Comment & Analysis: A collision involving an e-moped user and a jogger, in August 2024, has resulted in the user of the bicycle-shaped object being fined €250 for careless driving. But the case has caused a lot of confusion for the public. Based on the information reported, it seems there was a lot of confusion in the Court and/or in the reporting of those events, so, it’s no surprise this has filtered to the public.
We can only rely on the court reporting, which leaves the possibility open that more was said in Court than what was reported. Even without knowing all that happened in Court, it is still worth examining what was reported and the level of confusion it has caused.
The details of the case can be found on RTE.ie and TheJournal.ie (basically the same report), the term e-bikes is one of the core confusing parts of this (more on that below) and The Irish Times added more issues into the mix too.
In the case, Stephen Dunne, of Russell’s Terrace, Kettles Lanes, Drynam Hall, Swords, pleaded guilty to the offence after Karl Leonard of Balglass Road in Howth, who suffered a broken leg in the collision, took a private prosecution, after he claimed there was Garda inaction. A private prosecution is where a person’s legal team, not the State, is prosecuting the accused. The Dublin District Court accepted the case.
On March 10th 2025, while the case was ongoing, The Irish Times reported “Jogger whose leg was broken in alleged collision with e-bike on footpath takes prosecution”. But this mention of a footpath is incorrect, and even articles after the case, which later called it a shared path, are not fully accurate.
It is reported that the collision happened between the Swords Express (Holywell Close) bus stop 6311 and the roundabout at the top of the slipway from the M1. While not reported, the location described is along the Holywell Distributor Road in the Airside area of Swords.
The carriageway only goes to the motorway, while the cycle track and footpath go across it to a residential area on the other side of the M1.
The location in question is not strictly a shared path — it’s a shared surface with one part well-marked with lines (background) and the other section missing its line markings so it might as well be a shared path. This is all technical — no member of the public should have to worry about the exact signs or markings when something looks like a cycle track and is signposted as such.
It’s not included in the Court reporting, but if the bike is a full-on moped, then it should never have been on the cycle track. But some e-mopeds are allowed on cycle tracks.
On the type of bike, RTE reported that:
“At an earlier stage in the proceedings, he claimed the specifications of the e-bike – including its 0.75-kilowatt brushless motor, which can reach a maximum speed of 20-25km/h – classed it as a mechanically propelled vehicle.”
It’s worth noting here that the 0.75-kilowatt motor is what classifies the bike as a mechanically propelled vehicle. The speed is allowed on an electric bicycle — and electric bicycles do not have a strict maximum speed, but the motor must cut out by 25km/h for it to be viewed as a bicycle.
This means the bike in question is a L1e-A device, which generally resembles a bicycle in appearance but is legally classified as an e-moped under law.
The bike was reported to be a ‘Engwe EP-2 Pro Electric Bike’. This bike is can be found for sale online with different versions, including an claimed EU-compliant version restricted to 25 kilowatts and the motor cutting out after 25km/h, an international version which takes fuller advantage of the motor’s power, and a number of retailers sell an “upgraded” version with different higher speeds.
It’s unclear which was included in this case.
What is counted as a bicycle? According to the Department of Transport:
“An e-bike is a pedal-assisted electric bicycle with a maximum continuous rated power of 250 watts [25 kilowatts], and a maximum speed of 25 kilometres per hour. ‘Pedal-assisted’ means the electric motor cuts off when pedalling stops.”
A bike can have a 750W motor and be legally counted as a bicycle if there is some kind of manufacturer-level restriction on the motor that the continuous rated power is no higher than 250 watts (and the user cannot just switch this on and off).
Before going any further, it’s worth providing an overview of the different types of bicycles and bikes — the following image should be read with the article: Explainer: Differences between e-scooters, bicycles, e-bicycles and speed e-bikes.
The term “e-bike” is unhelpful. Definitions of e-bike in three major English dictionaries (Cambridge, Oxford, Collins) either (1) make it clear that different people use the phrase e-bike to describe very different things, devices that are and are not bicycles, or (2) leave it vague enough that the definition means the same thing.
It’s not a legal term, and it is confusing. So, the phrase “e-bike” has no business being used in court, and/or in court reports or follow-up explainer articles.
There has been some confusing coverage in The Irish Times, especially with articles mentioning “powered personal transporter”, and that the device being used “falls under the Road Traffic and Transport Act 2023 concept of a ‘powered personal transporter'”. It’s unclear why ‘powered personal transporters’ are mentioned, as ‘ powered personal transporters refer only to e-scooters and have no relevance to any type of bike or bicycle.
The article in The Irish Times about this last month also said that the case “has potentially significant implications, including for users of e-bikes and insurers, concerning liability under civil and criminal law for such incidents.”
It’s unclear what point of law this District Court case could possibly clarify, as in terms of liability, people cycling and also those using mopeds are liable for damages they have caused, which is not a new concept.
The point on insurance is different. On that point, an article in the Irish Times this week with the headline ‘Landmark case means e-bike users involved in collisions may be held liable for injuries‘ said:
“The significance of the e-bike being an MPV [mechanically propelled vehicle] means the user is required to be insured. The outcome of the private prosecution clears the way for Mr Leonard to proceed with his personal injuries action against Dunne. Mr Leonard also intends to join the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) to the case because Mr Dunne was not insured to drive the e-bike.”
