EU Personal Transport Safety Standards Act
-
This act does nothing of what you say , this mandates proven technology with a good track record of reducing road deaths and that has been implemented in 10's of millions of cars and bikes already. To not embrace these technologies fully in a safety standard is condemning more people to death than if they were not part of the standard.
The registration plate requirements and requirements of indicators , reflective areas and lights on bicycles is also proven to make cycling safer, a cyclist who is seen and can actually indicate effectively and see where they are going and be seen is safer. This is all the technologies cycling organisations actually recommend along with insurance to keep cyclists safe on the road. If you are against measures to make cyclists visible and make it easier to identify reckless cyclists who still can cause great harm and even death to pedestrians quite easily and technologies to make it clear what direction a cyclist is going next you are automatically condemning many thousands if not tens of thousands more of pedestrians , drivers and cyclists to death. You are saying that a human life is worth less than the few hundred euros or few thousand euros per vehicle in case of cars and e-bikes. That is putting a economic price on life and accepting people are disposible. You either support fully safe bikes , scooters and cars or support possibly 10's of thousands more people dying per year. Which is it do you support safe cars or death ? This is not melodramatic that is the price of not backing these regulations in full. Do you really want to tell the parent of an Istkalenic citizen killed by a speeding nearly invisible bike or car because you though manufacturers being able to save a few hundred or thousand Euros that their child is worthless? Because that is what you are telling them if you vote for removing vital safety features like number plates for bikes visible reflective surfaces on bikes, full lights and indicators on bikes and GPS speed limiters on e-bikes and cars. Either vote for all the features or explain to parents later you don't mind their children dying for the sake of a little money in the profit margins for vehicle manufacturers.I'd like to ask you how you consider lights and indicators which can be added for just 50 Euros in one of the most expensive countries in europe and mirrors which can be added for 20 Euros and numberplate holders for back and front that can be added for just about 30 Euros in the most expensive country in Europe is too much additional cost for cyclists and how an extra maybe 100-150 Euros worth of tech on an e-bike worth on average over 1,000 Euros is too much cost to bear. In percentage terms I'd also like to ask how 2,000 Euros ish of technology on a vehicle worth 20,000 euros + is too much extra. You are basically saying to have cars be a maximum 10% cheaper its worth 10's of thousands of men women and children dying through accidents that could easily be prevented.
Skye Hook , Deputy Councillour to United Duchies
-
Cllr. Hook, the European Union is not the only government in existence. There are, in fact, others, at national level - they are even mentioned in this proposal - which have their own safety regulations, adapted more precisely to local conditions. It ought to be their prerogative, and not that of this Council, to decide whether or not to mandate these still-experimental technologies. European regulations of this type, if they exist at all, should be focused on providing time-tested standards for safety easily adjustable to local contexts - certainly not demanding that all Europe adopt the regulations of one country for dubious benefit.
Furthermore, it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that manually-powered bicycles pose anywhere near the same threat as cars to pedestrians. It is even more ludicrous to suggest that cars which swerve into oncoming traffic, which suddenly slow to a crawl in the middle of the open road, which behave almost deliriously when on unpaved roads, are in any way, shape, or form safer than those that do not. Bizarre hypotheticals and Manichaean proclamations will not distract from these facts.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
There is nothing stopping a country exceeding the standards set here if they wish to do so. You exaggerate on the dangers of lane keep assist , maybe your car makers are incompetent and can't design a proper lane keep assist. We have had no such issues with that technology in Duchian cars and I have never seen that issue in Spanish cars and Reitzmag cars and Yosai cars on our roads either.
It is true manually powered bicycles don't pose as great a threat but they pose a threat to pedestrians still and the having indicator , reflective strips lights and mirrors is not for the pedestrians benefit solely but also for the cyclists safety as it would increase the visability of cyclists to cars. This has been used to great success in the Duchies and cut our cyclist deaths by over half. Its common sense if cars can see bikes especially in the dark and if cars know what they are doing easily through indicator use they can avoid accidents more easily. If cyclists can see cars in mirrors that are built in to the bike without taking their eyes off the road ahead for dangers they are are safer as they can see cars and vehicles approaching them . All of the safety technologies in this act are either standard or recommended by road safety organisations and certainly not a danger to anyone. There is no evidence lane keep assist and intelligent speed assistance is a danger to anyone quite the opposite they are vital in the fight for better road safety. Perhaps rather than gutting protections for cyclists from the act and gutting car safety technology Istkalen could learn how to implement the safety technologies properly,there are contacts in many European car companies that could maybe teach them how to make it or sell them systems that actually work. I am rather concerned at the lack of faith in your own vehicle makers quality and safety standards perhaps the EU need to check all your vehicles for safety!
