Letter: Journal motorist bias

By quoting two extreme organisations whilst ignoring fact and differing opinion, the Journal’s article ‘Police, Camera, Crash’ (Journal, 6th March) implies that the paper has it’s own anti speed camera agenda.

Describing the Association of British Drivers as ‘a leading motoring group’ is odd, as it isn’t clear in which field the lobby group is leading. It certainly isn’t membership as the ABD has less than 5,000 paid up members – a tiny proportion of the UK’s 31 million drivers. It can’t be in common sense as the ABD portrays climate change as a conspiracy. It isn’t road safety as it campaigns to increase speed limits and classifies 20 mile per hour Home Zones as having “unreasonably low speed limits”. The ABD is so bizarre that it praised the prosecution of a nine-year-old road accident victim in Switzerland. (Sensibly, the case was dismissed.)

Quoting Paul Smith isn’t such a master-stroke either, as his ironically named “Safe Speed” (affiliated with the ABD) has squandered years seeking in vain for proof that speed cameras make roads more dangerous.

Perhaps next time, in the interest of balance, the Journal could also speak to Transport 2000 or Road Block and present an unbiased picture.

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

Don't go yet, leave a reply!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: