With half of under-16 ICU hospital beds taken up by scooter collision victims, action is needed, not performative lawmaking. 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.Im 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 dont care about the legal and legitimate uses it just doesnt make any sense to talk about banning whats already banned. Whats going on? Peoples understandable emotions around these issues, their lack of detailed knowledge, their lack of interest in knowing more, and/or theirgeneral 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 its not arrogance when were talking about banning a problem when the problem is already banned. Its silly season gone mad.To keep it somewhat simple, lets look at scooters first: Legal e-scooters are light (25kg or less) and their users potter along at 20km/h max. Enforcing everything thats already illegal would involve leaving the people minding their own business on the legal scooters alone. This frees up more policing resources to tackle whats already illegal:Under-16s using any scooter.Any scooter over 25kg.Any scooter thats capable of going faster than 20km/h.Any scooter thats 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 Garda 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. Whats 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 theres 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 publicWhat 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 its clear enough from those indications and from looking at whats 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 wont work when problematic scooters are already banned. Heres the thing I openly interact with people online and ask them why they are thinking something will work when it clearly wont. On the issue of speeding e-bikes and e-scooters on Capel Street, Ive had people doubt me when Ive said that the main issue is bikes that are already illegal. Its 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 wont accept it even when you tell them youve 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 GardaCommissionersaid he would absolutely support an outright ban one-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 garda 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?

South Dublin County Council is seeking to hire an Active Travel Officer via rolling recruitment, which means once theres a sufficient number of applications received, the competition will be closed.Unlike some other councils that have a role with a similar title, focused on promoting active travel, South Dublin County Councils Active Travel Officer role is more project and planning focused, with a candidate needing a minimum of a level eight university degree in: engineering, town planning, architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, quantitysurveying, or project management.The role is whole-time, permanent and pensionable, and the pay scale starts at 58,474 and goes up to 71,437 with Long Service Increment 2.This role will be focused on the development and delivery of plans, strategies and projects to improve South Dublins transport network and deliver improved spaces for people to enjoy, to walk and to cycle. This will include working ondifferent transport-related programmes and projects, including (but not limited to), Cycle South Dublin, Town Centre improvements, School Street and Shared Spaces, the council said in its description of the role.For more details and how to apply, see sdccjobs.ie.

Dublin City Council has confirmed that the end date for the trial of chicane barriers on Capel Street and Parliament Street was yesterday.IrishCycle.com reported on Wednesday that councillors said that the obstacle course had made a dogs dinner and a mess of both streets. The traffic cones and other barriers were placed along the streets daily during weekdays after the morning delivery times, with nine (9) sets in the 420-metre section of Capel Street and five (5) sets on the 130-metre-long Parliament Street.Councillors at a meeting on Monday expressed mixed views on the solutions, including more targeted enforcement against electric bikes or mopeds used by delivery riders and others, which are seen as the main source of inappropriate speed. Most of these devices are effectively outright illegal, as they require registration, tax and insurance, but cannot be registered.They are often confused with legal electric bicycles, as both include batteries and pedals. But pedal-assisted bicycles, which are legally treated the same as bicycles, must not have a throttle that allows for continuous movement without pedalling, the assistance from the motor must cut out at 25km/h, and the continuous rated power of the motor must be no more than 250 watts.Some councillors and the campaign group I Bike Dublin pointed out that the barriers were putting people walking and those using bicycles, electric scooters, and illegal motorised bikes into smaller spaces, causing more conflicts. The Dublin Cycling Campaign on Wednesday said: Wed absolutely back what I Bike Dublin say in this IrishCycle.com piece.The article included a statement from I Bike Dublin, which noted that Capel Street was only the second bridge across the River Liffey, after the Samuel Beckett Bridge, to provide cycling facilities in two directions segregated from motor traffic. The group said: We think that the 15 sets of cones and barriers that are creating unnecessary conflict between people walking and cycling on Capel Street and Parliament Street could be put to much better use to create safe, segregated cycling routes on OConnell Bridge.Dublin City Council told this website yesterday that 16/07/2026 was the end date for the trial, and when asked how the results of the trial are being recorded, a spokesperson said: A number of surveys have been undertaken, and this will continue.Asked why Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act was not used for the traffic calming measures, the spokesperson said: No requirement to, there was no change to the use of the road, deliveries were still facilitated as were emergency access, pedestrians and cyclists could still freely use the road no exclusion was being made to any group of users, no statutory signs needed changing.A council spokesperson added: There is no change to the use or purpose of the road, no changes were made to either the designation of the street or the vehicles who could use it therefore there was no legislative changes required.Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 is the primary legislation governing traffic calming measures in Ireland. It also covers trials of temporary measures using removal materials this was the Councils position, reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in the Strand Road case, which the Council won on appeal.Section 38 is used by other councils for traffic-calming measures, even where there are no access restrictions for road users. For example, Galway County Council has an ongoing consultation for raised junction tables. Public consultation is not strictly required for traffic calming under Section 38, but, according to guidelines, it is for trials using these regulations.Asked why the measures were not needed at night or at the weekends, the spokesperson said: The measures are aimed at collecting information about how cyclists are using the street and what measures cause a reduction in speed; they are not intended to be permanent measures but are a data collection exercise.There were road traffic control crews with 5-6 or more staff dotted along the streets while the trial was ongoing. Asked about the cost of this, the spokesperson said: There are minimal costs involved as we have traffic management staff who attend these streets twice every day, and this is funded from the traffic maintenance budget.

