Some weeks ago, this newspaper reported that a law court urged legislators to introduce pedestrian offences to “cut down on road fatalities”, which suggests that the court was of the opinion that pedestrians are the cause of accidents and fatalities rather than motor vehicles.

This abhorrent statement was made in the context of a 10-year-old boy who was killed by a speeding car. This report must have made many readers, especially parents with young children, recoil and feel quite sick.

What is under discussion here is not the sentence imposed on a vehicle driver who had caused death but the bias against vulnerable road users as expressed by a magistrate who said that “the time had come for senseless actions by pedestrians to be punished [sanctioned] by law”.

We have already had at least two similar preposterous statements from judges and magistrates in our courts which suggest that our judiciary holds pedestrians in contempt even when they are road accident victims.

One magistrate is reported to have said in court that “the fact alone that a driver overspeeds does not automatically render him fully responsible”. Another stated: “Though we rightly have penalties against motorists who do not observe traffic regulations, the time has come for pedestrians to also answer for their actions when they are negligent.”

This is a disturbing sign that our judiciary tends to protect drivers when it is pedestrians who need protection. It is the sort of comment which gives carte blanche to motorists to speed and drive without due attention.  It makes our judiciary accomplices to the carnage on our roads and trivialises the fact that pedestrians are vulnerable road users.

Comments about “senseless actions by pedestrians” remain unacceptable as long as Transport Malta and our local councils fail to include adequate provision to enable pedestrians to cross roads safely.

As things now stand, both Transport Malta and our judiciary treat pedestrians as low-priority, second-class road users so that pedestrians are left to cope as best as they can with hostile conditions on our roads.

An urban planner’s dictum is that ‘the urban environment should be tolerant of mistakes’; this includes making sure that vehicle drivers behind the wheel are prudent.  Pedestrians are not negligent; rather, it is our Transport Authority and judiciary that are negligent.

Over past decades our roads have been systematically adapted to favour the car as default transport. Such zebra and pelican crossings as installed on our roads are too sparse and far apart so that pedestrians are forced to choose between crossing an open road or walking to a distant crossing point just to reach the other side of a road.

Most pelican crossings require pedestrians to wait for an inordinately long time to cross.

Added to the deficit in pedestrian crossings, little else is done to ensure a safe (urban) road environment – particularly for children and elderly people. Malta has not yet accepted the introduction of an urban 30km/h speed limit, neither has introduction of presumed liability law been considered.

Urban traffic-calming measures are absent in our towns and villages, urban shared spaces and pedestrianised areas are rare and our roads are not pedestrian-friendly.

There are few infrastructure solutions to enhance safety for children. Apart from parking offences, enforcement is weak and court penalties for injury and death of pedestrians are often trivial so that an attitude of impunity is imparted to vehicle drivers.

Transport Malta and our judiciary treat pedestrians as low-priority, second-class road users

In the case reported on October 3, the court’s interpretation was that the victim “suddenly exited onto the main road, straight in the path of oncoming traffic”.  Nice and easy.

The young victim is dead and is therefore unable to confirm if this was so.  Assuming that he would not have been insensitively intimidated or blamed on the spot, his version might have been different: that he had looked both ways, saw no cars and thought it was safe to cross.

By the court’s admission, the car that hit this youngster was travelling at an excessive speed, which may have been misjudged by the victim at a distance. Under the circumstances he did not stand a chance of reaching the other side of what initially appeared to be a clear road.

“Court experts” are reported to have concluded that the absence of brake marks indicated that the car had been coming at an excessive speed and that the sudden appearance of the boy had “shocked the driver who totally lost control behind the wheel”.

But, surely, the absence of brake marks might have equally meant that the driver was not driving attentively and did not see the victim? Quite simply, if this vehicle had not been willfully travelling at speed, then the victim might not have been killed.

It happens time and again that our courts seem to bend over backwards to mitigate the contribution of the vehicle driver to injury and death of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.

The bias of the comments by our courts about pedestrian behaviour epitomises our institutionalised unfairness to vulnerable road users whereby injured pedestrians get shortchanged and vehicle drivers are off lightly.

As long our Transport Authority does not make provision for pedestrians to use our roads with safety and as long as fast-moving traffic continues to be allowed in our urban and residential areas, our street environment will remain people-unfriendly, unhealthy and, worst of all, dangerous ‒ especially to children and the elderly.

George Debono is a retired doctor with a research background and a special interest in health and environment matters.