I would basically say that nothing in here is beyond what any good vehicle company or bike manufacturer should be capable of , these technologies have after all been on market for years. There is no good reason to remove them from this act just because you think your countries manufacturers are too incompetent to meet the standards , perhaps you need to raise your companies standards if they are truly that dangerous.
Skye Hook , Councillour for United Duchies
-
Cllr. Hook, do not preach to me. Go on as you may about safety and about the superiority of your Duchian standards, the basic facts of the situation are unchanged: it is entirely inappropriate to impose regulations and demands of this extremity at the European level. Why on Earth should far-away Europolis be given such extraordinary power over the lives of people in rural Istkalen? How on Earth can I go to the working people I represent and tell them that, because of the mania of the Commission, even their children's tricycles will now be subject to the expensive, uninformed, and dangerous whims of administrators thousands of kilometers away?
It is not the responsibility of Europe to force upon its people technology that is far from having withstood the test of real time. It is not the responsibility of Europe to make its people live out the most banal aspects of their lives according to its own, bureaucratic regulations. And it is certainly not the responsibility of Europe to make its member-states bow down before the dictates of some obscure committee in Europolis.
Let me be clear: our Union is not a nanny state. The liberty of its many peoples and the sovereignty of its member-states are and will remain sacrosanct.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
This is the type of attitude that makes trade and customs more expensive. Most people live in cities and dense environments where technology like this is needed . The fact I've never heard of such issues with the system in the United Duchies and in most manufactaurers who have sold cars in the Duchies with the system for years shows its a problem with a few makes or mainly Istkalen makes of car.I am willing to compromise on lane keep assist by adding the following amendment,
Article 3: Safety Standards for Personal Automobiles
I.All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have indicators visible at the back and front of the vehicle to be considered road legal
II.All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have working brake lights in working order to be considered road legal
III.All Personal Automobiles must have working daytime running tail and headlights to be considered road legal.
IV.All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have working seat belts, anti-lock braking systems, drowsiness detection systems, intelligent speed assistance ,accurate tyre pressure monitoring, overridable lane keeping assist or lane departure warning systems , blindspot monitoring systems, door mirrors, internal central mirrors ,GPS based speed limiter systems (on by default), safe crumple zones and front and rear airbags to be considered road legal.
V.All Personal Automobiles must have number plate holders and number plates on the back and front of the vehicle readable by cameras to be road legal
VI.Personal Automobiles designed for purely track based or motorsport use are exempt from these requirements but may not be used on public roadsHowever on intelligent speed assistance which is basically cruise control but intelligent or drowsiness detection systems to wake a driver if they fall asleep or gps speed limiters where councils can set speed of traffic that must be followed for safety purposes I must insist on them features staying in there is too many lives on the line from speeding or drivers falling asleep at the wheel for these not to be included. I am not going to have on my concious the deaths of 10's of thousands of people often children per year just to cut costs for some car manufactaurer lobbyist in the EU council and I am not going to have on my conscious the death of 10's of thousands of cyclists to save cycle manufactuarers a few hundren Euros max on bike production costs. If you think some maximum 40 Euro lights and indicators and 10-20 Euro mirror sets and a few reflective strips on bikes is too much extra to save 10's of thousands of lives you are seriously sick valuing money over the extra lives saved. Those features are usually things the cyclists will buy anyway at the store if they are sensible.
I'd also like to point out this only requires the said features to be road legal not to be sold which is an intentional choice of words on the commissioners parts you could still buy scooters and vehicles without the features they just wouldn't be allowed on the public road so if a farmer in Istkalen wants to just buy a vehicle for the farm or a private site wants to buy a vehicle to patrol their grounds, or a golf club wants some golf carts for their golf course etc with out these features they may buy it , it just may not be registered for road use or used on the road. The same would go for bikes without the features like for example mountain bikes or racing bikes, you may purchase them but just not use them on the public road outside of designated races.This doesn't ban vehicles without these features being sold just registered for use on the road and being used on the road.If you want to be on the road you should have to have the safety features required to make vehicle safe for the roads or should we allow cars with no crumple zones either for "freedom" sake.You can tell your constituents their childrens bicycles are not affected by this act as they can still buy them without these features but they just can't be used on the road. I however would hope that most good parents would have the common sense to put indicators, lights and mirrors on a bike for their children who they presumably don't want to die for lack of being visible or able to indicate easily.
