Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Of all the measures dealt with in this complex Bill, it is probably fair to say that the ones which attracted the most attention were those to do with electric scooters. These vehicles have become very popular in recent years and have a great deal to offer as an environmentally-friendly form of micro mobility. At the same time, the laws needs to take account of them like any other vehicles in the general interest of public safety.

One starting point is that e-scooters already fit the criteria to be classed as mechanically-propelled vehicles, MPVs. It follows that they cannot be used in a public place without tax, insurance and an appropriate driving licence. They cannot be taxed because they are not a type approved and there is no appropriate class of driving licence. This means that they are currently illegal to use in a public space. The Bill will change this. It will create a new class of powered personal transport, PPT, which will be legal to use and distinct from MPVs. The class of PPTs is a wider category than e-scooters and allows for the possible emergence of other similar forms of micro mobility in the future.

In line with the way the law handles MPVs and other types of vehicles, the amendments to the Bill will establish PPTs as a category, as well as stating which specific provisions in the law do or do not apply to them, as they would to MPVS, while leaving the question of construction, equipment and use of the vehicles for regulations. We are breaking new ground and as we progressed through the Dáil we made a number of amendments to the PPT provisions. I have a few more to propose today. They are primarily about one core change with a number of consequential changes based on that change.

One of the most vital aspects of the introduction of any new concept into law is to have a clear definition of what it is we are talking about. It is also important to get that definition right because everything else will depend on it.In the case of PPTs, it is essential we have a definition, and we are providing one. As we are talking about a class of vehicles, we have included in the Bill a definition of PPTs that relies on three parameters familiar from other definitions of vehicles, namely, weight, speed and power output. There has been much discussion on the best way to approach this definition and of the values to be set. In the Bill as it stands, when each of these parameters is mentioned, it is added that the Minister may subsequently set a different value for that parameter. I am now proposing to revise this. The specific wording expressed in respect of each of these parameters is being removed and I will add a general provision stating, "The Minister may prescribe, for powered personal transporters or different classes of them, a maximum weight unladen, a maximum design speed, or a maximum continuous rated power or combined maximum continuous rated power different to the weight, speed or rated power referred to in the definition". This is not simply a tidier way of saying the same thing; it is different from what is currently in the Bill in one crucial respect, namely, that different values could be set in regulations for different classes of PPTs. For the time being, e-scooters will be the only class of PPTs we will be addressing in regulations but we allow for the possibility there may be others in future. It may be that different weight, speed or power output limits would be appropriate for different types of PPTs. We are, therefore, making allowance for this via the proposed amendment. As I indicated, it is a core change and most of the other amendments proposed with it are consequential amendments following from it.

As regards amendment No. 26, while I understand what Senators Ruane and Higgins have in mind, the amendment misses an important point. In the Bill, we are introducing a new class of vehicles known as PPTs. This class will be distinct from mechanically propelled vehicles, the category into which e-scooters automatically fall at the moment. It will also be legally distinct from bicycles. The Senators’ amendment to add “except for pedal cargo bicycles” into the definition of PPTs is, therefore, unnecessary and irrelevant as PPTs do not include any type of pedal cycles. In that light, I ask the Senators to consider withdrawing the amendment. If they wish to press the amendment, I should point out that not only will it make no difference, it will also raise the problem that a pedal cargo bicycle is not defined in law. In any case, they can rest assured that the kind of vehicle of which they are thinking could not be mistaken in law for a PPT because it does not have a power source.

There is one further issue in the amendments to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. When it comes to consideration of the weight of a PPT, a question arose as to whether the battery should be included in the weight. I am proposing an amendment to state clearly that the battery should be so included. Weight is, among other things, a safety issue, being related to the momentum of a vehicle and the potential damage it might cause in a collision. In practice, these vehicles will be used on roads with the battery installed and it should be considered as part of the legal weight limit.