Exemption prompted by cases in suburbs in Dublin, Cork and Westport.Minister for State John Cummins at the Department of Housing is expected to sign the regulations exempting bicycle and bin storage at the front of houses from planning permission, but the exemption would only be for structures up to a maximum of 3.5 square metres and a height of only 1.4 metres.This rules out many standard bicycle sheds and lockers for more than two bicycles that can be accessed individually, as well as structures designed for cargo and adaptive bicycles and trikes. There have been a number of cases across the country which have gained media attention, including the one pictured above in Clontarf, which planners said caused significant visual clutter. It measured 3.84 square metres and was one of the most modest of structures, which was subject to planning enforcement action.In the case of a large shed installed in a driveway in Westport, Co Mayo, for a familys cargo bike, the resident involved said he was told planners cannot do anything about roadworthy trailers. So, he replaced his shed with a trailer, which has a larger visual impact and is less practical. IMAGES: A shed in a driveway in Westport was replaced with a trailer. Images provided by the resident. In another case in Cork, a then An Bord Pleanla planning inspector wrote a 16-page report rejecting the bicycle shed. Freeing up planning officials and providing clear guidance was said to be part of the reason for the exemption. In both the Cork and Westport cases, greening was used as screening to lessen the possible visual impact of the sheds.IMAGE: A bicycle storage unit in Cork, which prompted a 16-page report by the national planning board. Images provided by residents. Sources did not expect that the exemption would extend to sheds as large as the one in the Westport case, but the highly restrictive nature of the regulations rules out the use of more modestly sized products designed to hold cargo bicycles and three or more bicycles with easy access to and the ability to lock each bicycle.IrishCycle.com has seen a draft of the Planning and Development (Exempted Development (Act of 2000)) (No. 4) Regulations 2026. For bicycle and bin sheds, it outlines a maximum area of 3.5 square metres, and a height of no more than 1.4 metres.The rules also state that the shed must be set back 0.6 metres from the house to allow space for access and maintenance and/or to maintain daylight access through any adjacent window, and the structure must not reduce the proportion of the front garden retained as open space by more than 50%.This website understands that the restricted measurements in the regulations would mean that most of the sheds subject to planning enforcement, reported by this website and others, which led to the exemption being drafted, would not comply with the exemption.It would also not cover a range of projects designed so that more than one bicycle is accessible and lockable without stacking or locking the bikes to each other, in a way that enables daily use by a family or household. As an example, CycleHoop, a well-known UK manufacturer of bicycle lockers, has a standard Bikehangar product with a width of 2578mm and a depth of 2030mm, which equates to 5.2 square meters. Their cargo bike version is 5.8 square meters, and even the Mini Bikehangar, described as a compact version, measures 1838mm x 2030mm with an area of over 3.7 square metres. Other manufacturers also offer similar-sized products.Under the Bikebunker branding, Dublin City Council is rolling out these structures on streets outside houses without rear access, and in many cases without any front garden or yard. The Bikebunkers are mainly in city centre locations, whereas all reported planning cases relating to bicycle sheds at the front of houses were in more suburban areas with driveways or larger gardens.Other similar products, such as the Dutch-produced Fietslocker, would be of a similar area, and also slightly fall foul of the 1.4 metre height limit.Most square wooden or steel products are designed to hold three or more standard bicycles, with access to each bicycle individually, also break the height limit. These generally come in at 3.7 or more square metres. For example, the two sheds pictured below, sold by the Kildare-based company Coola Living, are between 3.7 and 4.1 square metres. These would also exceed the height allowance by more than 60 cm.This website could only find one such bicycle locker or shed of under that size from Sheds Direct Ireland, but this would still exceed the height allowance. IrishCycle.com asked the Department of Housing how it came to the 3.5 square metre measurement, and if most of the sheds in previous cases would not be covered, does that leave the same issue in place. A spokesperson for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage said: A balanced and proportionate approach was adopted in framing the exemptions.This measure is designed to accommodate around 3-4 average-sized regular bicycles or around 2 average-sized cargo bikes, a department spokesperson said. But IrishCycle.com could not find any bicycle sheds designed for cargo bicycles measuring close to 3.5 square metres. The Department added: Larger structures, such as the one set out in the query [sent by this website], may still be accommodated where planning permission is obtained from the relevant planning authority.Dave Tobin, vice chair of the Irish Cycling Campaign, a group that represents most Irish cycling campaigns, has written to the minister to ask for changes before the regulations are signed into law.He said that a larger 5-6 square metres allowance and a modest increase in the height allowance to 1.6 metres would allow for practical storage for cargo bikes and adapted cycles while remaining modest in scale and to accommodate practical storage designs without materially increasing visual impact.Firstly, the Irish Cycling Campaign would like to welcome this proposal. It is a practical and progressive measure that removes an unnecessary barrier to secure cycle storage at home. Making it easier for households to install secure storage is an important step towards supporting everyday cycling, reducing theft and enabling more people to choose cycling as a realistic alternative to car use, he said.Tobin wrote: The principal concern is the proposed maximum footprint of 3.5 square metres. While this may be adequate for one or two conventional bicycles, it is unlikely to accommodate many of the larger cycles that Government policy is actively seeking to encourage.Many people are unfamiliar with adapted cycles. They are not recreational equipment; they are essential mobility aids that enable children and adults with disabilities to travel independently or with assistance. Adapted cycles are often significantly larger than a standard bicycle and, like cargo bikes, require correspondingly larger storage. If suitable domestic storage cannot be provided under these exempted development provisions, disabled people may continue to face additional planning barriers that other households do not, he said. He said: Similarly, family cargo bikes are becoming an increasingly common substitute for a second car. These bicycles are longer and wider by design because they are intended to carry children, shopping or other loads. Commercially available cargo bike storage units already exceed the proposed 3.5 square metres limit despite having a relatively modest visual impact. The regulations, therefore, risk becoming outdated almost immediately as these bicycles become more common.Tobin added: I strongly welcome these regulations and appreciate the work that has gone into bringing them forward. My only concern is that, without some modest changes at this stage, they may unintentionally exclude the very cycle types that Government policy is encouraging people to adopt.The draft regulations also allow for external wall insulation to a house and any necessary works to facilitate its installation.The regulations include that the thickness of external wall insulation must not exceed 150 millimetres on the front, rear or gable walls of the building and that external wall insulation must not encroach on any public road. The regulations add: The external wall insulation and related works shall not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure and that of neighbouring structures.

