inclusive, by meeting most of the needs of most cyclists and buses most of the time — as well as most of those of others?

What would happen if our traffic planning had the civility to include pluralist road signs that said “Mixed Traffic Areas Ahead”?

We should worry if we can’t have civil discussions about our basic freedom to move.

The occasional desires of a finger-wagging few have come to dominate the daily needs of so many