Many drivers will be aware that they are currently the proud possessors of an EU driving licence. This small card allows them the privilege of pitting their skills against all other drivers in the European Union.

For many this may be a daunting proposition; for the more 'gung-ho', or pleasantly experienced, it is something to look forward to. And yet already with a maximum speed limit of only 80 km/h (50 mph) we are breeding drivers licensed to drive in any EU country, who may well be lethal to themselves and others because they have no idea what appropriate speeds, over 80 km/h, are in 'normal' European countries.

We now read (The Times, Friday, February 23) that the Malta Transport Authority (ADT) "is studying the impact of introducing different speed limits in the various roads". This is, in my opinion the 'short end of the wedge' and, before long, speed limits may well be reduced further, which again, in my opinion should result in our driving licence being only valid in Malta and Gozo, and on no account should it remain an EU license to drive.

As we, in theory, follow the UK in our instructional procedures, and then in a somewhat lighter fashion adopt the same test procedures, it is rather frightening to read one of the proposals that UK Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman has to say about the British.

"We have all developed this attitude that you first learn to pass the test and then you learn to drive. We have to debate whether there should be some level of compulsion to have more formal training." Surely that sounds most familiar on our local scene as well.

Studies by the British Department for Transport suggest that young men are most successful in passing the current test, but those aged between 17 and 20 are almost 10 times more likely to die or be seriously injured while driving than men in the 40-59 age bracket.

Over here, I am of the opinion that we follow exactly the same trends for our drivers aged between 18 and 21 as they do from 17-20.

One of the more daunting proposals, but one that truly makes sense, is that the British Government is considering introducing a tougher driving test that could require learner drivers to have at least 120 hours training before being eligible for a full licence.

On rare occasions I have tested and passed young men and women who have only undertaken 10 or 12 lessons with a driving school, I then found out that to a man and woman they have driven for a considerable time under parental or family supervision.

This can be a very good thing if the family instructors take the job seriously, as I did with my own granddaughter who drove with me for nine months and took 18 paid driving lessons to pass first time.

I believe that our new drivers without outside driving instruction require in the region of 50 45-minute professional lessons, taken over a fairly short time frame, so that each driving experience is fresh in their minds. They will then begin to reach the acceptable standard that has been set, not only to pass the test, but to render them fairly safe on our very busy roads.

Of course there is a cost factor, but to plough the money into a well thought out driving programme is quite possibly cheaper in the long run than taking a few lessons in between failing the test, possibly five or six times, and the morale of the learner is bound to be much higher than if the test is failed time and again.

One hundred and twenty hours training in the UK at a cost starting at about £20 an hour is very expensive and I can foresee more and more UK citizens coming here to take the theory test and then the practical exam while enjoying a holiday in the sun, as our procedures are so much cheaper than theirs at home, if things remain as they are at present.

Truly food for thought.

VRT tests

Local test procedures are, of course, based on the MOT and it is interesting to read that the most common causes for failure are simply because the owner has failed to check the lights and tyres before submitting the car for test.

This surely has to be pretty basic, as tyres should be looked at daily, and lights checked with great frequency as a broken bulb, or fuse, constitutes an offence, as well as being a failure point in the VRT.

Owners assume that if the vehicle passes the VRT it must be mechanically sound. This is a fallacy because the VRT only checks the basic points of vehicle safety.

I'm told it's designed so that items are passed as long as there is roughly 5% of service life left. Engines and gearboxes are not part of the test because they don't fall under the safety-related code.

Furthermore, if any reader buys a vehicle which has a current VRT certificate it does not prove that the car is actually roadworthy at the time of purchase, because sellers are at liberty to replace such things as good exhaust systems and tyres that were used for test purposes with the worn units that were on the vehicle before the test.

Are speed/safety cameras a good idea?

This is a question that I am asked more and more frequently, and I always answer that if they have been placed in exact accord with the (British) Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera programme for England and Wales, which is the guidebook the ADT uses as well, they will always be mounted correctly and, as such, are a most useful traffic management tool.

This important booklet has this to say about their sites: "For fixed camera sites there should be at least four killed or seriously injured people per km in the baseline period." This, I would have thought, puts the camera site well and truly into the hands of the ADT, who should most certainly not act as a 'rubber stamp' for councils who wish to increase their revenue by mounting cameras in unrealistic places, such as a perfectly straight portion of the Burmarrad/Mosta road, many metres away from the death-trap corner near the junction with Ghajn Rihana.

This poorly positioned site sees most drivers approach and follow through at well under 60 km/h, when the camera is accurately set for 70 km/h, which in turn causes an incredible tailback of frustrated drivers needing to use this busy road at peak periods.

A proper traffic flow is vitally important if we wish to keep road rage out of the equation and keep traffic moving at a decent speed. The same tailback problems arise for the poorly placed camera on the Mriehel Bypass.

Likewise, what was the point of spending millions of Italian funds on remaking the Rabat/Zebbug road, which in lousy condition carried a speed limit of 80 km/h into a camera-controlled 70 km/h zone.

And yes I do know, and yes of course I'm sorry that five youths died in one accident, but because of this one accident every driver in Malta is being seriously punished, or is this part of a scheme to bring in a national speed limit of 70 km/h or even 60 km/h?

Lastly, and the relevant authority has been made aware and has agreed, in the same handbook of rules it clearly states: "Camera and speed limit signs must not be obscured but be positioned to be clearly visible. Fixed speed camera housings must be coloured yellow either by fully painting both the front and back of the housing or fully covering both the front and back of the housing with retroflective sheeting. Mobile vehicles from which enforcement may take place must be liveried."

Let us not continue to procrastinate and use speed cameras as a revenue tool. They should be used to curb speed where there is a perceived danger and then the general public will understand that the ADT and Warden service are doing an onerous but trustworthy job.

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.