Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The core position is the need for strong and rapid regulation in the urban environment concerning micromobility devices and small mopeds, to ensure people's health and life. He/She emphasizes increasing the rights of local authorities to limit the number of rentable vehicles and striking a balance between entrepreneurial freedom and health and safety costs. He/She is prepared for a robust and consensual process and stresses that while a balance must be found in cases of violations, a healthy and safe urban environment remains the priority. He/She views legislative amendments as a tool that would not completely restrict entrepreneurship but would ensure development within a safe and reasonable urban space.

He utilizes 2024 statistics (422 accidents involving light mobility devices; 171 Bolt and 53 Tuul scooters) and confirms the growing trend in accidents. He cites data from the police and the Health Insurance Fund, along with references to international examples (Finland, Germany, France, Lithuania) regarding helmet usage and driver's license verification. He addresses age verification, helmet use, and mandatory traffic insurance as key elements, and is prepared to justify the need for regulation based on both international and national precedents.

The context generally employs a decisive and urgency-emphasizing tone, which combines an emotional example (the accident of a 13-year-old girl) and statistical evidence. The main focus of the text is the desire for rapid movement, but simultaneously, room is provided for cooperation and compromise, utilizing consensus recommendations. The speech is a combination of formal and rational approaches, aimed at persuading and urging the rest of the parliament to vote in favor.

The tone suggests intense parliamentary activity and a pressing need for collaboration: references are made to meetings of special committees, debates in the Riigikogu and the Tallinn City Council, and the plan to proceed with the second reading of the bill. Mention is made of the urgency linked to the end of the spring and summer period, and the readiness to accept proposals from other political parties. The discussions at both the national and local level, along with the multi-day debate, appear to be regular and continuous.

The criticism is aimed at the positions held by the Climate Ministry and certain national-level political parties that deem restrictions on entrepreneurship problematic. It is alleged that some opposition/national actors either do not support the proposals or actively dismiss them, and they face accusations of hypocrisy, especially since the City of Tallinn has previously backed similar regulations. Although the intensity of the debate is strong, the focus remains on the substance of the draft bill, potential cooperation, and opportunities for compromise.

It demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with all political parties and accept proposals from others, emphasizing a consensus-based approach and the capacity for cooperation between both the coalition and the opposition. It advocates for close dialogue between the Tallinn City Council and the Riigikogu, showing that serious parliamentary work requires building bridges between different stakeholders.

The primary focus is on the City of Tallinn, the experience of the Tallinn City Council, and the necessity of local regulation. It advocates for increasing the authority of local governments in regulating the urban environment and demonstrates that local decisions can serve as a model for national procedures.

At the core of economic thinking is the balance between entrepreneurial freedom and the protection of people's health and safety. He/She emphasizes that restrictions are not a prohibition of business activity and can reduce healthcare costs and offset funding expenses. He/She recognizes the cap (or limit) and harmonized regulation as a tool that reduces confusion and protects consumers and public funds.

The core focus of the discussion is protecting human health and safety, particularly for children and the elderly. The importance of wearing a helmet is emphasized, along with the need to verify age and driving licenses. Creating a safe urban environment is highlighted as crucial for reducing the risk of serious accidents and providing peace of mind to parents.

The core focus of the draft legislation is the first reading of Bill 614 SE, the Act Amending the Traffic Act. This includes the rights of local governments to impose restrictions on the number of rental light personal transporters and small mopeds; age verification and driving entitlement checks; the option for helmet rental for individuals up to 16 years of age; the requirement to ensure safety protocols are in place; and the extension of mandatory traffic insurance to all market participants. The aim is to achieve rapid progress toward a second reading, incorporating potential amendments.