Electric Scooters

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.

beauf

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

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.

If it's illegal but no one had been prosecuted yet what does that clarify?

Victor

beauf wrote: »

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.

Only ped-elecs (pedal assist up to a certain sped / power) are bicycles, other e-bikes are electric motorbikes. This was done by SI.

Homer

Saw a bit of that Dermot Bannon programme on amazing homes around the world on Sunday evening on RT He was in sweden and if I recall Stockholm have introduced these en masses around the city in the same way we have the Dublin bike scheme. They all have lights and bells etc but people aren’t being killed or seriously injured in their droves? Why do we have to over complicate and over regulate things all the time?

Same with electric cars and the government insisting they make noise below a certain speed
I’m just back from the Far East and places like shanghai have an enormous percentage of electric vehicles compared to petrol & diesel and much bigger populations too. And they don’t have to scrape people off the road every day?

Robbo

Homer wrote: »

Same with electric cars and the government insisting they make noise below a certain speed

It wasn't the Government, it's a European Regulation adopted after representations from, amongst others, the European Blind Union.

coylemj

Homer wrote: »

Saw a bit of that Dermot Bannon programme on amazing homes around the world on Sunday evening on RT He was in sweden and if I recall Stockholm have introduced these en masses around the city in the same way we have the Dublin bike scheme. They all have lights and bells etc but people aren’t being killed or seriously injured in their droves? Why do we have to over complicate and over regulate things all the time?

Probbaly because in Sweden (and Denmark), cyclists respect traffic lights. Dublin is cowboy country where cyclists routinely crash red lights. Which puts them into permanent conflict with motor vehicles and pedestrians.

jimmycrackcorm

coylemj wrote: »

Probbaly because in Sweden (and Denmark), cyclists respect traffic lights. Dublin is cowboy country where cyclists routinely crash red lights. Which puts them into permanent conflict with motor vehicles and pedestrians.

There are a substantial number of cyclists killed by cars and I don't think a single one was because of running a red light.

My theory is that diverts just dislike the behaviour because it's me obvious when they run red lights, and we all know that many more drivers run them than cyclists do.

You just have to stand on the corner of westmoreland Street and observe how many pedestrians cross when the lights are been for traffic, yet no one says boo about this.

Basically the reason that it works in Sweden and the Netherlands is because the numbers cycling there mean that its a primary mode of transport and they get respect instead of the derision you witness here.

beauf

Victor wrote: »

Only ped-elecs (pedal assist up to a certain sped / power) are bicycles, other e-bikes are electric motorbikes. This was done by SI.

Which is why I'm wary of any "article" that doesn't mention this. Seem strange that one doesn't.

Peregrinus

Homer wrote: »

Same with electric cars and the government insisting they make noise below a certain speed

This is not a new thing. Electric trams have had bells on them since, like, forever. Why did you think this was?

Kevin3

Victor wrote: »

Only ped-elecs (pedal assist up to a certain sped / power) are bicycles, other e-bikes are electric motorbikes. This was done by SI.

I don't know why this always comes up. A "ped-elec" is currently an MPVs per the definition under the Road Traffic Act 1961 which is the act which matters as it makes insurance, driving licences, lights etc all compulsory.

“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,

but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;

There is no mention of "ped-elecs" in the 1961 Act.

Another thing I don't understand is why it's not considered an MPV when the propulsion only kicks in to assist manual pedaling. I can't see how this would take it outside of the above definition as there is mechanical propulsion being applied.

What's to stop somone having a powerful motorbike which is altered so that the engine only engages as long as there is fatuous use of attached pedals?

beauf

There is more to it than that. Its never quoted which is why people are confused.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/si/412/made/en/print

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/924b9569-4bc8-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-HTML/source-102215667


Quote:
Article 1 (h) ... “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 a result of this exclusion, member
states should classify these vehicles as bicycles.

Basically this is defined as a bicycle.

So therefore a Scooter no matter how it starts cannot be a bicycle.