Skye Hook ,Councillour for United Duchies
-
To me, this act is a no. And Councillor Tilkannas has put it so simple that I am not able to sum it better than she has: our Union is not a nanny state. But first of all, I would like to welcome the newly elected Internal Affairs Commissioner, former Councillor Roscoe; and her personal and very devoted to him spokesperson, who also happens to be Councillor Hook, representing the United Duchies. I suppose that, as I expected, this Commissioner is just a muppet of the Duchian Government to impose their crazyness on us all. This seems to be the beginning.
Let's get to the content of this proposal that has not been discussed yet: Article 2 is unnecesary. In fact, many European positions are not filled right now, but Commissioner Roscoe comes here and proposes yet another agency to regulate this. Yet, do not believe this will be a small agency - it is not - as every nation will have not one but two seats. Commissioner, who guarantees neutrality here? Because you are as well giving the agency the power to stop the sales of any car model that does not adjust to the likings and regulations imposed by this act. How are we expected to believe in neutrality when your home nation's Councillor is acting as your defender in this debate?
The rest has been said by Councillor Tilkannas. Spain will vote against this act in any case.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
This does not give the ability to stop sales you need to be literate and learn what road legal means. It means able to be used on the road. You can still sell bikes, cars and vehicles without these systems they just wouldn't be road legal. These are not controversial requirements, I don't know of many cars on the market today that don't have these systems onboard and yes some implementations may be bad but most are not and if anything thats a reason for the bad manufacturers to improve their systems not to ditch it because a few manufacturers can't design cars properly. If you oppose this you are essentially saying "my car manufactaurers are shite and I have no confidence in them to create safe and working systems" . Also on bikes who doesn't buy lights, and high viz and who doesn't buy indicators or mirrors if they are sensible. They are things that cost maybe a few hundred euros max in total for even the most expensive systems but can save your life and make cycling much easier , more so if they are designed into the bike to begin with.
Voting against this is voting for deaths of 10's of thousands of Europeans per year and consigning 10's of thousands of pedestrians per year , cyclists and drivers to a death sentence. These are common sense aids to have on bikes and cars. I hope you mr Tusk can too explain to the mother who loses her son that her son or daughters life needed to end because some people needed a car to be a few thousand euros cheaper or their bike to be 200 euros cheaper.
As for article two it is necessary as it gives the nationstates control over the agency and having a centralised agency to do the tests and approvals and recommend changes in which they could recommend changes to lane keeping assist for example if its over sensitive is just more efficient. Its better to have one central agency in Europolis testing the cars for safety than have to pass a test in over 20 countries as is presently the case because standards may be different in Spain than the Duchies. With this for example Seat could design a car in Spain test it once in Europolis then sell it in every country saving money on design and testing costs lowering the costs of cars sold to the consumer while still maintaining confidence in the safety of the car. The alternative is 20+ different standards wit 20+ different roadworthiness tests adding thousands of Euro's to the cost of a car. Unless you are saying Spain has no road safety agency or tests to see if a car is safe before it can go on sale in which case how can anyone feel safe buying Spanish products.
Skye Hook , Councillour for United Duchies
-
I propose the following amendment to ease some concerns over numberplates:
Article 4: Safety Standards for Bikes and Scooters
I.All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have a registration plate on back and front readable by cameras to be road legal
III.All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have indicators visible from the rear and front to be road legal
IIIII.All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have mirrors to be road legal
IIIIV.All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have working front and back lights to be road legal
IVV.All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have working brake lights in order to be road legal
VVI.Any 2 wheeled Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle may only have 500 watt motors and a maximum assisted speed of 30 km/h, GPS assist speed limiters and cut out to be road legal
VIVII.Motorcycles must meet all the above regulations and have anti-lock braking systems in order to be road legal. The speed on motorcycles allowed shall be decided by nationstates.Skye Hook
-
Councillor Hook, with all due respect to the introduced legislation: the European Union is culturally diverse. It is not our job to end with those cultural differences, but to respect them. And observing the record of proposals made by Duchian Councillors, there is a trend whose conclusion is that you do not understand our differences. I would like to remind you, because it is my job as Speaker, that this Council, under my point of view, is expected to respect the union in diversity that forms one of the pillars of our Union. The introduction of legislation, may it come from the Commission, may it come from any Councillor, should be as respectful with our diversity as possible.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for SpainThe Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
I understand that but there is also the matter of what the EU and the Council is here for. One of those things is harmonisation of standards to make trade easier. The other is protecting the safety of the European people which this aims at doing. Whenever something is proposed in the interests of the European people its seen as a Duchieism. Why shouldn't we propose policies that work in the Duchies well to protect people to the council to make those wider? Why shouldn't Spain do the same if they have a policy that works? I'd have no issue with Spain proposing a policy thats worked well in their country across the EU as thats what this chamber is for sharing good ideas that ultimately make a safer better EU for all. If your country has things that work better safety wise than Duchies we'd be more than happy for you to share it in the council also.
Skye Hook.
-
It is simply not the responsibility of this Union to impose the highest, most bleeding-edge possible standards on its member-states. That is the prerogative of the member-states. While, as I have made clear, I am not opposed in principle to a set of basic regulations for motorized vehicles, this proposal is simply too extreme.
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
In the spirit of compromise I am Willing to propose an amendment
Article I:Definitions
I.Personal Automobile:Any vehicle with 4 or 3 wheels above 500kg with a fixed or convertible roof that is powered either an electric or combustion engine.
II.Motorcycle: A powered two-wheel motor vehicle by either electric or combustion engine
III.E-Bike: A motor-assisted or driven, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, with two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other.
IV.E-Tri-cycle: A small vehicle like a bicycle with two wheels at the back and one at the front either powered by pedal , electrically assisted or by a motor.
V.E-Scooter: A vehicle ridden while standing that consists of a narrow footboard mounted between or atop two wheels tandem that has an upright steering handle attached to the front wheel, and that is moved by pushing with one foot or an electric motor.
VI.Light Personal Vehicle:Motor vehicles with four or three wheels whose unladen mass is not more than 500kg
VII.Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle:Any powered bike , scooter or Light Personal Vehicle powered by electric or electrically assisted with a battery system on board.Article 4: Safety Standards for -E-Bikes and E-Scooters
I.All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have a registration plate on back and front readable by cameras to be road legal
II.All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have indicators visible from the rear and front to be road legal
III.All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have mirrors to be road legal
IV.All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have working front and back lights to be road legal
V.All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have working brake lights in order to be road legal
VI.Any 2 wheeled Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle may only have 500 watt motors and a maximum assisted speed of 30 km/h, GPS assist speed limiters and cut out to be road legal
VII.Motorcycles must meet all the above regulations exept Article 4 VI and have anti-lock braking systems in order to be road legal. The speed on motorcycles allowed shall be decided by nationstates.Skye Hook
-
I have been listening closely to this debate, and I appreciate both the objections from the Spanish and Istklenian councillors, and the compromise proposed by Cllr Hook.
The most prominent concern--I am nearly certain--is that this act doesn't account for the economic and cultural diversity of the EU. And I have to agree, Cllr Hook. This act would require the least amount of work from higher income nations--such as the Duchies--and the most from the lower income nations, such as my constituency (Sertia).
That's not the only problem in this category. Imagine how people would see, as Cllr Tilkannas already perceives it, a massive piece of regulatory legislation enforced by those in Europolis. Is there a better way to turn the public against the 'legislative elite '? Even from our fellow councillors there are already defensive responses within this vein.
For us in Sertia, the legislation would be no problem. We could enforce this whilst sat back watching rubbish TV. Do you know why? Because in Sertia we have less than 300 cars total. And there are scarcely any more versatile or transferable regulations to alternative modes of transport, such as horse carriages.
I do think that this act would be useful for us, though. With the expansion of personal transit, E-bikes and electric scooters are becoming more and more commonplace ans they require regulation. So on that point I applaud the intentions of this act.
So in a way, I understand the concern of the Spanish and Istkalenian councillors. However, I think the issue is quite easily rectifiable. We'll need an amendment which requires multiple chapters of the Transport Board to govern locally. I therefore propose the following amendments:Amendment V: Article 2 Section VI: In cross-border areas where a similar mode of transport is utilised, a local chapter of the EU Personal Transit Safety Board must be established to create suitable regulations for the locality. Regions located within a single country must permit the Board to establish a chapter there before they can do so.
