New local group of this national campaign:
http://www.20splentyforedinburgh.moonfruit.com/#
@20sPlentyEdin
(already got more followers than the antis...)
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
20's Plenty for Edinburgh
(194 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
I notice Mr McCusker's piece only got one comment. Anyone want to hazard a bet on how many this will get?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Good for you sticking your head above the parapet Sara. I don't think a polystyrene lid's going to be sufficient for this one, can lend you my old army tin hat if you want?
Posted 9 years ago # -
all very reasonable from my perspective.I would comment positively but alas I am not registering with them to do so
Posted 9 years ago # -
BAD NEWS
Only one comment -
"
12/02/2015 12:21 PM GST
Zuerich
I'm sick of this rag reporting 'articles' from people with strong opinions contradicting each other on a particular topic. Either this lady, or the previous correspondent is correct - they can't both be. So who is it EN? Instead of a bunfight, why not give us a balanced view based on IMPARTIAL FACTS so we can all have some information on which to base a decision? Once again, this is not good journalism.
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
Quite amusing. Zuerich missing the point that "local" newspapers are meant to act as publications where "local people" (Neil Greig?) can write to an audience of other "local people" on "local matters". It's called an opinion piece for a reason. It's someone's opinion. It's not fact-based journalism, it's not written by a journalist and it's not even pretending to be.
Not often I find myself coming down in defence of the chipwrapper.
So many of the EEN's commenters seem to have such a low opinion of the paper it's amazing they take the trouble to read it, comment on it and in the process send vital on-line advertising revenue into The Scotsman Publications Limited's severely overdrawn coffers (last counted at negative £44 million).
They should find some other local forum to rant about local issues on. Just not this one.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Good article Sara, thanks for taking the trouble to write it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
heh. l;ove this riposte to zuerich
"Sara Dorman has given the facts. Grant McCusker just went "wah wah wah I don't like it."
Posted 9 years ago # -
SRD analysis accurate. Mr McCusker analysis not accurate. EEN issuing balance to their earlier piece thus assisting debate.
Not sure where Zuerich is from but newspapers rarely trouble themselves with facts. I can recall Watergate as a detailed piece of investigative journalism. I am fan of Maggie O'Kane who reported on Bosnia in the Guardian. The EEN journos do not have the time for this they have to produce copy to very strict deadlines.
Most of the time all newspapers fill their columns with opinion masquerading as analysis. In this EEN piece SRD analysis as opinion? I applaud.
In bygone days, if no worthy news some columns were left blank? That would be too much these days.
Note SRD now has at least 100% more comments than Mr McCusker
Posted 9 years ago # -
@gembo: or they save time by copying and pasting a press release and passing it off as news.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Nicely written.
I notice that the EEN has labelled you as a "mum of two", whereas Grant is "an Edinburgh businessman".
Posted 9 years ago # -
And she's been marked down as a pedestrianist!
Posted 9 years ago # -
thanks everyone for the kind words - and especially those of you who helped in the writing of it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@stickman - yes, i have noticed that it is much easier to get all of a press release cut and pasted as an article these days (BBC NEws website can also be guilty).
If you are approached for a story they want the info within hours. So it is good to have your facts ready and defendable. However, I also know of occasions where the EEN has come back and done a more thoughtful piece over a longer period. You still need to be tight on your facts to avoid being misquoted as they do not give you the copy to agree or disagree with. This is where the opinion pieces are good. (so long as you agree with the opion). SRD's though is not contestable and is analysis not opinion.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@SRD: is there any chance of also submitting this to the STV Edinburgh website? Mr MacCusker's drivel was published there as well.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Edinburgh Evening news has 28,000 readers so it is certainly influential.
Some perspective on the polls and comments may be appropriate though. And remember it is only IMHO!
Of that 28,000 only 529 responded to the poll on 20mph. Thats about 1.8% of readers. So clearly 20 doesn't seem to be that controversial on a reader response basis..
I note the Eve News has experience of other polls. One on the most romantic place in Edinburgh (I trust you don't mind if I refrain from commenting on that one) and one on Scottish Independence.
Now its far from advisable for a mere Sassenach like me to be commenting on that, but I do make the observation that the latter poll only had 498 responses. Incidentally the poll was 59% in favour whereas I see that the results of the referendum in Edinburgh was 61% voting the other way. So maybe the Eve News readers who do respond to polls don't necessary match what the wider population think.
Anyway, in my experience all debate on 20mph limits is healthy and is part of the process of the community "owning" the limits. At the end of the day, this initiative is not "owned" by Lesley Hinds, Labour, the Edinburgh City Councilor any other organisation, but by the people of Edinburgh.
If anyone wants facts on 20mph limits elsewhere then please have a look at our website Briefings, News and Campaigning.
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk
Rod
Posted 9 years ago # -
The latest comment about adding up thousands of 3 minutes to make thousands of hours a year lost is excellent. Completely ignoring the traffic smoothing effect that 20mph should have.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Also not grasping what a tiny fraction those thousands of hours are over all the journeys made.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Comments seem to be largely positive for a change, couple of morons but thats to be expected from the chipwrapper...
SRD you get yourself some ringers? Or maybe even some sockpuppets?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@steveo tempting, but no, oddly enough.
@stickman i really don't have time or energy to write something for them too.
maybe someone else could?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well done SRD! Well reasoned and calmly made points.
Anybody fancy debunking the post around pollution and emissions will increase as cars most effective at 56mph?
Acceleration causes pollution more than constant speed running. Regardless of 30mph in 5th (or indeed 6th on occasion) or 20mph in 4th I can put the fuel economy "off the scale" (i.e. 80mpg plus) if running at constant speed on the flat. Modern engine management systems are designed to cope with this (and no, that's not in an "eco city car").
Posted 9 years ago # -
See this on mpg at 20mph. Note that the Telegraph is not know for pandering to envionmentalists.
99.6mph at 20mph
Posted 9 years ago # -
@SRD: sorry, was just suggesting posting the same article to STV. That's what McCusker did - it's the exact same article from him on both EEN and STV.
I wasn't suggesting you do more - you've done a great article already!
Posted 9 years ago # -
I notice that the EEN has labelled you as a "mum of two", whereas Grant is "an Edinburgh businessman".
I know! They missed out academic, cyclist, agent provocateur and manufacturer of preserves!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well done @SRD. Good balanced stuff. The comments are depressing. Apart from SPARTS;
This journo is an idiot.
EEN has to stay onside with CCE otherwise they won't drip feed them propaganda.I may have got some of SPARTS' letters mixed up.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@twinspark A quick look at the graphs returned by and image search do indeed suggest that 50 - 60 mph is optimal however the curve is very flat from about 15 ~ 20mph so not really much in it.
As others have pointed out the real difference is in the amount of time spent accelerating which is where the big savings are.
I suspect that a lot of the problem comes from the urban and extra urban mpg ratings which could be seen as faster => lower CO2
I still find it weird that the council have not commissioned a bunch of traffic modelling in order to have actual facts to hand to counter these criticisms.
EDIT: These guys should have some reasonable answers https://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/projects-portfolio/paramics-microscopic-traffic-simulation
Posted 9 years ago # -
what drives me bananas is that they seem to think that lesley hinds invented the whole idea to appease the cycling lobby. i can't tell which they hate more.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Great job SRD!
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I notice Mr McCusker's piece only got one comment. Anyone want to hazard a bet on how many this will get?"
Running at 29 (plus a lot of replies) at the moment!
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
