Electric Scooters

louloumc89

I'm thinking of getting an electric scooter and wanted to clarify the legality of this.

Here's what I can find:
7th March 2019
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-03-07/24/

Shane Ross:
"The Road Traffic Act 1961 defines a mechanically-propelled vehicle as a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, regardless of whether the attachment is being used. It also includes a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical, or partly electrical and partly mechanical. Electric scooters and powered skateboards fall into this category and are therefore considered to be mechanically-propelled vehicles."

Noel Rock:
"These electrically assisted scooters require a manual start. They have to be kick started by the user and must reach a minimum of 7 km per hour under the rider's own propulsion, before the electric assist kicks in. Accordingly, this is where the ambiguity exists. In discussions with the motor taxation offices it appears that these vehicles cannot be taxed. Even if one wanted to tax them one could not. This is where the ambiguity and grey area exists. Ultimately, multiple agencies of the State have differing views on how these vehicles should be treated."

Electric Scooters are a grey area, but here's why I think they're legal
The road traffic act he's quoted has exceptions for vehicles where, if the vital electric part if taken off, wouldn't be substantially disabled, then for the purpose of this act (such as a car, motorbike etc), it wouldn't be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle. Push scooters are able to get and maintain considerable speed without the electric part, so they technically fall into the same category as electric bikes which require pedals to start the movement. Electric scooters need to be going at 7km an hour to add the electronic boost, and require that speed maintained manually each hour to continue.

"http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/section/3/enacted/en/html"

Road Traffic Act, 1961

“mechanically propelled vehicle” means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

(a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

(b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,


Subsection (2)
(2) Where a vehicle, which, apart from this subsection, would be a mechanically propelled vehicle, stands so substantially disabled (either through accident, breakdown or the removal of the engine or other such vital part) as to be no longer capable of being propelled mechanically, it shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as not being a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Can anyone clarify? Is this a grey area? Is it black and white, and if so, to which side?

RayCun

They are powered vehicles. As such, they have to be licensed and insured to be used on public roads.

There is a specific exemption for pedelecs

‘ pedelec ’ means a bicycle or tricycle which is equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kilowatts, of which output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 kilometres per hour, or sooner if the cyclist stops pedalling;

An electric scooter is not a bicycle or a tricyle.

The power does not cut off if the user stops pedalling.

RayCun

There is a more recent Dail discussion here
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-05-08/1302/

The Road Traffic Act 1961 defines a mechanically propelled vehicle as a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used. It also includes a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical, or partly electrical and partly mechanical.

Escooters and powered skateboards fall into this category, and are therefore considered to be mechanically propelled vehicles. Any users of such vehicles in a public place (as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1961) must have insurance, road tax and a driving licence, with penalties under road traffic laws (including fixed charge notices, penalty points, fines and possible seizure of the vehicle) for not being in compliance with these requirements.

As it is currently not possible to tax or insure escooters or electric skateboards, they are not considered suitable for use in a public place.

Electric bicycles are in a different category to eScooters. Where a bicycle has an electric motor attached which may be used as an alternate means of propulsion, the vehicle is defined as a mechanically propelled vehicle under the Road Traffic Acts whether or not the motor is being used. However, under Article 1 (h) of EU Directive 2002/24/EC E-bikes are defined as “cycles with pedal assistance which are equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kW, of which the output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 km/h, or sooner, if the cyclist stops pedalling”. As bikes of this type require continuous effort on the part of the cyclist, they are considered to be pedal cycles – in other words, the engine is not the means of propulsion, but an aid to the user.

Pedal assisted cycles with a maximum continuous rated power of more than 0.25 kW and E-bikes that can be exclusively propelled by the motor are classified in the Directive as low-performance mopeds, i.e. vehicles with pedals, with an auxiliary engine of power not exceeding 1 kW and a maximum design speed not exceeding 25 km/h. Such vehicles are subject to Road Traffic legislation as outlined above, with the user obliged to have tax, insurance and an appropriate driving licence where the vehicle is to be used in a public place.

I have requested the Road Safety Authority to research how escooters and other such vehicles are regulated in other countries, particularly other Member States. I am keen to understand the road safety implications of the use of such vehicles on public roads, especially when interacting with other vehicles.

