I have been tempted to write to The Times by recent letters in this, and other, newspapers reflecting on the utility, or otherwise, of reforming the road regulations. I am not at all impressed by the recently published proposals which aim to increase fines, while actually doing very little to improve our roads. Are these proposals based on the opinions of experts?

Such experts have recently focused their comments to the location of speed cameras, and on what should or should not be the speed limit on an open stretch of road. I have recent personal experience with the expertise of one of the local arbiters, who decided an insurance claim in favour of another road user who changed lane and crashed into me, while overtaking on my left at a roundabout. Taking pictures to prove your version is useless: in Malta if you are at the rear it is your fault, even if the other party reversed into your car on purpose. We need a bit more lateral thinking, in my opinion, to solve the problems on our roads. The recent proposals are not really novel.

We need experts who can think out of the box. Although I agree that one can safely drive a modern car at 100 km/h on a good Maltese road in perfect conditions, and that consequently a speed limit of 60 km/h on a two-lane main road is ridiculous, I do not agree that speed is the only core issue.

Neither is it necessarily the current legal alcohol limit. I would like to challenge advocates of lowering the alcohol limit to present research on recent serious road accidents. Are the majority of these accidents caused by drivers with a blood alcohol level slightly below the legal limit, or are most drink-drivers very much over the current limit? Would the majority of recent accidents have been prevented by lowering the limit slightly? Or is better enforcement of the current limit just as effective?

I really would like to challenge the experts to do some basic research. Let them look at recent road accidents, fatal or potentially fatal, and find the real causes of loss of life. My challenge is that one major modifiable factor has not yet been mentioned by any expert. My personal experience with road accidents, and specifically the last three instances when I stopped to assist an injured driver as a doctor, is that one of the greatest dangers on our roads today is a hard obstacle by the roadside. Be it a pole or a tree, or the corner of a building adjacent to a sharp corner. The driver loses control of the car due to poor road conditions, or inexperience, and the car comes to a stop instantly against the obstacle. The effect is the same as falling off the top of a high building. The crumple zone of modern cars, airbags and seatbelt tensioners help to reduce damage to the human body, but rapid deceleration is highly lethal.

So, what is the solution? Crash barriers are cheap, and effective! The problem is that while crash barriers cost money, they do not make money. The Rabat road and its many trees is a prime candidate for such treatment.

The area of the recent fatal crash in Floriana is another.

I suspect that speed cameras, alcohol limits and fines are more attractive to the legislator because they do generate a financial return. Is that the object of the proposed reforms? Are the lives of us road users really so cheap? I do not expect the reforms to be all that effective, except in increasing revenue from road fines. Research over mere opinions, please!