The Bicycle Advocacy Group (BAG Malta) welcomes as a step in the right direction the provision of ‘practice areas’ that are to be protected from extraneous vehicle traffic for cycling, as reported in TMI article ‘Police disagree with new Ta’ Qali action plan’ (Noel Grima, 23 June). In effect such protected area would provide young and novice riders an area where they can enjoy protected circular routes, trails and pre-existing secondary routes in the area as cited. 

However, the Bicycle Advocacy Group (BAG Malta) would like to point out that such a protected area is not the solution to the factors which, as correctly reported in the said article, impinge upon the safety of cyclists while on our roads.

The problem of road safety for cyclists has to be dealt with in a holistic manner and with due considerations to facts such as Malta’s limited road network, the state of the roads, vehicle density and driver behaviour.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the British Department of Transport, amongst others, propose measures that enhance cyclist safety which mainly reduce traffic density; secondly reduce traffic speeds, thirdly improve traffic management and forth add partial on road segregation between cyclists and motorists. These proposals are numbered in order of importance and along with others have been termed as a ‘hierarchy of controls’.

In the said article, the Bicycle Advocacy Group is afraid that readers may have been given the incorrect impression that the full use of ‘off road’ infrastructures, which according to the said hierarchy is the least important, is the only acceptable solution. The group is also concerned that the ‘track’, while a good starting point, will not necessarily fulfil all needs, for instance of road race cyclists who generally need far more ‘mileage and varying terrain’ to be competitive. 

Additionally, cyclists who ride for sports and pastime purposes travelling to and from Ta’ Qali, together with more traditional cycling commuters, constantly need to use major roads at some point to simply get from A to B, or in this case the park. 

The Bicycle Advocacy Group takes this opportunity to reiterate its stand in favour of cycling infrastructures, such as the one proposed at Ta’ Qali, hailing it as a step in the right direction. However, the Group would like to emphasise that such infrastructures should not be used to ‘ghettoise’ cyclists as they would be deemed to be the only place where it is legitimate for them to cycle in. The idea that it may be possible to ghettoise cyclists away in Ta’ Qali (mindful of the fact that certain motorists still hold that cyclists should not use major roads), is both fanciful and fundamentally wrong. 

Such an attitude is clearly unacceptable in a pro-bicycle Europe that supports a large portion of our road-building funds. BAG (Malta) would like to encourage stakeholders concerned with road safety of cyclists to consider the more important means of protecting cyclists’ safety, rather than the least important measure found in the hierarchy of controls and accepted wisdom.

■ Jim Wightman

BAG PRO (Malta)