But these rants gain clicks from people unwilling or unable to think a bit harder, but sadly usually all too willing to get annoyed or even angry. Are you triggered by anti-cycling ragebate? Even forgetting cyclists, is that something that’s healthy for you?

Just to note: This article is about cyclists: People cycling pedal bikes and electric bicycles with motor assistance limited 25km/h; if you’re mad with people flying along without much or any pedalling, they likely are not cyclists but moped users or motorcyclists. Take your anger somewhere else, or, if you want to be informed, you can find out the difference here.

Anyway, here are ten common anti-cycling rants followed by reasons why most people who have thought about it for more than a few seconds might disagree with you:

(1) “Cyclists will never admit that they do anything wrong”

Of course, cyclists, and all road users, do silly, dangerous and sometimes reckless things. We are all humans

(2) “It should be illegal for cyclists not to use cycle lanes”

If a cyclist is not using a cycle lane or cycle path, there’s a good reason for it — there’s been loads of articles covering the reasons (including this one or this one).

If you’re unwilling to do a quick search and a bit of reading to understand something, but you keep getting worked up over cyclists not using cycle paths, maybe you have a wider problem, including falling for the ragebate on social media and in the media generally?

(3) “But it’s a perfectly good cycle lane”

Is it good enough for you to take up cycling or using it with some kind of mobility device? You should write to the local authorities in the Netherlands and tell them that they have got it wrong — our design is much better and they should be learning from us!

(4) “The bad cyclists give all cyclists a bad name”

Could you imagine if anybody said, “The bad motorists give all motorists a bad name”? How silly would that be? Across the world, more than a million people die at the hands of motorists each year; many more are injured, and many billions of euro/pounds/dollars in property damage is caused by drivers.

(5) “Cyclists should have insurance”

Read the second line in the above answer again. In the grand scale of things, the potential for cyclists to cause harm and damage is similar to the risk of pedestrians causing harm and damage.

(6) “But cyclists break the law more”

As covered in a recent article, researchers found: ““When it comes to rule-breaking bicyclists, one popular opinion is that if bicyclists want to be taken seriously as road users, they need to obey the rules of the road like everyone else. Our survey results and the literature review both suggest that drivers break the rules of the road just as much, if not more, than bicyclists.”

But you don’t have to look at research. Motorists drive around giving out about other motorists more. Cyclists are just a pet peeve that too many cannot get over.

(7) “Bicycles should have registration plates”

There are loads of logical reasons I can give why registration plates for bicycles are a silly idea, but you should only need this one: The only country with registration plates for bicycles is North Korea.

Still not convinced? If you cannot see the problem yet that only North Korea has implemented the idea and you’re still suggesting it, there may be no hope for you.

(8) “So, you’re saying we should allow cyclists to be lawless/reckless?”

Nobody has said that. This one comes up nearly every time you say anything to counter anti-cycling nonsense — so it’s not a gotcha or being original or anything like that.

(9) “But cyclists cannot be held responsible without being registered”

Just like pedestrians, if it’s a serious enough issue, most people can be tracked down. Even with number plates and training, etc, motorists still kill over 1 million deaths around the world, and are responsible

(10) “But motorists don’t drive on footpaths/pavments/sidewalks”

Yes, yes they do. And if you live someplace that doesn’t drive, park and regularly kill people on what should be pedestrian spaces

After engaging with people for years on this, I’ve found that a large chunk of people ranting about cyclists on pedestrian paths are actually talking about children (including teenagers). They usually won’t say it straight up that they are talking about children. But if you’re talking about children cycling on footpaths/pavements/sidewalks — in most places, society has agreed to allow children to use these spaces.

PS/Just to note:

As I’ve mentioned before: I openly engage with people online using my real name. From this, I feel like I’ve learned a lot, gained some hope and some despair too (I’m still not sure where the balance is between those two things). I always try to be civil, but if people push, I will push back a bit.

In this article, some people might think I’ve been insensitive, but to anybody coming here offended: You clicked on an article with the headline “your anti-cycling ranting”, and you self-identified with that. You shouldn’t be doing that unless you think that you do engage in anti-cycling ranting. So what were you expecting? And why are you doing it to yourself?

And no, this is not clickbait or ragebate — I do not gain from clicks. What it is trying to be is engaging, honest, and informative. Maybe it has failed from the start, but if it managed to even half-shock one person out of anti-cycling arguments. Not everything can work, but it’s worth trying different ways.

