Motion or amendment: Delivering a New Road Maintenance Strategy - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 11 September 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Delivering a New Road Maintenance Strategy”
- Heading
- Delivering a New Road Maintenance Strategy - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 448964
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Delivering a New Road Maintenance Strategy - Amendment 1
Leave out all after 'ten years;' and insert:
"further regrets that cyclists are often forced to travel on poorly maintained roads due to a lack of dedicated cycling infrastructure; highlights the substantial increase in the Department for Infrastructure's expenditure on public liability claims in the last five years; believes that the maintenance of the road network is crucial for road safety for all users whether travelling in a vehicle, bike or on foot; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to urgently present a new road maintenance strategy that will address road maintenance in an effective and efficient manner, with proposals that will deliver higher quality repairs, address workforce challenges, including the issue of low pay, prioritise funding for rural roads and for roads frequently used by cyclists, learn from areas of best practice, including the use of technology, and allow for proactive intervention.”
153 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.91 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.08 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:11 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.