Does this headline seem fair to you? He’s a former ambulance driver, and his complaint is the new cycle lanes will prevent vehicles from moving out of the way of an ambulance. The headline presents this as him being concerned about damaging his car should he accidentally drive over one. It seems like a very clickbaity way to present the article if you ask me.
Personally I think it’s a non-issue. You can see the artists impression of the cyclelane. It has a massive median down the middle, and regular gaps that I guess could be used if for some reason the median couldn’t be used by the ambulance.
You’ve kinda missed the point, I feel.
This is an article about a person who opposes something goeing to the media and having a one-sided article written about their view. While I don’t believe in including opposing views for the sake of it, in this case it’s clear the majority agree with the proposal and this one guy does not.
His experience as an ambulance driver would mean a lot more if the article touched on why the median isn’t enough, why someone can’t pull into a driveway, or had some other ambulance drivers voicing their opposition.
For all we know, he might not be an ambulance driver anymore because he was crap at it.
I’m a data driven person and this article has nothing to help me take the side of the NIMBY.
They fundamentally misrepresented his concerns with that headline. Regardless of how well founded his case is, the headline makes out that his biggest concern is damage to his vehicle, which is patently untrue.
Yeah, they do put the reporter’s bias against him into the title. Though, at the least, he is concerned about damage to his car from the barriers.