Under the pretence of “expressing constructive criticism as his civic duty”, Jean Karl Soler has written a  bizarre opinion piece that renders  a disservice to the interests of road safety. His argument that lowering speed limits will not (“necessarily”) prevent  accidents and road deaths is unfounded, counter-intuitive and patently wrong.  It omits the pivotal issue that lower (urban) speeds reduce severe  injury or death rates for  vulnerable road users in traffic accidents – for which there is abundant evidence.

A 20-year (1986-2006) London study showed that introduction of 30km/h zones resulted in a 42 per cent drop in road casualties. This reduction applied especially to children, serious injuries and fatalities. The European Transport Safety Council (1995) also found that, in vehicle-pedestrian collisions, the probability of pedestrian death is five per cent if the vehicle is travelling at 30kmh but increases to 45 per cent at 50km/h and reaches 85 per cent at 60km/h. The lower drink-driving alcohol limit of 50mg/dl limit is now the accepted standard in European countries with some countries, like the Czech Republic, even imposing absolute zero tolerance.

But Soler maintains that Malta’s higher maximum permissible alcohol blood concentration of 80mg/dl  should not be reduced to a lower 50mg/dl on the preposterous grounds that “two thirds of fatal road accidents are not alcohol-related”.   Instead, he says, we should target “overtired drivers”.

Such arguments in favour of drink-driving defy logic and are unacceptable. As to the question of bicycle safety, Soler’s starting point was his misinterpretation of accident statistics in Holland.

Now he argues that the bicycle would anyway be “far more dangerous” if it travelled as fast as a car. Whatever next?  Without going further into futile arguments, suffice it to say that there is abundant evidence of the health benefits of active mobility (walking, cycling and public transport). This evidence was reviewed in a think tank report in December 2015 (www.tppi.org.mt/images/reports/the%20env%20dimension%20report.pdf).

This evidence has recently been further confirmed by the UK Royal College of Physicians and the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit. These found that the overall public health benefits of increased active travel (cycling and walking) far outweigh the risks from accidents and exposure to air pollution by a factor of at least 10.

Therefore, Soler is wrong on all three counts. Both lowering  speed limits  and the permissible  drink-driving limit  can  save lives on our roads and bicycle transport  promotes health far in excess of its perceived hazards.