I recently received a Notice of Contravention from the St Julian's council stating that I was guilty of a speeding violation 'departing' the Regional Road tunnel - San Gwann side at 61 km/h, the charge supported by irrefutable photographic evidence and punishable by a fine of Lm30.

My first reaction was to shrug my shoulders and admit to the fair cop. After all, the speed limit in that spot really is 45 km/h (I checked), and the space edge technology at the disposal of the 'Joint Committee for Law Enforcement' has established beyond the shadow of a doubt that I was 'departing' at the quasi-warp speed of 61 km/h. So it's a fair cop, just pay up and shut up.

But then I started thinking. Why exactly is the speed limit at that spot 45 km/h? Even horses do more than 45 km/h and only tourists use them for transport nowadays. This is a dual carriageway main arterial road, built for cars, not horses.

Most cars nowadays need to change down a gear or two to go smoothly at 45 km/h. There is anyway an overall speed limit on all roads of 64 km/h. If I remember correctly, this particular 45 km/h speed limit was imposed some months back, when the media had informed us that the Regional Road bridges were badly in need of maintenance.

I had never thought about it before, because I never had to pay Lm30 to 'depart' at 61 km/h on the Regional Road, but is it indeed safer driving at 45 km/h than at 64 km/h over a dangerous bridge? What difference to the integrity of the bridge will a reduction of the speed limit from 64 to 45 km/h make? Should not the bridge be closed down until it is made safe instead of imposing these ludicrous measures? Who is fooling whom?

When, if ever, is the maintenance going to be done? Was it St Julian's council who set the magic 45 km/h limit? Or maybe it was the 'Joint Committee for Law Enforcement', whatever that whimsically named entity might be?

The fine will be paid, of course, but that is not the point. The point is that I just do not believe that driving 19 km/h less than the normal speed limit will be less likely to cause the bridge to collapse. What I do believe is that this regulation (127) is just another money-making ruse to help finance our local councils, which will only help to further diminish their credibility and to make them even more unpopular.

It would be nice if the person(s) or body responsible for this seemingly senseless Regulation 127, or indeed anybody else for that matter, would give some reasonable justification for its existence.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.