I will make a decision on whether or not to amend existing legislation when I have received the outcome of the Authority’s research, and not before then. I will need to be satisfied that permitting such vehicles on our roads will not give rise to safety concerns, both for the users themselves and for all other road users including cyclists, pedestrians and motorists.

Grassey

See third point updated fairly recently

What is the law on e-bikes, pedelecs or battery powered scooters? Regardless of the type of bike, or whether it
requires an initial push start, the rules are:
 If it can be powered by mechanical or electrical power alone (i.e. it can continue without you pedalling or
scooting it) then it is considered to be a ‘mechanically propelled vehicle’ (MPV).
 Under Road Traffic law if an MPV is used in a public place it is subject to all of the regulatory controls that
apply to other vehicles. Therefore it must be roadworthy, registered, taxed and insured.
 The driver of the vehicle must hold the appropriate driving licence and is obliged to wear a crash helmet.

*And yes I know it's the RSA, and not primary legislation. But they've clarified their position, and as the Gardai are deferring to them in this going by this thread https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057872702&page=79,

coylemj

RayCun wrote: »

An electric scooter is not a bicycle or a tricyle.

If it has two wheels and it's designed to transport a human, it's a bicycle. Doesn't matter if it's a penny farthing or scooter or high nellie.

RayCun

coylemj wrote: »

If it has two wheels and it's designed to transport a human, it's a bicycle. Doesn't matter if it's a penny farthing or scooter or high nellie.

That would be very different to the dictionary definition of a bicycle.

Where does your definition appear?

coylemj

RayCun wrote: »

That would be very different to the dictionary definition of a bicycle.

Where does your definition appear?

My hardcopy Chambers 20th Century Dictionary ('New Edition 1983') defines 'bycycle' as follows....

n. a vehcle with two wheels, one before the other, driven by pedals or a motor.

RayCun

coylemj wrote: »

Chambers 20th Century Dictionary ('New Edition 1983')

n. a vehcle with two wheels, one before the other, driven by pedals or a motor.

a vehicle consisting of two wheels held in a frame one behind the other, propelled by pedals and steered with handlebars attached to the front wheel.

a vehicle with two wheels in tandem, usually propelled by pedals connected to the rear wheel by a chain, and having handlebars for steering

a vehicle with two wheels tandem, handlebars for steering, a saddle seat, and pedals by which it is propelled

Scooters don't have pedals.

coylemj

RayCun wrote: »

Scooters don't have pedals.

You challenged me to state ...

RayCun wrote: »

Where does your definition appear?

Which I supplied, chapter and verse. And your response is to copy & paste definitions from three unamed sources.

If you're a lawyer, I hope you never represent me in court.

Mod
Now now, pls be nice here

RayCun

coylemj wrote: »

If it has two wheels and it's designed to transport a human, it's a bicycle. Doesn't matter if it's a penny farthing or scooter or high nellie.

coylemj wrote: »

My hardcopy Chambers 20th Century Dictionary ('New Edition 1983') defines 'bycycle' as follows....

n. a vehcle with two wheels, one before the other, driven by pedals or a motor.

You provided a definition which doesn't support your point. An electric scooter is not a bicycle, because even though it has two wheels and is designed to transport a human, it is not driven by pedals. The law specifically says any motor must cut off "if the cyclist stops pedalling", so to qualify as a bicycle under the legislation it must have pedals.

I posted definitions (from dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford Dictionaries) which include pedals as part of the definition. Collins dictionary also includes pedals, and the online Chambers dictionary says

bicycle noun a vehicle consisting of a metal frame with two wheels one behind the other, and a saddle between and above them, which is driven by turning pedals with the feet and steered by handlebars attached to the front wheel.

An electric scooter is not a bicycle.

coylemj

RayCun wrote: »

You provided a definition which doesn't support your point.

The dictionary definition I supplied said 'driven by pedals or a motor'. An electric scooter has a motor so it matches the definition.

RayCun wrote: »

An electric scooter is not a bicycle, because even though it has two wheels and is designed to transport a human, it is not driven by pedals.

So a two-wheeled vehicle which is not propelled by pedals is not a bicycle. Meaning that a motorbike is not a bicycle?

RayCun

coylemj wrote: »

The dictionary definition I supplied said 'driven by pedals or a motor'. An electric scooter has a motor so it matches the definition.



So a two-wheeled vehicle which is not propelled by pedals is not a bicycle. Meaning that a motorbike is not a bicycle?

Most of the definitions posted distinguish between a bicycle and a motorcycle.

If we were concerned only with dictionaries, you could argue that this is a grey area. But we're talking about the legality of different forms of transport in Ireland. And the legislation is clear that bicycles are propelled by pedals - so a motorcycle is not a bicycle, and neither is an electric scooter.

(There are some scooters which use pedals. One of those, with a motor that cut off when the pedalling stopped, would arguably be legal. But afaik those hybrid devices don't exist)

coylemj

RayCun wrote: »

If we were concerned only with dictionaries, you could argue that this is a grey area. But we're talking about the legality of different forms of transport in Ireland.

No, you are discussing the legalities, my posts have been confined to a discussion on the literal meaning of the word 'bicycle'. The etymology of the word 'motorbike' is clearly lost on you so I won't bother you further.

blackwhite

coylemj wrote: »

If it has two wheels and it's designed to transport a human, it's a bicycle. Doesn't matter if it's a penny farthing or scooter or high nellie.

1963 RTA (and subsequent acts) include a legal definition of a pedal bicycle under Irish law.

“pedal bicycle” means a bicycle which is intended or adapted for propulsion solely by the physical exertions of a person or persons seated thereon

“mechanically propelled vehicle” means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—
(a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

I also see the OP has quoted section 3(2) of the 1961 Act, but appears to have completely mangled what it means:

(2) Where a vehicle, which, apart from this subsection, would be a mechanically propelled vehicle, stands so substantially disabled (either through accident, breakdown or the removal of the engine or other such vital part) as to be no longer capable of being propelled mechanically, it shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as not being a mechanically propelled vehicle.

This means that it is no longer a mechanically propelled vehicle under Irish law ONLY IF you remove or disable the mechanical propulsion mechanism. Until you actually remove or disable the mechanical ability then it remains, legally, a mechanically propelled vehicle and subject to the various laws and regulations that come with that.



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1961/act/24/enacted/en/print

blackwhite

coylemj wrote: »

No, you are discussing the legalities, my posts have been confined to a discussion on the literal meaning of the word 'bicycle'. The etymology of the word 'motorbike' is clearly lost on you so I won't bother you further.

Imagine someone doing that in this particular forum

ED E

louloumc89 wrote: »

Can anyone clarify? Is this a grey area? Is it black and white, and if so, to which side?

Its black and white. There is no legal way to use them in public under current legislation.



Important note: When the gardai stop you (and they are doing so) they will do so for not being insured. This allows them to seize it but also means you'll be guilty of driving uninsured. If convicted this could make it very very difficult for you to obtain motor insurance in future or cause your current policy to greatly increase in price.

AndrewJRenko

Does the legality change if they are used on the path?

Credit Checker Moose

NO!

louloumc89

Thanks so much for all the information. What I'm having trouble with is how everyone is quoting the bicycle law, as if that should also be inferred in the scooter law, and then following up with "a scooter is not a bicycle".

Obviously a scooter is not a bicycle. So this idea that somehow you needing to keep pedaling invisible pedals is relevant here. The only relevant comparison is that when the law was clarified for bicycles, they distinguished between two types of bicycles; one that has an engine, starts and continues on its own without cycling versus one that requires cycling to start and continue. So, since that was how they interpreted and clarified the law for bicycles, and considering it has not been clarified for scooters. This law was made before these things took off, hence why I think it's grey.

As for the RSA clarification, that's not a law, even if the gardai are excepting it. I am aware of their interpretation. I'm not interested in quoting that as the law. I'm interested in challenging it. Electric scooters didn't exist when it was written. If they did when the ebike law was being written it would have been clarified I believe. Especially considering the minister is now looking to how other member states have handled these legally to decide how we do.

