TWO SIDES OF THE STORY...

SOME OBJECTIVITY, PLEASE

I refer to Mic van Zyl’s column “Which bakkie for me?” in the January issue in which he explains how he decided on his choice of double cab bakkie. I read Mic’s columns carefully and I believe he’s a specialist in his field. He focusses on being technically accurate and won’t trip himself up with untruths – or, as he puts it, “there is an awful amount of misinformation out there”. In this specific column Mic briefly compares the features of the bakkies he considered. You understand that it’s an overview and not an in-depth analysis because the piece is about his experience buying a new vehicle. It will therefore reflect his own personal preferences to a certain degree. You accept that Mic explains his choice and I accepted his opinion as objective... until the words “shockingly poor ride of the Hilux suspension” . Is the suspension too hard or is it unsafe? Mic’s use of the word “shocking” is too crass for someone who calls himself an objective columnist. It reminds me of an Afrikaans motoring programme on TV that compares bakkies with each other. They did an in-depth comparison of the various bakkies, and if I remember correctly they weren’t that unhappy with the Hilux’s suspension. Mic prefers the Ford Ranger and I don’t have a problem with that. It’s an excellent bakkie, but as someone who also represents a brand name in the 4x4 industry he needs to be objective as a columnist. His opinion can influence less-informed buyers. That said, I hope Mic enjoys his Ranger for many worry-free kilometres through our beautiful country. WILLEM VAN BREDA Pretoria North