Ciarán Cannon: A new law is not the solution to e-scooter problems
Siobhán and Martin Lynch, whose daughter Grace Lynch was killed by a scrambler bike in January, at Leinster House as part of their campaign to ban scrambler bikes on public roads. Picture: Stephen Collins/Collins
There is a familiar rhythm to public debate in Ireland. A serious incident occurs, public concern understandably grows, politicians are asked how they intend to respond and, before very long, the conversation turns towards new legislation.
We seem to have developed an instinctive belief that if a problem persists, it must be because the law is inadequate. The solution, therefore, is assumed to lie in another act of the Oireachtas.
Sometimes, that instinct is justified. Laws do need to evolve as society changes. New technologies emerge, new risks arise and governments have a responsibility to ensure the legal framework keeps pace.
But there is another possibility that receives far less attention. What if the law is perfectly adequate? What if the real problem is that it is not being implemented, enforced or evaluated as effectively as it should be?
It is a question worth asking, not just in relation to one issue but across almost every area of public policy. Yet it has been brought into particularly sharp focus by the increasingly heated debate surrounding e-scooters.
The recent deaths and serious injuries involving e-scooters have understandably generated deep public concern.
No civilised society should become desensitised to such tragedies, nor should we dismiss the fears of pedestrians, parents or communities who witness reckless behaviour on a daily basis. Every death demands that we ask whether more could have been done to prevent it.
Read More
What has been largely absent from the debate, however, is a simple but important fact. Ireland has already enacted a comprehensive legal framework governing the use of e-scooters. The law specifies who may ride them, where they may be used, the technical standards they must meet and the behaviour expected of those who use them.
Underage riding is prohibited. Carrying passengers is prohibited. Illegally modifying scooters to increase their speed or power is prohibited. Detailed regulations already exist.
Families affected by devastating loss deserve to be heard, as do gardaí, emergency clinicians and road safety campaigners. Equally, however, so too do commuters who rely on an e-scooter because public transport simply does not meet their needs.
If those behaviours continue to occur with disturbing regularity, surely our first question should not be whether we need another law. It should be whether the existing one is working as intended. That distinction may appear subtle, but it lies at the heart of good policymaking.
A recent OECD review of policy development in Ireland makes precisely this point. Rather than viewing policymaking as a sequence of legislative announcements, it argues good policy rests on three interconnected foundations: evidence, implementation and legitimacy.
In other words, governments must first understand the problem they are trying to solve, then ensure their chosen solution can actually be delivered, and finally build sufficient public confidence and engagement for that solution to succeed in practice. It is a deceptively simple framework, but one that exposes a recurring weakness in much of our public debate.
Too often, we move directly from identifying a problem to proposing another legislative solution without pausing to ask whether the existing framework has been given a genuine opportunity to succeed.
Imagine, for a moment, that drink-driving suddenly began increasing again. Few people would suggest creating an entirely new criminal offence. Instead, we would ask whether Garda enforcement resources had been reduced, whether prosecutions had declined or whether drivers had simply come to believe the chances of being caught were now remote.
We would examine how the system was operating before concluding the law itself had failed. It is difficult to see why the same logic should not apply to e-scooters.
Does An Garda Síochána have sufficient roads policing resources to enforce the regulations already enacted by the Oireachtas? How many illegally modified scooters have been seized? How many retailers have been inspected to ensure the vehicles they are selling comply with Irish regulations? How many dangerous imports have been intercepted before reaching consumers?
Are we collecting the data necessary to distinguish between criminal misuse, illegal vehicles and the lawful use of e-scooters as a practical means of transport? These are not peripheral questions. They are precisely the questions that determine whether public policy succeeds or fails.
The OECD report also reminds us that legitimacy matters. Public policy is invariably stronger when it is informed by a broad range of perspectives rather than shaped solely by the most prominent voices in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy.
Families affected by devastating loss deserve to be heard, as do gardaí, emergency clinicians and road safety campaigners. Equally, however, so too do commuters who rely on an e-scooter because public transport simply does not meet their needs, students for whom it represents an affordable means of getting to college, employers, retailers, local authorities and those responsible for designing safer streets.
Listening more widely does not weaken public policy. It strengthens it.
Nor should we lose sight of another important truth. Road safety has never depended solely upon legislation. The countries that have made the greatest progress in reducing deaths and serious injuries have generally done so through a combination of safer infrastructure, lower vehicle speeds in appropriate settings, robust enforcement, sustained public education and thoughtful street design. Legislation undoubtedly has its place, but it has rarely succeeded in isolation.
None of this is an argument against further regulation if the evidence ultimately demonstrates existing measures are inadequate. Nor is it an attempt to minimise the seriousness of the current situation.
Rather, it is an argument for approaching policymaking in the correct sequence. Before introducing new restrictions, we should understand the problem with precision, establish whether existing laws are being properly implemented and honestly evaluate why they have or have not achieved their intended outcomes.
Perhaps that sounds less dramatic than demanding another piece of legislation. It certainly makes for a less compelling headline. But governing a country has never been about producing headlines. It is about solving problems.
We would all benefit if our political discourse became a little less preoccupied with announcing new laws and a little more interested in making existing ones work. Because the true measure of good government is not how often it legislates, but how consistently it improves the lives and safety of the people it serves.
- Ciaran Cannon is president of Cycling Ireland and a former minister of state
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
