Чтение и письмо: противоречивые источники (атрибуция)

Should the High Street cycle lane be extended, and on what terms?
The three sources ask different questions in the same words. For the planner (A), «work» means use and safety; for the Access Forum (B), «safe» means reaching the pharmacy door from a car; for the pharmacy owner, the question is takings. Aligned on the council's question — extend, and on what terms — they converge more than they appear to.
Use. A establishes a 40 % rise in weekday counts on the street over six months; netted against the 15 % fall on the river path, which A itself flags as displacement, the honest number is roughly 20 % more cycling overall. High confidence that use rose; moderate on the size, since one parallel route was counted. Safety: two collisions against three is, in A's own words, too small to interpret, and I say nothing more about it.
Access. B's implied position is sharper than its request. The choice of «scheme» over «lane», and the irony of «with characteristic speed» — at the council's expense, not the cyclists' — signal anger at process; but what the Forum does not ask for is telling: it does not ask for the lane to go. It asks for the bays first and the drawing before the decision. That is a disagreement of sequence, not of principle.
Trade. Twenty-three of thirty-one surveyed owners saw no change; four saw a fall. The pharmacy owner's account is the most useful single piece of evidence in the pack precisely because it is a revision: he blamed the lane in March, dated his fall to the week the bays went, and says for the record that the numbers changed his mind. His fall is evidence about the bays, not the lane — and he is one of four, not a rule.
The strongest case against extension is B's, put at its strongest: for a wheelchair user, two bays gone is the pharmacy gone, and no count of bicycles offsets that. I concede it entirely. Where the argument fails is the step from «the bays went» to «no extension»: A's alternative alignment takes a metre from the traffic lane, restores both bays and keeps a door-zone buffer. The bays are a design condition, not a reason to stop.
Recommendation. Extend for six months, on condition that the alternative alignment is built first and the drawing is shared with the Forum before the vote; stopping rule: revert if injuries rise or a majority of surveyed shops report falls. What would change my recommendation is an engineer's finding that the metre cannot be taken from the traffic lane; then the bays come first and the lane waits. On this evidence: extend, bays first, moderate confidence.