Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

On the point made by Deputy Ellis about the mandatory wearing of helmets, it has been demonstrated in other jurisdictions - Australia is a case in point - that when we make the wearing of helmets mandatory, particularly with cycling, the participation rate drops. Dublinbikes is a great example of a micromobility solutions and much of that comprises incidental use. We really want people to feel comfortable stepping up to electric scooters or bicycles to use them. What we really need to focus on is making the environment safe for people to do so. The majority of injuries and fatalities from bicycle usage involves collision with a vehicle, and I am not entirely convinced a piece of Styrofoam on my head will prevent injury being caused by an 18-wheel lorry.

I find myself somewhere between Deputies McAuliffe and Catherine Murphy in my assessment of the Bill. I am not quite as enthusiastic as Deputy McAuliffe but I certainly do not see it anyway as bad as how it was painted by Deputy Murphy. It is important work that will bring about many of the programme for Government commitments that we wanted to see, particularly around unlocking sustainable transport modes. That is my view in any case. I welcome the assurance we will have consolidation of the road traffic laws once we have this Bill passed through the Oireachtas.

I will start my consideration of specific provisions with electric bikes and scooters and micromobility provision. I wonder whether we have gone far enough. Electric bikes are very important for unlocking sustainable transport options and we have seen much research in the Dutch context in particular. These allow people to travel further and use bikes later in their lives, which has all sorts of attendant benefits around health etc.

I wonder about the adaptation kits that we see many food delivery drivers using, for example, and whether the legislation goes far enough to cover that. We speak about "pedal-assist" only, for example. It would be a difficult enforcement task to ask the police on the street to decide if something is a pedal-assist electric bike or one that does not require pedal-assist.

The electric scooters question is interesting. Research indicates they do not tend to displace car journeys but instead they tend to displace walking journeys. There is still certainly value in them when it comes to micromobility around cities, in particular. I am interested in looking at research on this, particularly use of demographics, specifying who uses electric scooters and what they use them for. It is something important to consider, particularly in light of the concerns raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy around clutter if we see the rental model coming in that we have seen in other jurisdictions.

I have a slight issue in the Bill with the question of providing for only one rider either of a electric scooter or bikes in general. When I was growing up, it was giving somebody a "backer". In the Dutch context they call it "dinking", which is a slightly nicer way of saying it. I have seen many people riding electric scooters "two up", as they call it, particularly young girls. We might miss this in legislation or are content to see it, as the Dutch do, "through fingers", which means they kind of choose to ignore it. Again, it may create an enforcement problem. Do we really want gardaí to stop two girls travelling down the road on an electric scooter? Perhaps we do. We should certainly consider that in the Bill.

I very much welcome the regulation of scramblers and quads and this is overdue. This is a major safety concern. Other Deputies have spoken more to the specific matter but I will refer briefly to the use of kissing gates. Never was a term less well applied as there is nothing romantic at all about kissing gates unless a person is kissing goodbye a friend on a cargo bike who cannot go through, or children in a double buggy who cannot go through or somebody on a mobility device who cannot fit through. As we are planning more sustainable and active transport and travel corridors, we must ensure they are fit for all those people. In particular, those reliant on mobility devices must be able to use segregated and safe infrastructure that is in place for them.

There is an omission from the Bill and I will consider tabling an amendment on Committee Stage. It relates to a reporting structure for close passes, which we have seen operating in other jurisdictions. If a person is subject to a close and dangerous pass on a bicycle, whether it is by a car, bus, truck or whatever, he or she should be able to use a video device, if one is being used, to make a report. There is value in that. The question has been asked whether people could falsify videos.

One role of a judge is to weigh up the evidence and make a finding based on the validity of that evidence. If we make a provision in the law that allows people to provide video evidence to prove instances of close passes in particular, I am confident the courts would be able to deal with, and it is a provision for which cycling advocacy groups have been pushing for.

I refer to the whole area of autonomous vehicles. Instead of considering driverless cars, I would prefer if we were discussing carless drivers and if people could get around their cities without the use of a car, be it autonomous, electric or whatever. We should consider other mobility solutions that do not involve a car. I am concerned about the provision of test beds for autonomous cars. The technology is improving, however, I do not believe it is sufficient as of yet. I worry deeply about beaconing which involves people tagging their locations. While this may not be included in the provisions of the Bill, it is certainly something we will have to consider in the future. We should not have to tag ourselves within a setting so that autonomous vehicles do not strike us. We should certainly not have to beacon our children. I am also concerned about the data gathering required for test beds. Who will have access to that data and to what extent will we give our data to the creators of this technology, allowing them to gather that data within an urban environment? This is an area we should consider in more detail.

See this speech in context