In his latest anti-bicycle rant (‘Unnecessary hazard’, April 26), Jean Karl Soler maintains that cycling on major roads “is an unnecessary hazard” and that it should “at the very least, be subject to a proficiency test”.

By way of contrast it must be added that he has, counter-intuitively, argued against lowering Malta’s drink drive limit from 80 ug/dl to the accepted lower, safer (EU) level of 50 ug/dl. He has also recommended raising our speed limits.

Never mind that a motor vehicle, of which the driver is voluntarily in charge, is capable of inflicting severe injury or death to road users who are not protected inside a vehicle. In his view, it is the humble bicycle that is the baddie and he wants it out of the way.

It is nowhere stated in the vast literature on transport that use of bicycles as a transport option is an “unnecessary hazard”. Quite the contrary, in 1960 Holland decided that vehicle traffic was getting out of hand (and dangerous to children), so they redesigned streets and roads for all users. Now Holland is arguably the healthiest and most efficiently mobile country in the world. Other European countries followed, London is now investing heavily in bicycle transport infrastructure.

The bicycle has long been considered a valid mobility option. It is a mainstream mode of transport in technologically-advanced, affluent countries like Holland, Denmark and Germany. Its use is distributed evenly across all income, age and social groups. But back in Malta bicycle transport continues to be regarded as the preserve of the eccentric or odd or those unable to afford a car.

We remain stuck in a 1950s car-obsessed time warp where our transport authority even allocates €700 million to improving roads to facilitate yet more motor traffic but neglects healthier options as public transport, bicycles and even walking, thus further promoting national un-health by encouraging more passive car transport and intensifying our traffic pollution.

It is time antiquated attitudes changed.