Comment & Analysis: Irish Rail has just announced initial public consultation on FourNorth, a project designed to four-track the Northern Line between Connolly Station and Malahide. A rail project that’s going in the wrong direction.

To be clear: Four tracks, or more importantly, two sets of two tracks, are needed to separate Dart and Intercity services to allow for future growth of the rail system along this important corridor between Dublin, the new outer suburbs around Clongriffin where there’s high-density housing, and commuter towns, and Belfast.

It’s just that a tunnel is a far better idea. While it might not have made the headlines until this week, Irish Rail has been working on Four North since at least 2024, and I want to be clear: Others have suggested a tunnel privately or elsewhere before I am doing so here. It’s a suggestion I’ve heard repeated by different people who don’t always see eye to eye.

A large part of the problem is the unwillingness, especially of politicians and the media, to accept the basic fact we need to invest billions in rail projects to catch up with underinvestment since the foundation of the State. In this vein, The Irish Times sends out a poor junior reporter to do vox pops, and the newspaper runs with a headline dismissing the need for the project.

This is followed by an endless debate fueled by people (often newspaper columnists) spreading misinformation about public transport.

Cheaper, but like BusConnects x100

Building FourNorth at ground level, or just below or above it as the line is, would be cheaper than tunnelling. Building extra tracks beside the existing railway is technically possible, but a really bad idea. In some places, there’s space that can be used without too much impact. Sadly, that space is not continuous.

It should not be any surprise to anybody who knows the Northern Line that this project will require the demolition of a number of houses and 5-6km+ of urban trees and greenery along the tracks within the city alone.

People who support the project can make all the arguments in the world about the common good, and I’ll agree with them. The problem is that the opposition to this will be like BusConnects on steroids. And BusConnects showed that too many of our politicians are willing not only to represent people, but to make hay of issues.

There will be quite a lot of disruption from this project — stations will need to be relocated, road bridges will need to be extended, footbridges replaced if possible, and the Dart and Belfast services put off the rails for extended periods of many months.

Businesses, parts of school yards, sports pitches, green areas, parts of farms, even playgrounds could be affected. Nothing that cannot be overcome, but BusConnects and other projects show that, along with legitimate concerns, a lot of political hay will be made.

Many gardens will be affected, and unlike BusConnects, these will be back gardens which these days are more like extensions of houses. And because of the elevated or trench-like nature of different parts of the line, even the need for temporary possession of some extra lengths of land will eat into gardens quite a lot.

Opposition on a project like this can delay it by years or even a decade or more. Adding risk and cost. But this kind of politically fueled indecision and delay is the kind senior politicians often shy away from talking about.

MetroLink will involve demolishing a city centre apartment block and other properties, but it’s not the same thing. The need for a mostly underground metro to be able to build stations in congested areas is more understandable for the general public than four-tracking an existing railway line.

The sad fact is that suburban house owners hold more political clout than city centre apartment renters or owners.

A key difference is also that the plan for four-tracking in the All-Island Strategic Rail Review plans to have the intercity line divert away from the Northern Line after Clongriffin to link with the airport and bypass the current line — this “M1-aligned rail corridor” is even mentioned in the Four North consultation page. A tunnel would not be a downgrade; it’d be an upgrade.

For intercity or other express services to the airport and towards Belfast, a more direct tunnel as in the image below makes more sense. And I’m not saying that’s the only option that should be looked at — this is the perfect time to look at the full Belfast-Dublin-Cork connection. A vision for a connected island.

Clearly it still is a big ask to add another “mega” project, but for the Four North project, we’re talking about a project which isn’t going to see the light of day at least until most of the current Dart+ projects are finished. If we’re to follow what experts have said, we should have a tunnel project lined up well in advance of MetroLink being finished. This could be it.

We need the ability to say that Ireland will need decades to catch up on our public transport infrastructure — and to be clear, this would be of regional and national benefit, not just “another project for Dublin”.

The tunnel might cost more, but looking at it as an option now is a far better idea than trying to  plough ahead with surface four-tracking only to find out it’s politically untenable or that the delays are so significant that tunnelling would look better and better as the years drag on.

The Government yesterday designated nine projects, including three transport projects, as critical infrastructure. The transport projects include MetroLink, the Cork Area Commuter Rail Programme, and the Galway City Ring Road.

Brian Caulfield, professor in transportation and director of the Trinity Centre for Transport Research at Trinity College Dublin, said that since MetroLink and Cork Commuter Rail are already past early planning stages, the fast-track designation “offers little practical gain.”

