It was very nice to find myself nodding in agreement with Stephen Calleja in his opinion piece “The plight of cyclists” (TMIS, 8 August). We now have something in common – we are both worried about our young ones – his son and my grandson, both of whom have taken up cycling.

I fully agree with every word Mr Calleja has written but there one or two points on which I would like to take the liberty to elaborate.

First of all, one minor point: Cycling is, of course, a “sport” but it is also a valid means of transport – and a very clean and healthy one at that. For most of my working life I commuted to work by bicycle and covered thousands of kilometres every year without using a drop of fossil fuel. This was in the UK, Switzerland, Denmark and other countries. Back in Malta, I still use my bicycle as others might use a car – though not exclusively. Overall, if the weather permits and I don’t have to carry a heavy load or take a passenger, I far prefer travelling by bike because of the sheer beauty of never having parking problems. Commuting by bicycle also provides a wonderful means of integrating exercise into the daily routine.

As Mr Calleja emphasized, whether for sport, pleasure or commuting, cycling provides an excellent opportunity for exercise. Sadly, this is where Malta is missing out because the question of cyclist safety is a burning issue here.

While Mr Calleja is right in saying that cyclists should “play their own part for their own safety”, emphasis on bicycle riders wearing a cycle helmet for their protection is not the answer. This shifts responsibility back on to the cyclist – when death or injury in adult cyclists almost invariably results from being hit by a motor vehicle and a helmet affords little or no protection in car accidents. The sad truth is that wearing a cycle helmet does not in the least “increase road safety” for the simple reason that the greatest threat to cyclists comes from motor traffic.

In this matter one must first of all distinguish between competitive sport cycling, children and the leisure or commuting cyclist. Helmets are essential in professional or competitive racing cycling because of the high speeds attained during training and events. The nature of injury and death are different in this group because these are uncommonly hit by cars. Helmets are strongly advised and it is good that sports associations insist on helmet wear.

The case of children is also very special. Children should wear a helmet, whether riding on pavements or roads. Unlike adults, they often come off their bicycles or crash into obstacles and they therefore the protection of a helmet. For this reason, some countries have made helmets mandatory in children up to the age of 16. This makes sense but it has to be weighed against the possibility of deterring youngsters from taking up cycling.

On the other hand, the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF), the UK Cycle Touring Club (CTC), other cycling organisations and medical associations are against imposition of mandatory helmet laws for a number of reasons. Making helmets mandatory discourages cycling because it creates the image that daily cycling for leisure or commuting is a dangerous activity, whereas it is not – provided that motorist behaviour toward cyclists is as it should be. In countries where helmets were made obligatory, the overall health effect was negative because the effect was to reduce cycle use so that fewer people pursued an activity inherently beneficial to health. Published studies also showed that obligatory helmet use failed to yield measurable reductions in head injuries. Finally, cycle helmets are not compulsory in cycle-friendly countries such as Holland and Denmark. In spite of having the lowest levels of helmet use, such countries have the best bicycle safety records. This is attributed, in the first place, to understanding and respect of cyclists’ needs by motorists, law enforcement, public awareness, education and separation from motor traffic on cycle lanes and paths – and not helmets.

Sport cycling and children apart, the bottom line is this: The correct approach is to direct safety campaigns towards primary safety, that is, reducing the number of accidents through education of both cyclists and motorists and by providing infrastructure and equipment. This should take absolute precedence over secondary safety as, for example, promoting use of helmets. The consensus is therefore that the wearing of helmets by cyclists should be strongly encouraged but left as a matter of personal choice for adults.

Statistics show that a good way to increase cycling safety is to promote cycling itself. This is based on the “safety in numbers” principle: if more cyclists are on the road, then cycling becomes correspondingly safer because motorists become more careful.

All parents whose children have taken a liking to bicycles are strongly urged to buy a cycle helmet of good quality for their children next Christmas – or sooner. At the same time, people who are in favour of promoting cycling must continue to urge our government to take steps to make cycling on our roads safe. How this can be achieved is described in great detail in Part III (paras 645 – 784) of the think tank report “Towards a Low Carbon Society – the Nation’s Health, Energy Security and Fossil Fuels” available at http://www.tppi.org.m t/cms/index.php/reports.

Our Transport Authority would do well to read it too.

G. G. Debono

SLIEMA