: by ASO [See image gallery at www.irishcyclingnews.com]

: by ASO [See image gallery at www.irishcyclingnews.com]

: by ASO [See image gallery at www.irishcyclingnews.com]

: by ASO [See image gallery at www.irishcyclingnews.com]

: by ASO [See image gallery at www.irishcyclingnews.com]

Barriers creating unnecessary conflict between people walking and cycling, say campaigners. Councillors have mixed views on the solutions, including a more focused targeting of electric bikes or mopeds used by delivery riders and others, which are seen as the main issue of inappropriate speed. While one politician expressed delight at the chicanebarriers on Parliament Street and Capel Street, most South East Area Committee councillors who spoke at a committee meeting on Monday expressed confusion or annoyance at the barriers on the two streets the latter of which is in their area.A number of councillors also complained that the councils transport section went ahead with the changes without informing the elected representatives, and that the motion about Parliament St was only met with a holding message from officials.The barriers are placed along the streets. With nine (9) sets in the 420 metres section of Capel Street and five (5) sets on the 130-metre-long Parliament Street.Dublin City Council told this website last week that the measures are a trial, but the council has been slow to answer some questions about the barriers, including details of the legal mechanism for implementing the chicanes, which are a type of traffic-calming measure.In response to questions about guidelines for access controls on active travel routes that specify a distance between barriers, the council said road traffic contractors had adjusted the spacing between barriers. But the council has yet to explain why it is not following the Section 38 process for traffic calming and trials of measures like this.At the committee meeting on Monday, Cllr Danny Byrne (Fine Gael), who said he had been contacted by some local residents complaining about speeding cyclists, said he was delighted to see interventions to slow down cyclists. He had put down a motion seeking action.Cllr Fiona Connelly (Labour) said: Some of the changes that have been made possibly were made to reduce the speed of cyclists, but Ive heard reports that its not working so well and its funnelling everybody through the same small channels.She said she has received emails from people concerned about pushing pedestrians, bicycles, e-scooters, and other vehicles into smaller spaces.Cllr Carolyn Moore (Green Party) said: Whatever is happening on Parliament Street has made a complete dogs dinner of the street. I understand the issues around shared spaces and communicating to people the responsible use of shared spaces. I do not understand the rationale behind removing traffic from the street, investing a lot in the street and putting in seating and then whatever this obstacle course that has appeared on the street now, without any prior notice.She said there was no clarity around how long the trial is to take place, if the changes were being studied, Cllr Moore added: I think it looks frankly disgraceful.Cllr Pat Dunne (independent) said: I spent at least an hour sitting on Parliament Street on the nice seating just observing whats going on, and you have the bicycles coming in and out through the ugly cones and ugly signage saying cyclists please slow down, and if you go up to Capel Street, you see something similar.Im of the view that you have to protect pedestrians of all ages. And to encourage pedestrians to use the facility of a traffic-free street, we need to do something about bicycles going up and down. Occasionally speeding up and down, but theres bicycle traffic. Bicycles of all descriptions, including things which you could almost call a motorbike. He said: Im suggesting that we look at this from the point of view of having this as a pedestrian street, and that cyclists are asked to dismount and walk through the pedestrian area. It would only add about a minute to somebodys journey, but its the only way to make it safe.Cllr Kourtney Kenny (Sinn Fin) said: Theres a really simple solution: In other counties across the world, theres electric bicycle free zones. Why cant we have an electric bicycle-free zone rather than a blanket [measure] over all cyclists? If they are primarily the issue is with e-bikes, then we need something to say e-bikes are not allowed on this street Cllr Dermot Lacey (Labour) said that he is an e-bike user who acts responsibly.Its worth reporting that there are often crossed wires: some people call pedal-assisted bicycles e-bikes, while