I'm basically getting one of these things I'd say. Morning traffic is a nightmare. I'm happy to tax and insure it when I'm allowed to, but in the meantime, any legal geniuses have a law to quote here? 😅😅😅

blackwhite

louloumc89 wrote: »

Thanks so much for all the information. What I'm having trouble with is how everyone is quoting the bicycle law, as if that should also be inferred in the scooter law, and then following up with "a scooter is not a bicycle".

Obviously a scooter is not a bicycle. So this idea that somehow you needing to keep pedaling invisible pedals is relevant here. The only relevant comparison is that when the law was clarified for bicycles, they distinguished between two types of bicycles; one that has an engine, starts and continues on its own without cycling versus one that requires cycling to start and continue. So, since that was how they interpreted and clarified the law for bicycles, and considering it has not been clarified for scooters. This law was made before these things took off, hence why I think it's grey.

As for the RSA clarification, that's not a law, even if the gardai are excepting it. I am aware of their interpretation. I'm not interested in quoting that as the law. I'm interested in challenging it. Electric scooters didn't exist when it was written. If they did when the ebike law was being written it would have been clarified I believe. Especially considering the minister is now looking to how other member states have handled these legally to decide how we do.

I'm basically getting one of these things I'd say. Morning traffic is a nightmare. I'm happy to tax and insure it when I'm allowed to, but in the meantime, any legal geniuses have a law to quote here? ������

The law has been quoted - but you ignore it because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

Electric scooters currently fall under the definition of a "mechanically propelled vehicle". They don't meet the exemptions for pedal cycles, and they don't meet the exemptions for pedelecs.

To use a mechanically propelled vehicle on the road you must have tax, insurance, mirrors, front and rear lights, and turning signals.
Will your e-scooter have all of those?

I'm sure we'll have you on here whinging again in a few weeks when your toy gets seized by a Garda some morning - looking for some other magic loophole in the law that nobody anywhere has spotted :rolleyes:

The pigeon man

As other posters have said it's a mpv. If you want to get around with little effort get yourself an electric bicycle.

NUTLEY BOY

So, it seems that you cannot tax or insure these conveyances.
The RSA seem to think that you must do otherwise.
Gardaí seem to be following the RSA opinion.

I am not aware that the RSA can interpret the law as that is actually a function of the courts.
They are entitled to a view but that is different.

Looks like a classical legal lacuna.

Gardaí seem to be seizing some of these conveyances on the basis of non compliance with tax and insurance requirements.
Looks like we need a District Court prosecution for driving one of these without tax or motor insurance with a referral to the High Court by way of case stated. That should sort it....

louloumc89

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

So, it seems that you cannot tax or insure these conveyances.
The RSA seem to think that you must do otherwise.
Gardaí seem to be following the RSA opinion.

I am not aware that the RSA can interpret the law as that is actually a function of the courts.
They are entitled to a view but that is different.

Looks like a classical legal lacuna.

Gardaí seem to be seizing some of these conveyances on the basis of non compliance with tax and insurance requirements.
Looks like we need a District Court prosecution for driving one of these without tax or motor insurance with a referral to the High Court by way of case stated. That should sort it....

Thanks! That's interesting, so basically people are getting fined for not having insurance or tax, and yet it's completely impossible to do that. Seems like the best option here is to seek confirmation in writing from the tax office that I've tried to tax it (As an electric vehicle the tax is zero I assume), and confirmation from the insurance companies that it can't be insured. At least this way I've fulfilled an attempt at complying with the law as it's currently being inforced, but it was not possible.

As for the snide assumption of future bitching about the 'toy' being taken away. Not really helpful mate. Clearly this is going to end up being clarified in law at some point. So yeah, I'm looking for helpful thinking like the above here really.

blackwhite

louloumc89 wrote: »

Thanks! That's interesting, so basically people are getting fined for not having insurance or tax, and yet it's completely impossible to do that. Seems like the best option here is to seek confirmation in writing from the tax office that I've tried to tax it (As an electric vehicle the tax is zero I assume), and confirmation from the insurance companies that it can't be insured. At least this way I've fulfilled an attempt at complying with the law as it's currently being inforced, but it was not possible.

As for the snide assumption of future bitching about the 'toy' being taken away. Not really helpful mate. Clearly this is going to end up being clarified in law at some point. So yeah, I'm looking for helpful thinking like the above here really.