He also pointed out that Ireland faces infrastructure delivery issues that seem to be beyond designations, including massive capacity bottlenecks from shortages in skilled civil engineering labour, housing for workers, and multi-project coordination.

Caulfield penned an article in the Business Post yesterday outlining how he thinks the designation is “yet another vote of confidence in the project’s necessity”, but that it “could argue that the primary benefits of this status, namely accelerating planning and resolving statutory delays, are largely behind it.” He questioned: “What can this new designation provide for a project that has already jumped through multiple hoops, over decades, to reach its current stage?”

Referring to the Cork Area Commuter Rail being delivered, on a phased basis, and MetroLink awaiting final cabinet approval, he said: “The logic behind this new designation remains questionable. For all intents and purposes, both projects are already assumed to be happening.”

“The primary value of the Critical Infrastructure Act is to assist projects currently bogged down in planning that would otherwise face years of statutory delays (as MetroLink did),” said Caulfield. “Projects like a Luas for Cork, a Luas extension to Lucan, or the Western Rail Corridor could have gained significant momentum from being included on the list.”

“While these projects have also been discussed for decades, none are at an advanced planning stage. That said, it is hard to brand these proposals as overly visionary; a Luas line to Lucan, for example, has been on the agenda since the Dublin Transportation Office published ‘ A Platform for Change’ roughly 26 years ago,” he wrote.

He said that given that the Galway Ring Road “faces significant legal and environmental challenges on climate grounds,” a critical infrastructure designation “could help expedite its delivery,” but added: “doing so directly conflicts with our transport emissions targets. International evidence, alongside several domestic examples, consistently demonstrates that increasing road capacity does not reduce overall congestion or emissions in the long run. We need only look at the M50 to see how expanding outer orbital capacity ultimately feeds more traffic into the inner city.”

Projects will “go to the top of the ‘queue’ for faster processing and decision making”

Jack Chambers, Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, said: The designated projects effectively go to the top of the ‘queue’ for faster processing and decision making by public bodies. Each one of the projects designated are of strategic national importance.”

He added: “The new Critical Infrastructure Act provides the legal framework necessary to ensure that priority projects receive the focus they need. This marks a major step in accelerating the delivery of essential energy, water and transport infrastructure across the country and fulfils a key commitment of the Government’s Accelerating Infrastructure Action Plan.”

Irish Rail yesterday welcomed the new status for their Cork rail project. Mary Considine, Irish Rail’s chief executive, said: “Today’s critical designation by Government prioritises the Cork Area Commuter Rail Programme and enables Iarnród Éireann to accelerate delivery of this transformative package of projects.”

She added: “By streamlining the decision-making process around the programme’s delivery, Iarnród Éireann will be able to deliver 8 new stations and a high-capacity, high-frequency and more sustainable rail network more quickly for Cork. We thank the Government for prioritising this important project which will bring improved rail services and improved quality of life to local communities.”

Environmental and planning groups criticised the passing of the Critical Infrastructure Act 2026 earlier this year because it removes public authorities’ requirements to follow the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 provision to have regard to the climate impact of projects which have gained the ‘critical infrastructure’ designation. The Green Party took aim at Sinn Féin and Social Democrats for siding with the Government on the Climate Action Act and said it was “a blow to climate action in Ireland”.

Cllr Marie Casserly, chair of the Local Community Safety Partnership in Sligo, has written to Garda Commissioner Justin Kelly about the issue.

Cllr Casserly pointed out that lawful pedal-assisted cycles, otherwise known as Electrically Power Assisted Cycles (EPACs), are being confused with devices that often look the same and have pedals, but are classed as illegal motorised vehicles.

The Department of Transport makes it clear that the phrase “e-bike” refers to legal electric bicycles, and this term is then also explained on citizensinformation.ie. But Gardaí have repeatedly used the term “e-bike” to refer to devices that have pedals but are too overpowered or run on throttles, so are classed as illegal mopeds or motorcycles.

Because these devices are legally viewed as mopeds or motorcycles, they require registration, tax, and insurance, and their users must be licensed and wear a motorcycle helmet.

Cllr Casserly mainly referred to how the Gardaí communicate the difference between the two, but the confusion between the devices also causes enforcement issues.

For example, in the UK, the BBC reported this week on how West Midlands Police incorrectly confiscated and destroyed a legal £6,000 electric cargo bicycle, and wrongly issued the cyclist with a fixed penalty notice for the offence of riding without insurance.

