Dáil debates

Wednesday, 14 December 2016

Road Traffic Bill 2016 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed)

 

8:20 pm

Photo of Robert TroyRobert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have tabled an amendment in this regard. I also tabled it on Committee Stage. At present, no agency or public body has the authority to regulate rickshaws. The NTA, which regulates small public service vehicles such as taxis or hackneys, cannot regulate rickshaws because a public service vehicle is defined as a vehicle that is mechanically propelled. Likewise, Dublin City Council and other councils do not have the authority to regulate or license rickshaws because they are not pedal-powered vehicles. I understand there are three types of rickshaw - some are pedal powered, some are operated by a throttle and some are operated by a combination of pedal and battery. In 2013, Dublin City Council made draft by-laws to try to introduce regulation for rickshaws. Obviously it did so because it was aware of the difficulty they present in the capital city. Rickshaw operators have now moved out to other large urban areas as well. However, the draft by-laws were withdrawn on legal advice, because the great majority of rickshaws are neither pedal nor mechanically powered but battery assisted. This means that under the current legislative definitions they are not small public service vehicles, which are defined as mechanically propelled vehicles. Hence, the NTA is not authorised to regulate them.

Our proposed amendments alter the definition of small public service vehicles to include battery powered, pedal powered and non-mechanically powered vehicles. This creates a new category of public service vehicle called "public service rickshaws". It includes all rickshaws, mechanically powered, manually powered and cycled. This closes the legal lacuna and means the NTA will be the authorised body for regulating rickshaws across the country. The amendments also oblige the NTA to make certain regulations in respect of rickshaws. The amendments afford the Minister the opportunity to work with the NTA on bringing forward comprehensive regulations to deal with this matter. They do not tie the Minister's hands in terms of specifying what those regulations should be, but give him the opportunity, if he accepts them, to work with the NTA on introducing regulations.

As my colleague said earlier, there is no regulation at present. An increasing number of people are using rickshaws as a means of getting from A to B. No character check is carried out on the people who are carrying passengers in the rickshaws. They might be convicted of rape or murder, or be the most unsavoury characters. I am not saying the majority are. In fact, I am sure the majority are genuine, decent, ordinary, hard working people who are just trying to earn a livelihood. However, there is no character reference so people getting into these rickshaws have no confidence in the person operating it. We would not allow that in the case of taxis or buses, so I see no reason to allow it in the case of rickshaws. There are also no inspections carried out on the roadworthiness of the vehicle. A person could be getting into a vehicle that is extremely dangerous. Again, that would not be permitted with a taxi, so why allow it with this type of public service vehicle? In fact, taxi drivers are put through a rigorous process to ensure their vehicle is roadworthy. Rickshaw operators are competing with taxi drivers each day, particularly for short hop-on, hop-off fares around the capital.

Rickshaws have no insurance. God forbid, if anybody was involved in an accident in one, and left paralysed or, worse, killed, there is no insurance. This Bill is an opportunity. When it was brought before the committee a number of weeks ago I was on Newstalk to discuss why we had tabled this amendment. I was surprised at the number of people who contacted me afterwards. They were genuine people. One person told me that he could not get a job so he had used his savings as he saw operating a rickshaw as an opportunity to make a few bob. I said: "More luck to you". I outlined what we were trying to do and he told me we were right. "We need to be regulated", he said, "because if we are regulated it puts us on a better footing".

Nobody has anything to fear with this. It is a sensible, logical proposal. Like the case made by my colleague, Deputy Munster, I hope the Minister will accept it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.