The Maltese roads have, from time to time, come under the scrutiny of experts.
The experts come up with ways to make our roads more safe, efficient or both.
The latest example of this manifests itself in the fact that a large number of Maltese "highways" now carry a 60km/h speed limit; 20km less than the national limit.
Go over that limit and a little birdie will take a photo that will cost you dearly.
A considerable number of people have voiced concern about this ridiculous limit and are arguing that if the national speed limit is currently set at 80km/h, than these roads should have the 60km signs replaced by 80km.
These are some of the topics that have been raised.
    60 is safer - part 1.
   It is true that 60km/h is less likely to harm a driver or pedestrian than 80.
With the same reasoning 40 is safer than 60 and 20 is safer than 40.
If parliament passed laws banning the use of cars and limiting us to use bicycles, there would be far less severe accidents than what happens with a car.
And with bicycles we would definitely be a healthier nation since commuting from one place to another would no longer be a sedentary event.
  The reality is that, in a complex society such as ours, there are risks taken for the sake of efficiency.
Setting the limit to 80km/h is one of them, although if this limit is coupled with socially sensible measures the risks can be zoomed into zero.
Examples of such measures are better educated drivers, roadworthy vehicles and the elimination of old vehicles that do not conform to modern developments in the field of vehicle safety.
Having roads of good quality also goes a long way to keeping the number of accidents on our roads down.
  How many times, whilst driving, we see the driver in front of us swerving in a dangerous manner to avoid a pot hole or to find the better side of the road? And what about the leaking Santa Venera tunnel?.
How many drivers have lost control of their car for a few seconds when they fall victim to an unsuspecting shower because their window was turned down? Why does it seem that issues related to safety that do not have any money-making (tax) potential never get done or get done so slowly? And while on the subject of safety, tunnels and water, one hopes that experts are sure that the Santa Venera tunnel water erosion happening will not, in some future date, result in an ugly accident.
  There is no statistical evidence that can tell us how many fatalities / serious injuries there have been on these major arteries because drivers where going at 80.
A senior leading traffic expert even made a statement to this effect.
   60km/h is efficient.
   60km/h is anything but environmentally efficient.
 At 60km/h, a 2008 Toyota Auris' shift gear down light switches on, telling the driver to shift gear from 5th to 4th gear.
Many modern vehicles are unable to keep the 5th gear engaged at this low speed, something they have no problem with at the more reasonable 80.
  The chart from the page fueleconomy.
gov/feg/driveHabits.
shtml (note that values are miles per hour not km per hours -- 60 km is equivalent to 37 miles, while 80 km would translate to 50 miles).
This page belongs to the U.
S.
Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.
It is clear that anyone who has made claims of efficiency has not done his research well.
  This is not a tax.
   The absolute majority of those who commented negatively about the imposed speed limit said that the ultimate purpose was to tax drivers.
With the national speed limit set to 80km/h and many of the effected roads designed to comfortably support traffic running at this speed, for almost all drivers it feels comfortably safe to drive at 80.
Many drivers will sooner or later get taxed (sorry fined) for simply driving at what is a naturally popular speed.
Let there be speed cameras, but let these do the job they should be designed to do; pick out offenders and not innocent drivers who are using the roads responsibly.
   The speed cameras are duds.
   There has been some talk about the camera boxes being empty and that these are simply intended to slow traffic.
Large fraction of the people who use these roads are not contesting the speed cameras per se but the speed limit.
And what happens when the speed cameras suddenly move into the empty housings? How many times have we experienced something innocent sliding into our midst and then one fine day it sheds off its sheep skin and raises its head? I predict that if the signs are not adjusted, soon after the issue settles down the cameras will become functional without prior warning or notice.
People will discover that the boxes are no longer duds when they start receiving pictures that cost them dearly.
   60 is safer - part 2   It is common practice for drivers to slow down a few meters short of being spotted by a speed camera.
This is not a Maltese invention and has been depicted in adverts, movies, and other forms of art ever since these devices came into being.
A basic GPS unit is programmed to store within it the location of speed cameras and to advise the driver to slow down when heading towards a camera.
User groups exist with the sole purpose of documenting the location of speed cameras and letting the whole world know.
The rate of deceleration depends on the skill of the driver, how much the driver is risk averse, how much s/he trusts the vehicle's speedometer, as well as how late s/he realizes that the speed camera is imminently going to strike.
  With the speed limit set at 80, a smaller percentage of people will be over that mark and the average amount of deceleration that is necessary to get under the fine-line is much less than with 60.
With the limit set at 60, the number of front-to-rear cases will increase together with associated vehicle repair, whiplash and resulting traffic jams.
   Pleasant Experience   Driving in Malta is anything but relaxing.
Horrible road conditions, polluting vehicles, road rage and vehicle overcrowding all contribute to make the instances when driving is a pleasant experience, short and far apart.
Taking away 20 from the maximum speed limit on our main arterial "highways" will definitely take a chunk out of a pleasant driving experience.
A few years ago we had experts who, in their wisdom, decided to reduce entire chunks of the Maltese main road network to single lanes.
We ended up with (unused) pavements being wider than the roads.
Today the situation is that if a driver happens to end up behind a relaxed driver, a car whose top speed is 30km/h or a heavy goods truck, one has to sit quietly and tap the steering wheel or risk getting into an accident (or a fine) by overtaking.
   Conclusion   It all boils down to the fact that when experts come up with such ideas, they are not experts or are experts who have been fed wrong information or are experts who have not done their homework properly or are experts who have an ultimate ulterior motive.
This is nothing new; in the early to mid 1950's the first strong evidence of how cigarettes damaged one's health became public knowledge.
The smoking manufacturer's lobby produced medical experts who claimed and wrote otherwise.
Some of their advertising of the time even claimed benefits to smoking.
The Tobacco Industry set up an institute called the Tobacco Industry Research Committee and it was headed by no other than the former head of the National Cancer Institute (later renamed to American Cancer Society).
 But in the 1950's the number of people who spoke out against cigarette was sufficiently large and strong to change the course of history.
With our roads the popular voice is to add a little arc to the top of the 60 signs.
For the benefit of Maltese and foreign drivers one hopes this will happen soon.
   You can help