The bicycle was rented through a scheme funded by the city council but was crushed after police officers administered a flawed test on it. After the BBC covered the issue, the police force later apologised for their actions, said the charges would be dropped, and said the owner would be compensated.  

Garda communications

In her letter, Cllr Casserly said: “Given the increasing public discussion around this issue, I believe that adopting precise terminology will assist both An Garda Síochána and the wider public in understanding the distinction between lawful pedal-assisted cycles and illegal motorised vehicles,” she said.

Cllr Casserly said: “I am writing to highlight the urgent need for greater clarity in the terminology used when referring to electrically powered bicycles and motorised two-wheeled vehicles. The current use of the term ‘e-bike’ to describe all electrically powered bicycles risks creating confusion for the public, policymakers and those responsible for enforcement.”

“It is important that a clear distinction is made between Electrically Power Assisted Cycles (EPACs), which comply with European and Irish regulations, and motorised electric bicycles or motorcycles that are capable of operating without pedalling, exceed the permitted power or speed limits, or have been illegally modified,” she said.

She said that pedal-assisted cycles are a “legitimate and increasingly important form of sustainable transport” that “provide valuable mobility for commuters, older people, and those with reduced fitness, while encouraging active travel and helping to reduce traffic congestion.”

Explaining the differences, she said: “Under the applicable regulations, assistance is limited to a maximum speed of 25km/h and is only provided while the rider is actively pedalling. By contrast, many of the vehicles giving rise to public concern are, in effect, electric motorcycles. They are often capable of travelling at significantly higher speeds without pedalling,” meaning that they fall outside the legal definition of what is a legal electric bicycle.

Referring to the illegal devices, she said: “These vehicles present a much greater risk to both riders and other road users and should rightly remain the focus of Garda enforcement.”

She added: “I respectfully suggest that Garda communications, operational guidance and any future legislative proposals consistently distinguish between compliant EPACs and illegally modified or throttle-operated motorised vehicles. Such clarity would support proportionate enforcement, improve public understanding, and ensure that legitimate users of EPACs are not unfairly associated with vehicles that operate outside the law.”

IMAGE: A mix of different types of bicycles and other devices on Capel Street in Dublin.

In a project update note on its website, the council said: “Once the one-way system is implemented on Dodder Road Lower, vehicles will no longer be able to access the road from Orwell Road. Motorists are advised to plan alternative routes in advance.”

Works to prepare for full construction of the greenway are already underway. Contractors are already adding much-needed crossings at the junction of the parallel route at Braemor Park and Orwell Road.

Soon, the route, from its Tallaght end, will extend over 8km towards the Docklands end — while the route is formed by different sections, this 8km is all segregated from motorists. Five areas will need to be upgraded to make the route fully continuous, mostly in the Dublin City Council area.

The new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council section of the route will link to the existing near-8km South Dublin County Council section greenway. But towards the city centre at Dartry Park, there are steps at a narrow bridge along the route with no current plan to solve this issue.

All the missing sections

Of the sections still needing to be upgraded, the first two sections were planned as quick-build projects but have been delayed. These are the Milltown Road section (lighter orange in the maps), which runs from Dartry Park to Dundrum Road, which is at its detailed design and tendering stage, and the Beaver Row section (darker orange in the maps), which runs from Donnybrook Road to Clonskeagh Road and is at an earlier project stage.

A final short section — but with significant bridge and ramp structures — is needed to link Ringsend Bridge to Sir John Rogerson’s Quay (shown in dark red at the northern end of the route in the maps).

As mentioned above, a new bridge is also needed between Orwell Walk and Dartry Park. This straddles the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and Dublin City Council areas and is marked with a cyclist dismount sign in the maps in this article because the current narrow bridge includes steps.

At the South End of the route, there are two sections to be finished, including along Kiltipper Road, which has long been approved but not yet progressed, and a planned short project would also link Kiltipper Road to the existing greenway in Dodder Valley Park.

After that, the majority of the route will be cyclable, although further upgrades will likely be needed to widen pinch points and narrow paths, such as the shared path under the Dart line near Landsdown Road.

The otherwise one-way street, Windsor Terrace, has been marked by Dublin City Council to allow two-way cycling without any cycle lane or separated space. While the concept of contra-flow cycling without lanes can often seem daunting at first, this kind of provision is the norm on similar low-traffic, low-speed streets in cities in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, and other countries.

While it might not be for everybody, it allows people who want to cycle two-way on the street to do so legally without having to take significant detours or make awkward manoeuvres on busy junctions.

