Traffic deaths on Maltese roads

The optimistic report Fewer Deaths On Maltese Roads But More Safety Is A Must (July 7) betrays Malta’s head-in-the-sand attitude to traffic accidents. To say that “the risk of dying on Malta’s roads may be much slimmer than in other member states” is dangerous and misleading.

This absurd false statement fails to take into account that the mortality quoted by the EU refers to deaths per million of the population and not deaths per kilometre travelled. In terms of deaths per kilometres travelled, Malta’s road mortality is stratospheric in comparison to most other EU states, where travelling distances are far greater than in Malta. Anybody who has lived abroad will recall that travelling 500 kilometres in one day can be a routine matter.

Secondly, high-speed accidents, such as typically occur on motorways at speeds often in excess of 160 kph, are more lethal. Malta has an excessively high accident rate but these tend not to result in fatalities because of lower speeds.

Finally, and most important of all, Malta has permanently favourable driving conditions. There are no dark winter days with sustained sub-zero temperatures as in northern countries. Maltese drivers never have to contend with fog, frost, deadly black ice or invisible frozen patches on roads. Motorists here often try to excuse our high accident rate on the bad state of roads. This excuse is invalid. Compared to the hazardous driving conditions on many European roads in winter, driving in Malta should be a piece of cake.

The comment that “we should be relieved that Malta last year had one of the lowest rates of road fatalities among member states” is so appalling and misguided that it should make one shudder. Given the short distances travelled, lower speeds and round-the-year good weather conditions, a fatality rate of 36 deaths per million on our roads is unacceptable. Even one road fatality is too many in our little island; the average of 16 deaths annually indicates that something is very seriously wrong.

The number of accidents in which people are injured but don’t die is unacceptably high and the fact that most road fatalities occur in built up residential areas says a lot. Contrary to what was reported in this news article, we should be very, very worried about these unnecessary deaths.

The monotonous regularity with which we read in the press of drivers “losing control” or children being “run over” seems to cause little worry. The priority we accord to cars has made us impervious to the sheer brutality of our traffic. At the same time, Malta Transport seem to be stuck in a time warp and continues to treat traffic flow as a sacred cow while persisting in the delusion that the repeated tragedies (which are only real to the affected family) are an unavoidable fact of life.

Just over 10 years ago, the British Medical Journal (Reducing The Speed Limit To 20 Mph In Urban Areas, BMJ; 2000, 320.7243.1160) argued for a reduced urban speed limit of 30 kph (20 mph). This was based on the scientific finding that lack of speed restrictions, rather than increased exposure to traffic, accounted for the excess deaths among child pedestrians in residential areas. In the intervening decade, evidence in favour of reducing urban speeds has continued to build up and it is now accepted that lowering and enforcing urban speed limits are cost-effective public health measures that prevent injuries and deaths.

Strong evidence that lower speed limits and proper enforcement reduce accidents has existed for over a decade. And, yet, the carnage from speeding cars continues in our residential areas with children and the aged being mostly the victims. The simple basic fact is this: At 50 kph (the speed limit in built up areas) it takes 30 metres to stop; at 30 kph it takes just 12 metres to stop; at the lower speed, the of survival is dramatically increased after being hit.

What is Malta Transport waiting for?