The case for proper 'cycle paths'

Joe Borg (Bicycles And Brains, December 9) persists in his diatribe against cyclists. Ironically, on the same issue of The Times, we also had a front page report on the death of yet another cyclist after being hit by a car.

In particular, Mr Borg's remark that cyclists are a danger to themselves and others is a prejudiced distortion. Unlike the situation with motor vehicles, it is an extreme rarity for a cyclist to injure other road users. On the other hand, when an adult cyclist dies on the road it is invariably caused by a motor vehicle. The only case of a seriously-injured cyclist who had not been hit by a car in my casualty ward experience as a doctor was that of an experienced cyclist who came off the road at night after being blinded by the main beam of a car.

Mr Borg demands that cyclists wear helmets and luminous clothing. While I agree that bicycle lights are absolutely mandatory after dark and that it is important to wear brightly-coloured clothing (but not necessarily luminous) so as to be as visible as possible, this does not in any way absolve motorists from behaving responsibly towards cyclists. Neither does it imply that a vehicle driver has the right to drive in a threatening way towards cyclists if he is slightly held back by them.

On what basis does Mr Borg insist that cyclists wear helmets? Helmets are inconvenient and uncomfortable in hot weather; they also add to the expense of cycling. Enforcing the wearing of helmets could be counterproductive; apart from offering little protection to the cyclist, it could actually discourage people from using bicycles, especially for short trips such as shopping errands.

Does Mr Borg have data to show that the risk of not wearing a helmet outweighs the health benefits of cycling? Does he really think that helmets will protect cyclists from being hit by cars? Helmets offer little protection on the road to adult cyclists. Cyclists are invariably injured on the road from being hit by other motorists and the injuries inflicted are usually to the trunk and not the head.

The case of children is different; children should wear a helmet even when riding on the pavement since they often crash into obstacles or fly off their bicycles. The case with motorcyclists - and professional racing cyclists - is also different; they travel at much higher speeds and are uncommonly hit by cars.

The underlying problem is that Malta does not have any proper cycle paths so that cyclists are forced to mingle with traffic. The ideal is to separate bicycles from motor traffic on major roads. This might have been achieved if proper cycle paths, separated from the road, were incorporated when our major roads were built in the first place.

The ADT has now introduced a few "cycle paths" here and there. This is very laudable but these paths consist of no more than a painted white strip on main roads; they are of no use at all on roads with heavy traffic. A proper cycle path should be as far away from the road as possible so that the cyclist does not need to mingle with vehicle traffic - and is less exposed to pollution.

As a car owner, Mr Borg is seriously worried about losing his monopoly on the road if more people take to bicycles. Poor Mr Borg complains that this "will make car driving inconvenient and expensive as a result". Switching to bicycles, he says, "will have a huge knock-on effect on the car industry". All this is nonsense. Car ownership will remain the same; just using cars a bit less can only do good to our health and the environment.

Mr Borg says that there is "wholesale anarchy on our roads". It is difficult to imagine how cyclists can be responsible for this; the "cultural change" so feared by Mr Borg has not occurred yet and cyclists are still as rare as hens' teeth on our roads.