No - you're just looking for someone to justify law-breaking because it's convenient for you. You've demonstrated a repeated determination to ignore any and all points that don't fit the outcome you want.

Until legislation otherwise is passed, an e-scooter falls under the same regulations as any other mechanically-powered vehicle.
There's numerous regulations that MPVs have to meet - tax and insurance are only two of them, they just happen to be the easiest for the Gardaí to prosecute under.
There's also regulations requiring mirrors, front and rear lights and turning signals - as well as registration and display of registration plates.
If you fail to meet any or all of the other regulations (which e-scooters currently score a great big zero on), then the vehicle isn't legally road-worthy and cannot be taxed or insured either.

But as usual, you'll ignore all of this because it doesn't give the outcome you want. And clearly the laws are just there for you to pick and choose when it suits

Victor

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does the legality change if they are used on the path?

It gets worse, as mechanically propelled vehicles aren't meant to be used on footways or footpaths, other than crossing, etc.

louloumc89 wrote: »

This law was made before these things took off, hence why I think it's grey.

It's anything but grey. Electric scooters (provided they aren't ped-elecs, and I haven't seen one of these yet, only pedal cycle scooters) are mechanically propelled vehicles and one needs to follow the related laws.

Anything else is wishful thinking.

louloumc89 wrote: »

Thanks! That's interesting, so basically people are getting fined for not having insurance or tax, and yet it's completely impossible to do that. Seems like the best option here is to seek confirmation in writing from the tax office that I've tried to tax it (As an electric vehicle the tax is zero I assume), and confirmation from the insurance companies that it can't be insured. At least this way I've fulfilled an attempt at complying with the law as it's currently being inforced, but it was not possible.

No you haven't - you haven't sought type approval. Getting that would mean that insurers would be much more likely to insure you and you could then tax it.

louloumc89

Thanks for clarifying the current law on this, I appreciate it. I'm looking for the next step to getting these legal. I want to challenge the law as it exists. I want to do my due diligence to try and comply with the law, since that currently is not possible to do, I want to look at the exact area of the law where this is called out, and hopefully we will end up having another exception classes for these electric scooters as there is for electric bicycles.

Del2005

louloumc89 wrote: »

Thanks! That's interesting, so basically people are getting fined for not having insurance or tax, and yet it's completely impossible to do that. Seems like the best option here is to seek confirmation in writing from the tax office that I've tried to tax it (As an electric vehicle the tax is zero I assume), and confirmation from the insurance companies that it can't be insured. At least this way I've fulfilled an attempt at complying with the law as it's currently being inforced, but it was not possible.

As for the snide assumption of future bitching about the 'toy' being taken away. Not really helpful mate. Clearly this is going to end up being clarified in law at some point. So yeah, I'm looking for helpful thinking like the above here really.

You can buy road legal quads, which are fully compliant with all legislation, try getting insurance for one and see what happens. There is a reason you see feck all on the road here but everywhere else they are fairly common.

What's the reg of the scooter that you claim that you can't get tax for?

Alex Cohen

Almost craqshed into one today

nuac

Mod
There are different POVs on these machines
If you differ, pls do politely

louloumc89

Del2005 wrote: »

You can buy road legal quads, which are fully compliant with all legislation, try getting insurance for one and see what happens. There is a reason you see feck all on the road here but everywhere else they are fairly common.

What's the reg of the scooter that you claim that you can't get tax for?

It doesn't have a reg. Can't get an EC cert for it to register as it's just a push scooter with electronic motor unfortunately.

Credit Checker Moose

Private land only for it so.

louloumc89

Alex Cohen wrote: »

Almost craqshed into one today

You almost crashed into it? Or it almost crashed into you? Either way, take care.

This is quite an interesting article. Quotes a case in Ireland around electric scooters from some years back! This scooter had pedals but they were only used to make the thing start, and not thereafter. But a scooter none the less, requiring a manual start, before the bicycle law was brought in. Interesting case.

https://goosed.ie/can-gardai-seize-electric-scooters-in-ireland/

beauf

What interesting was he was drunk and had a scooter. So are you saying both are ok because of the judgement.