-
I do understand concerns the reason I think it is important for those features to remain is this is about life and death. I wouldn't personally want to explain to a parent of a dead child about why their child died to save a little bit of money on the production costs of a car. The sensors and cameras for lane keep assist are already essentially on the car anyway in most circumstances for features such as parking assist or cruise control. The only real extra cost is a little extra coding. All cars nowadays tend to have GPS units as GPS is very cheap , so much so even most cars at the lowest price points have those systems. This act would barely add any extra cost to cars and bikes but would save 10's of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Surely that is worth the cost of adding maximum of a few thousand euros per car or a few hundred euros per E-Bike or possibly even bike and scooter.
After all if one can afford a 1,000 Euro E-Bike or a 14,000 Euro car new can they not also afford an extra few thousand Euros or few hundred Euros for the extra safety features. This is an argument essentially over spending cents on the Euro to get lifesaving results that could save 10's or hundreds of thousands of lives especially those of children who are the most vulnerable road and street users.
Skye Hook , Councillour for United Duchies
-
Debate is now over. It is time to vote on the proposed amendments. There are EIGHT amendments up to vote:
Amendment I - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
Article I: Definitions
I. Personal Automobile:Any vehicle with 4 or 3 wheels above 500kg with a fixed or convertible roof that is powered either an electric or combustion engine.
II. Motorcycle: A powered two-wheel motor vehicle by either electric or combustion engine
III. Bike: Ahuman-powered ormotor-assisted, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, with two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other.
IV. Tri-cycle:A small vehicle like a bicycle with two wheels at the back and one at the front either powered by pedal withelectrically assistedelectrical assistance or by a motor.
V. Scooter:A vehicle ridden while standing that consists of a narrow footboard mounted between or atop two wheels tandem that has an upright steering handle attached to the front wheel, and that is moved bypushing with one foot or,in part or in whole, an electric motor.
VI. Light Personal Vehicle:Motor vehicles with four or three wheels whose unladen mass is not more than 500kg
VII. Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle:Any powered bike , scooter or Light Personal Vehicle powered by electric or electrically assisted with a battery system on board.
Amendment II - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
Remove Article 2
Amendment III - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
Article 3: Safety Standards for Personal Automobiles
I. All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have indicators visible at the back and front of the vehicle to be considered road legal
II. All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have working brake lights in working order to be considered road legal
III. All Personal Automobiles must have working daytime running tail and headlights to be considered road legal.
IV. All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have working seat belts, anti-lock braking systems,drowsiness detection systems, intelligent speed assistance ,accurate tyre pressure monitoring,lane keeping assist,blindspot monitoring systems, door mirrors, internal central mirrors ,GPS based speed limiter systems (on by default),safe crumple zones and front and rear airbags to be considered road legal.
V. All Personal Automobiles must have number plate holders and number plates on the back and front of the vehicle readable by cameras to be road legal
VI. Personal Automobiles designed for purely track based or motorsport use are exempt from these requirements but may not be used on public roads
Amendment IV - Proposed by Cllr. Iras Tilkanas
Article 4: Safety Standards for Bikes and Scooters
I. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have a registration plate on back and front readable by cameras to be road legal
II. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have indicators visible from the rear and front to be road legal
III. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have mirrors to be road legal
IV. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have working front and back lights to be road legal
V. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have working brake lights in order to be road legal
VI.Any 2 wheeled Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle may only have 500 watt motors and a maximum assisted speed of 30 km/h, GPS assist speed limiters and cut out to be road legal
VII.VI. Motorcycles must meet all the above regulations and have anti-lock braking systems in order to be road legal. The speed on motorcycles allowed shall be decided by nationstates.
Amendment V - Proposed by Cllr. Skye Hook
Article 3: Safety Standards for Personal Automobiles
I. All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have indicators visible at the back and front of the vehicle to be considered road legal
II. All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have working brake lights in working order to be considered road legal
III. All Personal Automobiles must have working daytime running tail and headlights to be considered road legal.
IV. All newly manufactured Personal Automobiles must have working seat belts, anti-lock braking systems, drowsiness detection systems, intelligent speed assistance ,accurate tyre pressure monitoring, overridable lane keeping assist or lane departure warning systems , blindspot monitoring systems, door mirrors, internal central mirrors ,GPS based speed limiter systems (on by default), safe crumple zones and front and rear airbags to be considered road legal.