Windsor Terrace fits the bill for being low-traffic, low-speed, and with a short distance where the street is one-way before it opens out to areas where people cycling or driving can wait for somebody coming in the opposite direction where needed.

Internationally, transport authorities and advocates note that allowing contra-flow cycling on such streets is simply legally facilitating what is already happening, and that would certainly be the case here.

Dublin City Council has for decades provided such arrangements on a small number of streets, but up until recently, national guidance was lacking. As reported last November, guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual has been changed to allow contra-flow without separate or, indeed, any lanes.

Current examples in Dublin include at Royal Canal Bank and Leinster Street North, both in Phibsborough; Hammabille Park, and Terenure Park, both in Terenure; and on Molesworth Street in the city centre. Most of these have operated for decades with little or no issues.

ALSO READ: How can two-way cycling be safe on narrow one-way streets?

On Windsor Terrace, here’s the view from a driver entering the street from the “with-flow” direction:

This is the current view of the otherwise no-entry side of the street — this setup is not fully in line with the guidelines, but it’s likely a clearer setup than text-based exception plates:

The junction isn’t the busiest or the prettiest, and it’s not going to get as much attention as an active travel bridge on a school. It won’t even get as much attention as internationally recognised key elements of Dutch cycling infrastructure, including a cycling priority roundabout, or even the “bear pit” segregated roundabout (the Netherlands’ oldest example of such right beside the junction featured in this article).

But it’s an example of something as important in Dutch cycling design as landmarks and those key elements — it’s adaptive design. Adaptive to the space and adjusted in time.

In the main, what’s pictured is to the side and somewhat below a motor-vehicle-only roundabout, and the cycling and pedestrian access through the roundabout via the “bear pit”.

If you’re involved in cycle route design or if you’re an advocate for better cycle routes in your home country, you don’t look at this junction because you have exactly the same problem to solve. You look at it to understand how unique problems were solved and if there’s anything you can take from it.

The junction has changed over time; here it is back in 2017:

And here it is in 2023 — the local access road was narrowed, and the cycle path was widened with a central median added approaching the junction:

To give a better idea of the wider picture — this is an overview in text and map form:

• Biltstraat goes east-west here, with Utrecht city centre to the west, and the commuter town of De Bilt to the east
• It is not part of a ‘Doorfietsroute’, but it is still a high-quality inter-urban route. The other main route to De Bilt is part of Amersfoort – Utrecht (F28), and this can also be reached via Karel Doormanlaan.
• The side street, Karel Doormanlaan, is shown below in purple — it’s a cycle street where “cars are guests”.
• We’re close to the edge of Utrecht’s urban area.
• The grade-separated roundabout and the north-south dual carragway here are part of the original ring road of the city. There’s now a motorway slightly further to the east here (right of the image).
• To the south-east is the Utrecht Science Park, including the university and hospital (the blue BRT busway goes there).

A few more points on cycling:

• By its nature, this kind of area with dual carriageways meeting isn’t usually the best for cycling, but cycling through here is good — very good by international standards.
• But it’s not all perfect for cycling. Even inside the old ring road in the south west (bottom left) of the map, there are some rubbish roads for cycling on, with some very old and narrow cycle lanes long in need of a better solution.
• There used to be a south west cycling connection to the “bear pit”, but the BRT route cut it off in the early 2000s.

It’s a busy junction with people cycling along the main route and coming in and out of the side (cycle) street — this is probably one of the quieter shots I have of the junction — it can get so busy here, I’d nearly say that the central island could be wider to allow for safer crossing:

Cargo bikes coming out from the side street:

A view from the side street:

An example of how “shark’s teeth” yield markings are far neater and clearer in compact situations:

Utrecht is not a cycling utopia. The last image below is of the rubbish area for cycling to the south west of the junction to feature in this article.

But the point should not be whether any city is perfect, but whether it is pushing ahead with improvements where it can. And, in Utrecht, the rate of improvement is quite astonishing for a city already seen as a utopia by many visitors.

He was on air after the Government issued a statement on their decision to ban all under-18s from using e-scooters, make registration and licensing a requirement of use, and make high-vis and helmets mandatory for e-scooter users.

The Government previously looked at high-vis and helmets for people on bicycles, but U-turned on this after a backlash. But at the time and afterwards, they said the measures could still be rolled out for users of pedel-assisted bicycles, which are generally counted the same as bicycles across Europe.

