Jesse

"Destination or thorughfare? The future of this iconic Melbourne strop has residents dvidied"

It's weird when you realise that this headline is trying to imply that on-street car parking makes Sydney Rd a destination, while adding protected bike lanes would make it just a thoroughfare.

An utterly deranged take.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-04/sydney-road-cycling-bike-path-car-parks-residents-divided/102422786

#melbourne #urbanism #bicycles

Melbourne residents divided as the future of bustling Sydney Road strip hangs in the balance

The future of Melbourne's bustling Sydney Road hangs in the balance as cyclists fight for car parking to be removed, while business owners say the replacement of bike paths will force businesses to close.

ABC News
Jun 5, 2023 at 12:23amWeb
Show threadNow at @[email protected]Jun 5, 2023
@jessta I read it the other way around, with cars making it a thoroughfare and bikes/pedestrians/less traffic making it more of a destination?
Show threadJesseJun 5, 2023

@ajsadauskas Yeah, that would make sense. But the summary implies the opposite and the article says:
"With no car parking – if that was to happen – then people won't be able to come here and businesses would continue shutting down."

In fairness, if you scroll all the way to the bottom you do get a cycling advocate saying "If it's to be a destination, it cannot be a thoroughfare. If it's to be a thoroughfare, it can't be a destination."

Perhaps it's just a confusing editorial decision, but it feels intentional.

Show threadNow at @[email protected]Jun 5, 2023

@jessta I agree the headline could be clearer.

In fairness, often it's the subeditor (the person who proofreads articles for spelling and grammar) who writes the headline for an article, and sometimes the summary too, rather than the original author.

And sometimes they don't quite get it right, or get all the nuances.

The article itself is reasonably well-balanced.

Show threadDance Gran!Jun 10, 2023
Could also be an unconscious bias in the summary. If you drive everywhere it’s hard to imagine a world in which you don’t.
Show threadJulieJun 5, 2023
@jessta it's a catchy phrase but a bit weird, because the removing the on-street parks would make it a better thoroughfare (for active transport, and no worse for cars) but also a better destination (wider footpaths)
Show threadGuy Segev (they/them)Jun 5, 2023
@jessta this article tries so hard to spin this as a negative it’s almost funny. Even the wording of “lives in a car-less apartment block” rather than “car free” or “pedestrianised” is clearly very intentional. Every heading paints such a negative picture that’s not backed up by the meat of the article. The “evidence” they use to back things is just opinions of people on the street. Shoddy biased writing that I’m sorry to see come out of the ABC