GM228

Time to put this one to bed!

louloumc89 wrote: »

hopefully we will end up having another exception classes for these electric scooters as there is for electric bicycles.

What "exception" is there for E-bikes? Strictly speaking there is none.

E-bikes can legally do upto 45 km/h and have a power upto 4000W, these (>25 km/h and >1000W) are in fact classed as "light two-wheel powered vehicles" for the non-pedal assist types such as throttle assists, for RTA purposes they are MPVs.

"Powered cycle" is the correct name for pedal assist types (<25 kh/m and <1000W ), for RTA purposes these are pedal bicycles.

The only reason why powered cycles are exempt is because at EU level they are classified as cycles and exempt from type approval regulations, however light two wheel powered vehicles are subject to type approval.

louloumc89 wrote: »

As for the RSA clarification, that's not a law, even if the gardai are excepting it. I am aware of their interpretation. I'm not interested in quoting that as the law. I'm interested in challenging it. Electric scooters didn't exist when it was written. If they did when the ebike law was being written it would have been clarified I believe. Especially considering the minister is now looking to how other member states have handled these legally to decide how we do.

Electric cars didn't take off either, perhaps they are also in a grey area?

The fact is something does not have to exist at the time legislation is drafted or enacted for it to be covered by the law. Statutory interpretation takes account of changes in technology amongst other things, and for very good reason. The definition of MPV leaves no ambiguity.

What E-bike law do you keep referring to?

Anyway back on topic, the European Commission and Parliament (yes they are different) have already confirmed that E-Bikes are covered under the definition of motor vehicle (the EUs equivalent of our MPV definition) based on European Court of Justice case-law such as the Rodrigues De Andrade vs Salvador & Ors (Case C-514/16) and Torreiro vs AIG Europe Limited (Case C-334/16 cases and of course the famous Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav (Case C-162/13) case. This of course resulted in the E-Bike insurance debacle.

See this press release from the European Commission for example:-

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-3732_en.htm

European Commission wrote:

The evaluation demonstrated that new types of motor vehicles, such as electric bikes (e-bikes), segways, electric scooters already fall within the scope of the Directive as interpreted by the Court of Justice

And their working document impact assessment:-

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0247

European Commission wrote:

The evaluation (see Annex 7) demonstrated that new types of motor vehicles, such as electic bikes (e-bikes), segways, electric scooters etc, already fall within the scope of the Directive as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its case-law. The use of these new types of electric motor vehicles in traffic has the potential to cause accidents whose victims need to be protected and reimbursed swiftly.

...

In principle new types of motor vehicles, such as electic-bicycles (e-bikes), segways, electric scooters, fall within the scope of the Directive. The use of these new types of electric motor vehicles in traffic has the potential to cause victims in accidents which need to be protected and reimbursed swiftly.

In an interesting twist however the EC proposed changes to the Motor Insurance Directive last year to avoid any doubt in his apparent grey area, but a EP committee  blocked this amendment in January despite the EP however previously confirming and agreeing with what the EC stated - that powered cycles are covered under the definition and it is disproportionate in it's current form, see their draft report:-

[Url] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/IMCO/PR/2018/11-21/1166964EN.pdf[/url]

European Parliament wrote:

In principle, based on the case-law of the  European Court of Justice, any existing or new types of motor vehicles such as electric bicycles and segways fall within the scope of Directive 2009/103/EC. However, those vehicles are smaller and  are  therefore  less likely  to cause significant damage to persons or property. It would be disproportionate and not future proof to maintain such an inclusion by default that would impose an expensive and excessive coverage to these vehicles. Such situation would also undermine the uptake of these vehicles and discourage innovation although there is not enough evidence that these vehicles could cause accidents  with injured parties at the same scale as other vehicles such as cars or trucks. It is therefore necessary to limit the scope of this Directive to those vehicles for which the Union considers that safety and security requirements are necessary before they are placed on the market, i.e. the vehicles subject to an EU type-approval. However, it is important to allow Member States to decide at national level the appropriate level of protection  of parties potentially injured by vehicles other  than those subject to  EU  typeapproval. Therefore, nothing in this Directive prevents Member States from maintaining or introducing new provisions covering the protection of users of these other types of vehicles, where Member States  consider it necessary  to protect potential injured parties from a traffic accident. Where a Member State choses to require such insurance coverage in the form of compulsory insurance, it should take  into account the likelihood that a vehicle might be used in a crossborder situation and the need for protection of potential injured parties in another Member State.