Action on making the gear mandatory for people cycling could depend on how it works for scooter users, Minister of State Canney told Today FM’s The Last Word with Matt Cooper/

When presenter Cooper asked: “If you’re bringing in high-vis jackets and helmets, and also registration and licences for e-scooters, I suspect there are some of our listeners who will be wondering: ‘Why not the same for bicycles?'”

Minister Canney said: “Absolutely, and we’ve discussed that this morning. But I think the enormity of the problem we have at the moment with the e-scooters is something we need to address quickly, and that’s why we’re bringing in these regulations and this emergency legislation now. But I would also say that we are looking at personal protective equipment, like helmets and high vis vests, and maybe for cyclists, is something that we are looking at and are considering,” he said.

Minister Canney said: “And we also have e-bikes, which can go to speed as well, but they are better balanced than an e-scooter. An e-scooter is totally small wheels, very little, no suspension on them, and they just glide along. And if they stop abruptly, you just go over the handlebar. So I think it’s important. A bicycle doesn’t work like that in terms of its balance. So I think it’s important that we deal with the very critical problem which we have right now.”

Cooper then asked: “But if this works in relation to e-scooters, is it possible that bicycles could be next? That people will be required to register their bicycles, have a licence plate on them, wear a helmet, and wear a high vis jacket? Could that be possible?”

Minister of State Canney said: “Yeah, but what I would say to you is I wouldn’t be… I don’t want to be in a position where I’m making bold statements that we’re going to put helmets on every cyclist. But we will look and see how we will progress with e-scooters, what effect it will have, and if it’s a benefit. Then, of course, we will look at helmets and high-viz on cyclists as well.”

In Irish and EU law, there is currently no distinction between pedal bicycles and those with electric assistance, provided the assistance cuts out at 25km/h, and the maximum continuous rated power does not exceed 250W.

Earlier in the interview this afternoon, Minister Canney referred to planned helmets and high-vis not in safety terms but in terms of compliance and making it easier for Gardai to spot people — not dressed in high-vis — as more likely to be offenders. He was speaking in the context of Gardai having powers to chase people using illegal e-scooters.

“So there will be training required by the Gardaí on that. But also, I would say that, in itself, if somebody is spotted with no helmet on them, it’s very easy just to stand in front of them and say ‘You don’t have a helmet on you'”.

He added: “I think that gives a bit more clarity to Gardaí on the street and they can see somebody doing something wrong or actually not having a helmet or high vis vest. That is a reason to take the e-scooter off them, and that in itself is a deterrent for people not to break the law.”

Comment & Analysis: The Department of the Taoiseach this afternoon issued what I can only describe as one of the most nonsensical Government statements. In reality, Taoiseach Micheál Martin, Tánaiste Simon Harris, and other Government Ministers are dancing on the head of a pin around the fact that all promatic scooter use is already illegal and the level of enforcement is not up to scratch.

It’s also a big distraction from the Government’s unwillingness to sufficiently regulate not just the sale of e-scooters but also bicycle-shaped mopeds and light motorcycles, and scramblers. Because it would be a departure from long-standing thinking that devices like scramblers cannot be regulated at the point of sale (see below).

We were told that “Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister [of State for road safety] Canney agreed on a series of proposals with Minister [for Justice] O’Callaghan and the Garda Commissioner. The proposals will be brought to Government by Ministers [for Transport] O’Brien and Canney next week.”

Let’s look at what they said in their statement and how most of it does not make any sense — the quotes below are from the statement followed by commentary and analysis about what is being said:

“The Garda Commissioner advised that there has been a significant increase in Garda operations connected to e-scooters, including that 1,412 e-scooters have been seized so far this year. There have been 793 prosecutions for possession of e-scooters this year.”

There definitely seems to be an uptick in enforcement, but it’s after years of a lack of enforcement, and even now it seems to pale in comparison to the number of illegal e-scooters on our roads.

“The meeting also discussed the initial data from Children’s Health Ireland and the HSE indicating a concerning pattern of serious and life-changing injuries caused by e-scooters.

More than one-third of all paediatric traumatic brain injury admissions to CHI at Temple Street in 2026 were related to e-scooters. Admissions for traumatic brain injuries from e-scooter accidents increased by 50% in the last 12 months.

While CHI estimates one to two children a day are presenting across EDs this summer with e-scooter injuries. A full report will be available at the end of July.”

Paediatric hospital care is for under-16s, and when medics were interviewed, they confirmed that the above relates mainly or exclusively to children under 16. Tánaiste Simon Harris also makes an impassioned to-camera piece on Instagram where he heavily relies on the injuries to under-16s and then talks about measures which do not relate to and will not address under-16s’ use of scooters.