others use the same term for the kind of bikes classed as mopeds, with councillors referring to these bikes used by most delivery riders.Cllr Lacey said that, as chairperson of the committee, he raised the issue of the city councils transport sections lack of response with the local area manager for the South East Area.He said: Parliament Street has become a mess. One of the real problems is the way the [food] couriers are paid. They are paid per delivery, so they are going at incredible speeds through pedestrianised areas, nearly knocking each other down. So thats where we need legislation so that they can work safely and people can walk and cycle safely.Thats where the problem is. I was on Parliament Street two weeks ago, sitting there reading the paper, and the amount of couriers that were just engaging in really dangerous behaviour something has to be done, I think it needs to be tackled at the very core of how they are paid, and I think we owe it to them to do so.The issue of delivery riders being treated as contractors was expected to be addressed after Revenue won what was viewed as a test case in the Supreme Court against a Dominos Pizza franchise. The court ruled in October 2023 that drivers working for the company, Karshan (Midlands) Ltd, trading as Dominos Pizza, were misclassified as contract workers or self-employed. Revenue gave companies a grace period to correct employee classifications, but the deadline was January of this year.RTE which itself was caught up in a bogus self-employment scandal reported this weekon the EU Platform Work Directive, implying the current employment models used by delivery apps. While the Directive pushes the food delivery platforms rather than the riders to disprove the existence of an employment relationship, it is unclear how the food delivery companies will react to this. IMAGES: Main image from I Bike Dublin, with image above from IrishCycle.com.Cllr Connelly also questioned whether there was a behavioural management plan and who it was directed at, as there are differences among the types of users of the streets. Wheeled users of the street include users of bicycles, e-scooters and other bike-like electric devices, which are already effectively banned, but enforcement is lacking.Cllr Byrne added that he was delighted that the barriers were put in place and said that he could see a mobility scooter user across the street from City Hall (where the meeting was being held) using Parliament Street. He claimed this would not have happened before the barriers went in because it was like a racing track, but this website has seen the shared area previously used by mobility device users, wheelchair users, parents with prams, and children walking and cycling.A council official with the transport department said at the meeting that it was a trial, but the project was not his area, and he apologised on behalf of his colleagues in the traffic department of the council for not providing information to the committee.After requests for comments as mentioned in the previous article on these changes, a spokesperson for Dublin City Council told this website on Monday that: This is not a trial under Section 38. These are only temporary measures. The spacing was adjusted on Friday, July 10th.Questions and follow-up questions, including why Section 38 was not used, what legal measures were used, and how much the trial is costing, have so far gone unanswered.I Bike Dublin, a campaign group, said on Monday: The removal of cars from Dublins Parliament Street and Capel Street, while very welcome, has exposed the dearth of safe cycling routes across the River Liffey. Grattan Bridge is only the second bridge (after the Samuel Beckett Bridge) to have fully segregated two-way cycle routes.So its no wonder that people on bicycles are choosing this route as the primary means of crossing the city, and this brings with it its own challenges around the mixing of walking and cycling traffic. Meanwhile, OConnell Bridge, the widest bridge crossing the Liffey, has seven lanes for vehicular traffic, generous footpaths on both sides, a central median with some lovely planters, but no space for people cycling who must share with the Luas, buses, taxis, trucks and private cars, the group said.I Bike Dublin added: We think that the 15 sets of cones and barriers that are creating unnecessary conflict between people walking and cycling on Capel Street and Parliament Street could be put to much better use to create safe, segregated cycling routes on OConnell Bridge.ALSO READ: More coverage of Capel Street and Parliament Street. A video of the barriers on the street last week: