Are dedicated lanes really the best option for keeping Scotland’s cyclists safe, asks Alastair Dalton
to the time ministers from a party rejected by Scots at the ballot box had the final say on Scottish health, education, justice, agriculture, culture and the environment.
We called this the democratic deficit. And after much blood, sweat and tears – the blood was thankfully metaphorical – we achieved a famous victory and won control of these things for ourselves.
And yet we are now apparently happy to impose the same kind of democratic deficit on our neighbours. A majority of English people may not be able to make the changes they want to schools and hospitals, because the leader of the SNP says so. She will be stopping them from exercising their right to selfdetermination.
And why? Because Ms Sturgeon thinks our right to wring every possible penny from the London Treasury trumps England’s right to self-government. The desire of the English to run their own affairs is somehow less legitimate, less noble, than our own wish for selfgovernment.
I find this distasteful. It upsets me. And what I find particularly dispiriting is that many Nationalists reading this column will be genuinely puzzled at my reaction. They will see no dilemma here, no moral quandary to be wrestled with.
What they will see is a simplistic question of what is in the Scottish interest, and what isn’t. Black and white. Good for Scotland, bad for Scotland. Even if it means trampling on the rights of another nation.
Is this honourable? Is this the way a decent society should treat its closest neighbours?
I suggest it isn’t. I suggest it’s a mercenary stance that should shame us. It’s unworthy of us, and unworthy of the Scottish National Party. Guys, you’re better than this. Not for the first time, the SNP has opted for a reductive interpretation of nationalism, with no thought to unintended consequences.
I’ve written previously about how an inability to think strategically about Scotland’s place in the UK has led the SNP to misidentify what is in the Scottish interest, and put Scotland at a disadvantage as a result.
Well, this is another example. It can only increase English anger at Scotland and the Scots, with damage to the social union between our two peoples.
There will be more missteps unless Ms Sturgeon comes up with a coherent 21st-century philosophy of Scottish Nationalism within the UK. A more generous-spirited nationalism, more closely aligned with the communitarian values at the heart of the Yes campaign.
The moral logic of the SNP position is flimsy, to say the least. Yes, respecting England’s right to selfdetermination might mean Scotland getting marginally less money. But if cash is king, and we are determined to maximise the amount we have to spend on Scottish public services at all costs, then why not copy Ukip and slash spending on international aid?
The answer is that the aid budget says something about our values as a country, our decency as a society, our respect for others in the community of nations. We are more than a balance sheet.
And yet those values, that decency, that respect seem to be absent in the SNP’S attitude to the multinational union that shares these islands. The party pays lip service to the notion of social union. But its actions say otherwise. The party has no coherent sense of England, Wales and Northern Ireland as our siblings within a union of nations. It is less a case of moral relativism as moral blindness.
The SNP is riding a wave of public support the likes of which have never been seen in these islands in modern times.
It is an extraordinary change, with enormous power to shape both Scotland and the wider UK. It comes as that UK is already moving to a more federal form of government.
Which is why we have to be careful about some of the unexamined assumptions of this all-conquering SNP movement. A nationalism with its eyes fixed on independence is very different from a nationalism that seeks to promote and defend Scotland’s position within a UK that works.
For good or ill, Scotland voted to stay in the UK. We may be here for a while. It might be a good idea to think about how we make this relationship work. C YCLISTS don’t fit very well with other vehicles and pedestrians on the roads – and we still haven’t found the best solution. They often have the option of using quieter, if less direct, streets, but that doesn’t suit everyone, and cyclists believe they have as much right to be on the road as anyone else.
My thoughts come from personal experience on two wheels in the week that paths developer Sustrans announced £20 million for new cycling and walking routes across Scotland.
These are likely to include more cycle lanes on streets and segregated cycle sections between roads and pavements.
However, while they are better than nothing, both options have snags – and it does raise the question of whether such engineering is the answer.
A coloured cycle lane along the edge of the road is a help, but unless backed up with double yellow lines that are enforced, they can be a waste of paint.
Days ago, I encountered two vans from the same utility firm parked across a cycle lane in Glasgow, less than a mile apart. One was also on a double yellow, with two of its wheels on the pavement.
Between them, another parked motorist went one better by managing to also cover the zig-zag lines beside a pedestrian crossing – a further offence.
This kind of thoughtless, selfish behaviour has prompted Glasgow City Council to propose that double yellow lines are added to the entire route between the west end and city centre. We’ll see what difference that makes.
But even more problematic are segregated cycle lanes, where a kerb separates them from the road. An example is in Waterloo Street in Glasgow city centre, which is great in theory as a “safer” route west from Central Station to the former “Bridge to Nowhere” over the M8.
The main problem here is not cars – but pedestrians. So many people are programmed to just look or listen for motor vehicles, they treat the segregated lane as part of the pavement and walk blithely across in front of cyclists.
The segregated lane also gives cyclists a false sense of having priority, since they now have to wait even longer than before at every junction because bikes have been given separate sets of traffic lights.
Part of the problem is definitely cultural – there are still too few cyclists on many roads for everyone else to notice them. More promising are some of the Sustrans schemes such as giving over one side of a four-mile dual carriageway near Lesmahagow in South Lanarkshire to cyclists and walkers.
Elsewhere, the focus should be on strictly enforcing existing lanes so cyclists can have confidence using them, and better educating pedestrians about crossing segregated sections.