Tentative inference from bad opposition

There’s currently an insane furore in Stratford over plans to build a bridge across the Avon. I don’t know the detailed arguments in favour of the bridge, but there’s been a bombardment of the arguments against, and they suck. It’ll get in the way of swan flightpaths, for example.

While it is of course the job of the proponent to justify the case, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to get a tentative sense of which side is in the right based on the strength of the opponents’ arguments. In this case there’s only one objection that seems to warrant a reply from the council, and I suspect that has an easy answer. I’m certainly not informed enough to start arguing about it properly (and that would possibly get me lynched, given the ferocity of letters to the local paper – maybe I missed the plans to pave the bridge with the crushed bones of small children) but I can suspect who I’d end up agreeing with if I actually put the effort in. It is, however, just a bridge, and I have better things to do.

I’m in a similar situation regarding pay-per-mile road taxing, except it actually matters. Intuitively it seems like a reasonable idea, and although I don’t know the exact justifications every argument against has seemed either paranoid or selfish. Thankfully B4L has actually researched the matter, and does a good job of demonstrating why it makes sense.