V. All Personal Automobiles must have number plate holders and number plates on the back and front of the vehicle readable by cameras to be road legal
VI. Personal Automobiles designed for purely track based or motorsport use are exempt from these requirements but may not be used on public roads
Amendment VI - Proposed by Cllr. Skye Hook
Article 4: Safety Standards for Bikes and Scooters
I.All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have a registration plate on back and front readable by cameras to be road legal
III. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have indicators visible from the rear and front to be road legal
IIIII. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have mirrors to be road legal
IV.III. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have working front and back lights to be road legal
VIV. All newly manufactured bikes and scooters must have working brake lights in order to be road legal
VIV. Any 2 wheeled Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle may only have 500 watt motors and a maximum assisted speed of 30 km/h, GPS assist speed limiters and cut out to be road legal
VIIVI. Motorcycles must meet all the above regulations and have anti-lock braking systems in order to be road legal. The speed on motorcycles allowed shall be decided by nationstates.
Amendment VII - Proposed by Cllr. Skye Hook
Article I: Definitions
I. Personal Automobile:Any vehicle with 4 or 3 wheels above 500kg with a fixed or convertible roof that is powered either an electric or combustion engine.
II. Motorcycle: A powered two-wheel motor vehicle by either electric or combustion engine
III. E-Bike: A motor-assisted or driven, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, with two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other.
IV. E-Tri-cycle: A small vehicle like a bicycle with two wheels at the back and one at the front either powered by pedal , electrically assisted or by a motor.
V. E-Scooter: A vehicle ridden while standing that consists of a narrow footboard mounted between or atop two wheels tandem that has an upright steering handle attached to the front wheel, and that is moved by pushing with one foot or an electric motor.
VI. Light Personal Vehicle:Motor vehicles with four or three wheels whose unladen mass is not more than 500kg
VII. Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle:Any powered bike , scooter or Light Personal Vehicle powered by electric or electrically assisted with a battery system on board.
Amendment VIII - Proposed by Cllr. Skye Hook
Article 4: Safety Standards for -E-Bikes and E-Scooters
I. All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have a registration plate on back and front readable by cameras to be road legal
II. All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have indicators visible from the rear and front to be road legal
III. All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have mirrors to be road legal
IV. All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have working front and back lights to be road legal
V. All newly manufactured E-bikes and E-scooters must have working brake lights in order to be road legal
VI. Any 2 wheeled Personal Electric Micro-mobility Vehicle may only have 500 watt motors and a maximum assisted speed of 30 km/h, GPS assist speed limiters and cut out to be road legal
VII. Motorcycles must meet all the above regulations exept Article 4 VI and have anti-lock braking systems in order to be road legal. The speed on motorcycles allowed shall be decided by nationstates.
Voting on amendments will commence NOW and will last until 23:27 GMT on July 8th, 2024.
I vote FOR Amendments I, II, III and IV and AGAINST Amendments V, VI, VII and VIII.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for SpainThe Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote AGAINST amendments I, II,III and IV ,and FOR amendments V ,VI, VII and VIII
Sky Hook Deputy Councillour for United Duchies -
The United Kingdom votes for amendments V, VI, VII and VIII; against all others.
Jess Phillips
-
I vote FOR all amendments, including that of Cllr Dína's - that ought to be included, no?
Iras Tilkanas
Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Yes, my mistake. There are indeed NINE amendments up to vote, with the missing one in the compilationg being the following:
Amendment IX - Proposed by Cllr. Edutitale Dína
Article 2 - Creation of European Personal Transport Safety Board
VI. In cross-border areas where a similar mode of transport is utilised, a local chapter of the EU Personal Transit Safety Board must be established to create suitable regulations for the locality. Regions located within a single country must permit the Board to establish a chapter there before they can do so.
VI.VII. This agency shall be based in Europolis.
Due to this inconvenience, I urge Councillors Hook and Philips to express their position on the amendment.
I vote FOR Amendment IX.
Donald Tusk
Council Speaker and Councillor for SpainThe Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk -
On behalf of United Duchies I vote AGAINST Amendment IX
Skye Hook, Deputy Councillour for United Duchies