Justification

There are more and more new  types of vehicles that are used today outside of traditional cars and trucks, such as electric bicycles and segways. They are all covered by the current Directive due to the general nature of the definition of vehicles in the current directive even when a full insurance coverage would be disproportionate due to the size of the vehicle. In order to deal with this situation, the current Directive allows Member States to exclude such vehicles on a case-by-case principle. This was appropriate in the past because of the limited number of new  vehicles types. In order to cope with the new  pace of innovation, it is necessary to revert the system and to only include in the scope of the Directive a positive list of vehicles that require a full insurance coverage, such as cars and trucks, and to allow Member States to decide how  to regulate other types of vehicles on a case-by-case principle.

As the law stands due to the amendment being rejected what is written in the justification still stands and is in accordance with EU law.

Evan had the amendment passed it would have only covered powered cycles, light two wheel powered vehicles and above would still require insurance.

ED E

GM228 wrote: »

"Powered cycle" is the correct name for pedal assist types (<25 kh/m and <1000W ), for RTA purposes these are pedal bicycles.

Has 2008 been updated?

‘ pedelec ’ means a bicycle or tricycle which is equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kilowatts, of which output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 kilometres per hour, or sooner if the cyclist stops pedalling;

GM228

ED E wrote: »

Has 2008 been updated?

‘ pedelec ’ means a bicycle or tricycle which is equipped with an auxiliary electric motor having a maximum continuous rated power of 0.25 kilowatts, of which output is progressively reduced and finally cut off as the vehicle reaches a speed of 25 kilometres per hour, or sooner if the cyclist stops pedalling;

Read this thread where I explained the limits:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057697731

ED E

Thanks GM.

Its hard for a lay person when de gubberment says stuff like this.



Followed by a big series of check marks indicating its all done and dusted. A health warning on irishstatutebook.ie is clearly too difficult though....

GM228

ED E wrote: »

Thanks GM.

Its hard for a lay person when de gubberment says stuff like this.



Followed by a big series of check marks indicating its all done and dusted. A health warning on irishstatutebook.ie is clearly too difficult though....

I must double check, but now that I recall I think after that post two years ago I think I realised I may have got that point wrong (have not looked at this area of law in a long time), however as I pointed out it was a tax law (specifically in relation to BIK), not a RTA or classification law so still not relevant.

Just a side note in relation to your screenshot and the bill history, the history brings you through all the stages to enacted, many get confused by this, enacted and commenced are not the same, just because something is enacted does not mean it is in force or "done and dusted" as you say.

Edit: Yeap had an idea I got that one mixed up, it commenced January 1st 2009, some sections had fixed commencement dates, others required commencement orders which threw me off.

SixtaWalthers

I just found this stuff.

Because at the moment, electric scooters in the UK are illegal. Sort of. Well…it’s complicated. The Department for Transport (DfT) classes electric scooters as ‘Personal Light Electric Vehicle (PLEV)’ because they’re powered by a motor and says they can only be used on private property. It’s the same for hoverboards, electric skateboards and twist-throttle electric bikes.


You can’t ride scooters on the road, because the DVLA requires that electric vehicles be registered and taxed. And you can’t ride scooters on the pavement because of the 1835 Highways Act that prohibits anyone from riding a ‘carriage’ on the pavement.

skimpydoo

Years ago there was a court case where RTE took a local community radio station to court for not having a radio license. In court, the local radio station asked RTE if they could show their radio license. RTE asked for a days adjournment to bring in the relevant paperwork.

The next day RTE told the Judge that they could not provide their radio license as they did not have one. It turned out that there was no way of applying for a license, so the Judge threw the case out and the local radio station was allowed to broadcast.

Could the same logic be applied to scooters as there is no way you can apply for tax and insurance?

coylemj

skimpydoo wrote: »

Years ago there was a court case where RTE took a local community radio station to court for not having a radio license. In court, the local radio station asked RTE if they could show their radio license. RTE asked for a days adjournment to bring in the relevant paperwork.