Why are so many of the measures being mentioned in the statement related to people 16 and over? Is this just performative?

“It was agreed that high-visibility jackets and helmets will be mandatory for all e-scooter use…”

And if the health data relates to under-16s and e-scooter use is to be extended to over 18s, what’s the rationale for making helmets and high-vis mandatory? They could not even be bothered to outline something along the lines of the poor position of the rear light on e-scooters, which would justify high-vis.

“…and the ban will be extended to under-18s. This will take effect in August.”

At the age of 16, teenagers are able to hold a licence that enables them to drive tractors, AM Mopeds and Light quadricycles, and A1 Motorcycles — the AM mopeds have a legal maximum design speed of 45 km/h, while the RSA describes a category A1 vehicle as one “that is capable of a speed of at least 90 km/h”. Just to be clear: That’s not the limit; it’s the minimum speed.

Legal e-scooters have a hard max speed of 20km/h.

This isn’t a speed limit; it’s a device-based speed limiter, and if that’s tampered with, the device is no longer legal.

How does it make sense to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to drive powerful tractors with trailers and also allow them to ride mopeds and “light” motorcycles, but not legal e-scooters?

Again: They are clearly dancing on a pin and engaging in a weird form of shadow boxing. They could not possibly have legal, 20km/h scooters in mind. This is more likely to protect older teenagers from what are already banned devices — banning a set of people from already banned devices does not make any sense.

The only logical conclusion here is that this is performative. Just as scramblers are still not being tackled enough, these new measures for scooters will likely also fail and end up annoying everybody.

“Later this year, legislation will be introduced to treat e-scooters as all other mechanically propelled vehicles, and there will be a requirement for licensing and registration.”

The above approach would be understandable for more powerful e-scooters — but these are already banned. So, the idea of licensing and registration for legal e-scooters that cannot go abover 20km/h and must not weigh over 25kg is nothing short of laughable.

And that’s before we ask what type of licence will be needed: AM and A1 licences are open to 16-year-olds, so will the government be starting a whole new licence type for e-scooters?

“This will also prohibit the sale of scooters to minors…”

Prohibiting the sale without also prohibiting the supply of e-scooters to minors seems fairly pointless when it’s often their parents or other adults buying the devices for them.

“…and the sale of scooters that do not meet the legal requirements for use on public roads.” [bolding added]

This issue is key to reducing the illegal use of overpowered e-scooters, electric bicycle-shaped objects which are classed as mopeds, and unregistered scramblers no matter how they are fueled. But mention of “for use on public roads” is a huge get-out clause.

We need an import and sale ban on these devices, commonly used illegally on our roads, streets and parks. People who have a legitimate off-road use should have to prove it at the point of import or sale.

Such a permit system, which could include providing proof you have an off-road area where you have permission to use the devices, would be as easy or easier to set up as a new licensing system for the legal light 20km/h e-scooters. More importantly, an import and sale permit system for all three types of devices would be more impactful.

Let’s be honest, there’s really almost no legitimate off-road use of e-scooters. There would be very little administrative burden from such a system.

“An outright ban will remain on the table.”

Of course, that has to be said; they wouldn’t want to seem like they were backing down or anything….

“It was also agreed further protections will be provided to members of An Garda Síochána to mirror the system in the UK. This would grant greater legal protections to gardaí when pursuing e-scooters and e-bikes.”

Besides the weak restriction on sales, this is likely one of the most important parts of the statement, but it’s left as the last bit. Does that speak volumes that they want to distract from the fact that enforcement is the main issue?

Most of the above — as outlined in the statement — are poorly thought out and not evidence-based road safety. It’s safety theatre with a sprinkling of measures that might be somewhat helpful, but that only go halfway.

ADDED: After I published this article, I was also sent a link to Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s Instagram video about this… and that begs the question: With 100 road deaths so far this year — mostly made up of vehicle occupants and pedestrians — how many road safety issues have our two most senior politicians posted like this in the one day?

— Looking to put helmets or high-vis on children or others engaging in already illegal activity is an oxymoron.

— Ministers and TDs need to look at stopping the import and sale of illegal scooters, while also making it clear that a switch to illegal bikes will not be tolerated. 

Most of the media, a good chunk of our political classes, and even some medics are treating illegal e-scooters, illegal “e-bikes” and illegal scramblers as separate issues. But they are all interlinked, and the main problem is not enough enforcement.

I’m using the word “illegal” repeatedly for two reasons — to emphasise that the illegal versions of these devices are most problematic and that all of them are already banned.