But as we see in the chart above, an L1e-A e-moped without a throttle does not require insurance. This is confirmed by the Department of Transport’s explainer page for L1e-A devices, which outlines: “Pedal-assisted L1e-A e-moped users do not require insurance or a driver’s licence for their vehicles”.
The page adds that “Users of throttle-assisted L1e-A e-mopeds must: insure their vehicle, where the vehicle weighs more than 25kg and has a maximum design speed greater than 14 kilometres per hour…. hold a Category AM driver’s licence….”
Strangely, The Irish Times reported that “A senior legal source said Mr Leonard’s case is significant in two respects.”
“It is the first time a litigant took a private prosecution over an e-bike collision in a situation where gardaí did not properly investigate, seemingly because of a widespread misunderstanding of the current legal status of an e-bike for the purpose of the Road Traffic Act,” he said.
Dunne’s admission, as part of his guilty plea, that the e-bike is an MPV is very significant when it comes to liability, the source said. “Users of e-bikes need to understand they can now be held liable for such incidents.”
Given that the term e-bike is confusing as people use it to refer to different things, it’s highly ironic that a legal source would reference that there is “widespread misunderstanding of the current legal status of an e-bike”. Recent articles in the same paper and the use of the term e-bike generally have only added to the confusion.
Depending on the details of any collision, liability can be attributed to any road user, including people using bicycles.
While the use of a private prosecution for this type of collision might be significant, you could say that if the Courts are accepting private prosecutions for such, it could also have wider impacts, including for all motorists.
Could, for example, a person cycling who is closely overtaken and has video evidence of this take a private prosecution if they claim many Gardaí are not acting to enforce the law as legislators expected?
Maybe the most confusing article published by The Irish Times is the one titled ‘E-bikes Q&A: What are the obligations and rules for using this form of transport?’.
It outlined that “‘E-bike’ itself has become a descriptor for a variety of bikes that are motor-powered in some shape or form.” In fairness, the next paragraph states that this includes such bikes that are classified as bicycles. But it does not stop there.
“As it is regarded as a regular bicycle, those using e-bikes are subject to the same rules as regular cyclists”… which type of “e-bike” are we talking about? Many of what are called “e-bikes” are subject to more rules as they are mechanically propelled vehicles.
The article further outlines that: “In the case of Mr Dunne and Mr Leonard, the pair were using a shared footpath, whereby a clearly marked separate cycle lane coincides with a pedestrian lane for walkers or joggers. While this cycle lane is permitted for e-bike users, it is not for MPVs, which Mr Dunne had been using.”
But again, L1e-A devices, without throttles, can use cycle tracks, including shared paths. Also, not all of the path (as shown above) is clearly marked as a cycle track.
The same article outlines that “While an L1e-B e-moped requires insurance, an L1e-A e-moped only requires insurance if it weighs more than 25kg and has a maximum design speed of greater than 14km/h.” Again, missing a key section — if the device has a throttle. If you don’t want to trust my explainer article, this fact is also covered by the Department of Transport’s explainer page.
“A driving licence is not needed for an L1e-A”, The Irish Times article explained, but this also depends on whether a throttle is available to be used.
The article then states “E-bikes, however, do not require insurance, motor tax or a licence” as if e-bikes is being used to describe only electric bicycles. Then the next paragraph states:: “Regardless of the type of e-bike or e-moped in question, except for e-bikes powered up to 250 watts, for which there is no age limit, those using e-bikes or e-mopeds in public spaces must be at least 16 years of age” — impling e-bikes are both bikes which are bicycles and those which are mopeds.
Well, one thing is clear: When talking about legal terms, the word/phrase ‘e-bike’ is as useful as an inflatable tyre clawed by cats.
“use of a private prosecution…could also have wider impacts, including for all motorists.”
Exactly, I’ve long-held the view that people walking or cycling that are hit by motorists should take private prosecutions, or sue the motorist because the Gardai don’t give it the attention and deterrent in deserves.
Thanks Cian for trying to inform the public. I ride a bicycle with pedals (a push bike) that also has an electric motor with a power cutout at 25 km/h (as defined by the EU Commission). I have to apply leg pressure to in order to obtain any assistance from the motor. If I exceed 25 km/h then I revert to pedalling under my own steam.
There is no throttle.
I am sick and tired of media (and legal profession) not understanding the difference between the various electric powered objects with two wheels!
There are battery powered mopeds and motorbikes out there folks. They are not the humble push bicycle.
I was interested in whether or not this would be regarded as a shared space as most of the surrounding area is considered a share space. While providing a cycle track up to the Drinan exit looks nice in fact it’s not useful to cyclists as there’s effectively an instruction in the form of a busy bus stop & you cannot cross safely because if aggressive traffic with motorway brain switched on.
There are a few issues here. Firstly had the bike in question been an EU compliant ebike model with hardware fixed at 250w, assistance maxed to 25kmph & no throttle, it’s an ebike.
L1e-A are allowed use cycle lanes. L1e-B are not allowed to use cycle lanes and require an AM license.
L1e-B that are throttle assisted require insurance, and are still not allowed to use cycle lanes.
There’s also some stipulations around weight. Of course a lot of these are being imported so it’s likely the nutter might not know they are bringing in something that isn’t legally an ebike.