It was never the role of 2RN, Radio Athlone, Radio Eireann or RTE to enforce the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926. Any prosecution against a pirate radio station would have been initiated by the Dept. of Posts & Telegraphs. Which means there was nobody from RTE in court during such a case.

skimpydoo wrote: »

Could the same logic be applied to scooters as there is no way you can apply for tax and insurance?

If a Garda prosecutes you for no driving licence, is it a valid defence if he can't produce his licence in court?

beauf

I think rather than thing of clever things to do in court which are unlikely to work.

it would be better to lobby your policitians so the Govt will do something. Ross won't.

Victor

skimpydoo wrote: »

Could the same logic be applied to scooters as there is no way you can apply for tax and insurance?

There is.

Type-approval -> Registration -> Insurance -> Motor Tax.

NUTLEY BOY

BTW if one of these conveyances is driven negligently in a public place causing personal injuries does that become an MIB case if there is no motor insurance in place ?

Victor

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

BTW if one of these conveyances is driven negligently in a public place causing personal injuries does that become an MIB case if there is no motor insurance in place ?

Possibly. However, I imagine the first call is on the negligent party, not the MIB. Risk of and severity of injuries are likely to be at the lower end of the scale.

Grolschevik

Cover story in the Gazette a couple of months back. On phone, so can't be bothered linking, but it's still not paywalled for the next while.

Edit: https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-pdfs/gazette-2019/june-2019-gazette.pdf#page=37

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

Possibly. However, I imagine the first call is on the negligent party, not the MIB. Risk of and severity of injuries are likely to be at the lower end of the scale.

If I'm a freelance chef who has to run around a kitchen all night and someone smashes into my ankle with an electric scooter, for me the incident will not be 'at the lower end of the scale'. Certainly not in economic terms.

The problem is that it's going to take a serious injury or death for this issue to be sorted out. The result is going to be either that the Gardai will be insstructed to enforce a total ban or there will be wall to wall regulation in terms of registration plates, compulsory insurance and probably a new category of driving licence.

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

If I'm a freelance chef who has to run around a kitchen all night and someone smashes into my ankle with an electric scooter, for me the incident will not be 'at the lower end of the scale'. Certainly not in economic terms.

Compare:

80kg person; jogging at 12 km/h

80kg person + 20kg scooter; scooting at 25 km/h

40,000 truck; travelling at 80 km/h

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

Compare:

80kg person; jogging at 12 km/h

80kg person + 20kg scooter; scooting at 25 km/h

40,000 truck; travelling at 80 km/h

I think we can all agree that if you're hit by a truck, you're dead. Comparing your runner and the scooter, we need to talk about kinetic energy which is calculated as half the mass multiplied by the speed squared.

Which means that a 100 kgs object (scooter & rider) travelling at 25 kph has more than five times the energy of an 80 kg runner travelling at 12 kph.

Not sure what the units are (joules?) but here's the comparative numbers....

Runner: 0.5 * 80 * (12^2) = 5,760
Scooter & rider: 0.5 * 100 * (25^2) = 31,250

Take your pick, I'll take the runner any day. Even with the same energy, the scooter (as the first point of contact) is likely to do more damage to you in a collision than a moving human. And a runner can take evasive action to avoid you far quicker than can a rider on a scooter which is going twice as fast. Even a 60 kgs rider on your scooter has three time the energy of the 80 kgs runner.

Mod
Pls state weight of truck

NUTLEY BOY

Is anyone aware if there have been any prosecutions in relation to road tax/licence/insurance arising from driving of these conveyances ?

I am not aware of any cases but would like to see the issue clarified some time.

beauf

Grolschevik wrote: »

Cover story in the Gazette a couple of months back. On phone, so can't be bothered linking, but it's still not paywalled for the next while.

Edit: https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/gazette/gazette-pdfs/gazette-2019/june-2019-gazette.pdf#page=37

Doesn't mention the statue where eBikes are defined as bicycles. Since it's the keystone is a strange omission. Much of it seems to written from people opinions rather than actual law.