Forum topic: Is this website biased?

I've recently received a couple of emails from readers complaining about bias in favour of the Cycle Enfield cycle lanes scheme.

One email reads as follows:


I'd like to take this opportunity to answer the criticism.

I don't think the website or newsletter are biased. The only personal advantage I would gain from the scheme is less exposure to toxic fumes, noise and the risk of being killed or injured. But everyone else would have the same benefits too, not just me.

I'm simply expressing my opinions about the cycle lanes scheme. As I spend a huge amount of time creating and maintaining the website, I think I'm entitled to express my views from time to time (and readers are entitled to disagree). And whenever I find a new piece of evidence that supports the scheme, I publish it. I don't simply make claims or assertions, I put forward evidence. I'm not going to repeat my reasons for supporting the scheme in this message - all my arguments are already on the website, along with those of other people (and the arguments of anti-cycle lanes campaigners).

I agree that there are concerns about the scheme that are perfectly valid and readers are welcome to express them in the forum, and have done so on several occasions. When they do, I include a link to their contributions in the weekly newsletter. So they aren't ignored or unrepresented. I only ask that they don't "play the man instead of the ball" and don't keep repeating the same old points (and those rules apply equally to supporters of the cycle lanes).

I've considered all the arguments against the cycle lanes. Some of them are good points, but the disadvantages have to be weighed against the advantages, and I believe that on balance the advantages of the scheme outweigh the disadvantages. Others are free to reach a different conclusion, but I would urge everyone to think hard about the arguments for rather than automatically dismissing them as being contrary to "common sense". Try to imagine a world not completely dominated by the motor car.

On the whole I avoid expressing opinions on controversial subjects as the idea behind Palmers Green Community is to bring people together. I've broken this rule and expressed opinions about the anti-Cycle Enfield campaigns for two reasons: first, thousands of people will have seen the exaggerated claims of the anti-cycle lanes campaigners that are on prominent display along Green Lanes, and second, I think that this is such an important, unmissable opportunity to make the A105 a healthier and pleasanter place to walk, cycle, drive, shop and live.

Finally, readers are more than welcome to totally ignore stuff on the website that they're not interested in or don't agree with - I'm sure most people do anyway!

Basil

Edited by the author on 3 December. One paragraph deleted.

Yes, extremely.

Maybe it is, but I'm glad of that.

I'm also very much in favour of the cycle scheme in Palmers Green; I don't drive, so I'm very much aware that this area is a little bit motor-centric - people around here and Winchmore Hill love their cars, and seem to prioritise using them for everything, over everything else.

Thus, there's been some unpleasantly one-sided rhetoric flying around about this 'outrageous' proposal, and I'm happy to see someone determinedly countering that.