Romano Cassar, Naxxar
Car drivers and motorised bicycles
Peter Montebello (Vehicles Small And Large, June 7) questions whether motorised bicycles are, or should be, licensed and insured. What is Mr Montebello worried about, that a bicycle will damage his car and that he will not be able to claim any damages except through a court case? What about the injury sustained by the cyclist, which is obviously much more probable in any accident with a car? Mr Montebello does not seem to be at all concerned about this; he is only concerned with tracing the "bicycle and/or its owner" after an accident! In an accident with a car, the cyclist will usually end up on the ground, so Mr Montebello should not be unduly concerned that the cyclist will run away. As the risk of personal injury in any accident with a car is much higher for the bicycle rider, the cyclist is usually much more careful on the open road. In fact, car-bicycle accidents are usually caused by the inattention, carelessness or arrogance of the car-driver.
Mr Montebello's attitude is symptomatic of some car drivers, who have no consideration at all for cyclists, and treat them as a nuisance who should not be sharing the road with proper vehicles, i.e., cars. Mr Montebello is obviously a car user. However, can Mr Montebello please state whether or not he is a regular bicycle user?
With respect to motorised bicycles, the only difference between a motorised bicycle and a "normal" one is the small motor, petrol-driven or electric, and the energy supply (fuel or battery). So there is not much difference in the total mass. In fact, the total mass of a heavy rider on a normal bicycle can be more than a light rider on a motorised bicycle. With respect to speed, the speed attained by a normal bicycle going downhill can be as much as 65kph or more. So the kinetic energy, a major factor in accidents, can be about the same for both types. Therefore, using Mr Montebello's argument, should we also institute licenses and insurance for non-motorised bicycles? Is this Mr Montebello's solution to reducing the ever-growing congestion on Maltese roads?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Romano Cassar
Jun 11th 2008, 15:36
The previous comments are symptomatic of the arrogant attitude of most road users. How many of these people have actually used a bicycle on Malta's roads? The prevailing attitude of car users is “I am more powerful than you are, I have a right to use this road, so get out of my way, you dirty ...... cyclist! “. The comment “Either get insured, take responsibility for your own actions or get off the road” is particularly arrogant.
Most people forget that the cyclist has actually paid the road license and insurance on his/her car/s, and is using a bicycle for recreational purposes and/or to avoid car-induced congestion. The average cyclist is much more safety-conscious than the average car-driver, simply because the cyclist is not protected by a steel cage like the car-driver. If all road users were made to ride a bicycle on the open road, then they would realise what I mean. In my experience, the selfishness mentioned by D. Jones is more evident on the side of the car-driver than the cyclist.
Having said that, there are some car-users who are quite considerate to cyclists - all is not dark!
john mahoney
Jun 11th 2008, 15:18
Only fools and horses..........whilst on this subject I wish to ask the Minister of Justice or whoever is responsible to urgently enact a law obliging drivers of horses who use our public roads to insure themselves and the horses at least on third party basis. Insurance companies do not seem to be bothered, ask any poor driver who has just had his car smashed by a sudden bolting of a horse....but who cares, if the horse driver decides not to take blame the car driver will lose his no claim bonus plus the fright, and personal injuries which he might have sustained.....but again who cares???
D Jones
Jun 11th 2008, 14:30
Irrespective of whether the cyclist is injured or not - if he causes the accident, he should be made to pay for the damages. Surely having insurance as a cyclist is just a matter of decency. Or is Romano suggesting that all cyclists are so selfish that if they cause an accident, by for example riding 2 abreast on some of the busiest roads on the island and holding up the traffic, then they shoudl get away scot free?
Either get insured, take responsibility for your own actions or get off the road.
Joseph Mizzi
Jun 11th 2008, 11:41
As far as I know, the "Motor Vehicles Regulations" (LS65.11) define a motor-cycle as "a motorised, two-wheeled vehicle intended for use by its driver, and not designed to carry merchandise" (my literal translation from Maltese).
In my opinion, a motorised bicycle should thus be considered as a motorcycle, hence it should be covered by a road licence and a policy of insurance.
That's all there is to it.
F J Brincat
Jun 11th 2008, 10:47
Whilst in full agreement with Mr Cassar, I feel that it prudent to point out to cyclists that, when on the road, they have to abide by the same laws imposed on rider of motorcycles i.e. that they should wear the minimum of protective clothing, obey road signs and markings, not go down the wrong way in a street, not ride on the pavement and wherever possible (and available) make use of the bicycle lanes and not wander all over the road like a drunk snake.
Also, groups of cyclists should make a concentrated effort of riding side-by-side in twos or in single file and NOT form a large herd and block a whole lane.