May I state that I believe that constructive criticism is a civic duty? In my contributions to the discussion of local road safety, I have argued for the judicious installation of crash barriers but against changes in road regulations which are not supported by evidence.

Lowering vehicle speed limits indiscriminately shall not necessarily prevent accidents when Malta already has among the lowest national speed limits in the world, and, according to the EU, among the best statistics for road safety.

Similarly, unless a large proportion of local accidents are associated with driving while slightly below the legal alcohol limit, then lowering the threshold shall not bring significant benefits. In fact, two thirds of fatal car accidents are not related to alcohol and so maybe interventions targeting over-tired drivers travelling late at night might prove to be more effective.

My contributions have recently been harshly criticised by correspondents, simply because I have challenged arguments supporting change in legislation to automatically blame a road accident on one class of users as against another. Is that ethical and what is the evidence?

In my opinion, the recent major change in position by the Bicycling Advocacy Group, now stating that cycling in Malta is as safe as anywhere else, is symptomatic of a public relations campaign based on questionable evidence. In this context, it was extremely satisfying for me to read the letter from Gerrit Faber of the Dutch Cycling Union, who, in a reaction to my letters, has confirmed that the statements I have made are factually correct.

However, Faber does not agree with my interpretation of the data. Here is where the argument becomes subjective. Facts are facts but their interpretation is subject to one’s opinion.

Local cyclists should strictly avoid major roads and use cycle lanes

For example, Faber suggests that even though cycling is nearly five times more dangerous than driving, he believes that it is safe enough. Since, on average, cyclists make shorter trips, he states that one should count accidents per trip rather than accidents per kilometre.

I smiled, simply because George Debono has repeatedly criticised Malta’s positive road safety statistics since they are not corrected for kilometres travelled! At the end of the day, on average, bicycles travel slower than cars

Thus, the data could also be adjusted to compare injury and fatality rates when both vehicles are travelling at comparable speeds. Should data be available, I believe that the bicycle would be found to be much more dangerous.

As such, allow me to repeat my recommendation that local cyclists should strictly avoid major roads and use cycle lanes. Here I believe that Faber would concur because in the Netherlands cyclists are thus regulated. I hope that he would also agree with my calls for mandatory helmet use and support such regulation in his own country.

This is also the plea of a recent touching letter by the Mompalao de Piros, concerning their son who was injured in a near-fatal cycling accident in the Netherlands.

Indeed, one could agree with the Bicycling Advocacy Group that cycling in Malta is as safe but consequently as dangerous as anywhere else in the world.

I would argue that the necessary legislation change to make cycling as safe as possible would include specific speed limits, regulation of road behaviour, restrictions on the use of major roads and the enforcement of helmet use.

May I conclude that it is encouraging that Faber reports that life-long daily bicycle use would lengthen one’s life by just over six months?

That is indeed an argument for safe bicycle use restricted to cycle lanes and secondary roads, as in the Netherlands.

Jean Karl Soler is a specialist in family medicine and occupational medicine.