We clearly need to stop talking about banning activities and devices that are already banned. Even if you don’t care about the legal and legitimate uses — it just doesn’t make any sense to talk about banning what’s already banned. What’s going on?

People’s understandable emotions around these issues, their lack of detailed knowledge, their lack of interest in knowing more, and/or their general disregard for the devices are being cynically used by at least some politicians.

Promising to enact new laws in a few months is often easier than acting now — getting our police force to act and, in some cases, enabling them to do so. Some other politicians are just as lacking in their knowledge of the details.

I know some people will be thinking: “How can he possibly talk this way about people? How arrogant is this fool?” But it’s not arrogance when we’re talking about banning a problem when the problem is already banned. It’s silly season gone mad.

To keep it somewhat simple, let’s look at scooters first: Legal e-scooters are light (25kg or less) and their users potter along at 20km/h max. Enforcing everything that’s already illegal would involve leaving the people minding their own business on the legal scooters alone. This frees up  more policing resources to tackle what’s already illegal:

• Under-16s using any scooter.
• Any scooter over 25kg.
• Any scooter that’s capable of going faster than 20km/h.
• Any scooter that’s actually going faster than 20km/h.
• Any scooter with two or more people on it.
• Any scooter on a footpath.
• Any scooter with a seat.

Many Gardaí already know what to look out for; others just need a bit more guidance and awareness. There are enough reasons above to get all the problematic scooters off the road. Illegal “e-bikes” — often called bicycle-shaped objects — are a bit trickier to distinguish from bicycles, but a bit of training can make them easy to spot.

What’s left is the need for enforcement. This can be done now without waiting months for new laws or wasting time with non-problematic scooter users.

Claiming there’s a need for new laws to address the current scooters that have been sold to date is a distraction.

New laws are mainly needed to stop the import and sale of more illegal scooters. Many are being sold and marketed with “can only be used on private property” — which is a joke. These scooters are being bought and often marketed for use on roads, and there are almost no legitimate private property usages for these devices.

If deemed necessary, a special import licence can be issued to anyone who can demonstrate legitimate private use. The same applies to overpowered “e-bikes” and scramblers (electric or not).

Without action around the sale and importation of these devices, which are already illegal to use on roads, paths, parks, greenways, and anywhere public

What about all the children being injured? With half of the child ICU beds being taken up by scooter collision victims? From what medics have indicated in radio and TV interviews, the types of injury being seen in children are more like motorcycle injuries, which indicates that they are mostly illegal e-scooters which are being used.

Of course, these are indications rather than hard data, but I think it’s clear enough from those indications and from looking at what’s been used by teenagers on our streets that most are using illegal vehicles, which are already banned.

And the focus just on scooters is misguided, so too is a previous political and official push to apply new rules to legal e-bikes, or pedal-assisted bicycles. The legal versions are overwhelmingly not an issue.

But the simplistic “ban them outright” call for scooters won’t work when problematic scooters are already banned. Here’s the thing — I openly interact with people online and ask them why they are thinking something will work when it clearly won’t.

On the issue of speeding “e-bikes” and e-scooters on Capel Street, I’ve had people doubt me when I’ve said that the main issue is bikes that are already illegal. It’s understandable that the average person cannot see the difference between a legal e-bike and an illegal one, which looks very similar but is classed as a moped. But they won’t accept it even when you tell them you’ve been covering cycling and transport for nearly 20 years and you do know the difference.

This week a lot has been made of the fact that the Garda Commissioner said he would “absolutely” support an outright ban on e-scooters, but a lot less focus has been put on the fact that he also said, because of the EU presidency, as reported by the Irish Indepednent — “Garda plans for e-scooter and scrambler crackdown ‘delayed by EU presidency’” — and the Examiner, “that the earliest the dedicated pursuit training for gardaí could start would be the end of the year”.

This contradiction in the lack of action now, because of resources, does not seem to have gained traction in the wall-to-wall broadcast coverage of scamblers on RTE or elsewhere.

The simplistic approach also risks quickly turning this into a game of Whack-A-Mole, targeting different devices as people switch from one to the other, and having to repeatedly revisit the issue, rather than looking at the evidence and pushing on with the hard work needed to enforce and take existing illegal vehicles off our roads and block future sales.

Sadly, where we are now — calls for things which are already banned to be banned again — is a classic case of a serious issue getting caught up in Silly Season hysteria — none of it makes sense, and it feels largely performative. The question is, can our leaders rise above it?