The first few articles from your columnist Duncan Barkes were fairly innocuous and uncontroversial.
But, of late, he has put forward some very reactionary and illiberal views. Last week, he made it clear he was opposed to the 20’s Plenty initiative.
Duncan’s sole evidence comes from the RAC, a ‘respected motoring organisation’. It seems the RAC takes the view that a reduced speed limit could harm business and slow down delivery drivers.
Did the RAC also inform Duncan that cycling deaths are predominantly caused by trucks? Was he told about the survival rate at a 20mph-impact compared to a 30mph one? Why should we listen to the RAC when it is self-evident that slower traffic will reduce danger and injuries?
The RAC today is a business, specialising in insurance and breakdown cover. Gone are the days when uniformed RAC mechanics saluted members as they drove past.
Today, the organisation is totally commercial and to protect its profits it opposes anything which affects the ‘rights’ of motorists.
I have no connection with 20’s Plenty, but I do support the campaign’s aims. It does not need a great deal of intelligence (or RAC information) to work out that being hit by a car at 20mph is preferable to being hit by one moving at 30mph.I hope the Herald price increase is not matched by a decline in standards evident in this Duncan Barkes column. I, for one, will not pay 75p to read such ill-reasoned and unsubstantiated ramblings.