The Times of Malta reported on the front page that “while motorcycles only represent 6.6 per cent of all the vehicles on the road, they were involved in 20 per cent of the accidents resulting in injuries” in 2016 (March 22).
In 2013, it was reported that the serious injury rate for cyclists, moped riders and motorcyclists had been increasing in the Netherlands while that for car occupants had been falling steadily, despite a fall in cyclist fatalities in that period. The point is that the rate of fatalities for car occupants fell faster than that for cyclists.
In 2011, the Institute for Road Safety Research reported that: “On average, per travelled kilometre, cycling in the Netherlands is about 4.7 times more dangerous than driving a car. It was then calculated that, if 10 per cent of all car drivers, including the young and elderly, replaced their short car trips with bicycle trips, an annual extra four to eight road fatalities and approximately 500 serious injuries were to be expected.”
It remains to be seen whether the recently-introduced ‘points’ system will have any effect on road fatalities. Jim Wightman, of the Bicycle Advocacy Group, was very much in favour of the points system but not for cyclists. In, a letter carried in the same edition of the Times of Malta, Wightman criticises the new cycle path on the Kappara bypass as it is equipped with speed-calming measures.
He argues that cyclists cannot travel at 30 or 40km/h on this path and his letter can easily be interpreted as a call to break the law and not use the cycle lane. Appropriately, but shockingly so, the letter was accompanied by a photo of a cyclist, not wearing a helmet, on this path. This is in breach of the Highway Code.
I publicly challenge Wightman to compare the braking distance of a modern motor car travelling at 30km/h with that of a bicycle travelling at the same speed. I have reliable information that the braking distance of a modern car is substantially less than that of a bicycle. Consequently, is it not time to introduce proportionately lower speed limits and appropriate speed-calming measures for cyclists? What plausible objection can Wightman make?