Motion or amendment: Tackling Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 13 April 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Tackling Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
- Assembly identifier
- Document 479231
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Tackling Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
That this Assembly expresses serious concern at the growing impact of scramblers and e-scooters in communities across Northern Ireland, which has caused significant distress, antisocial behaviour, serious injury and, in some cases, loss of life; notes that other jurisdictions have introduced measures to tackle inappropriate use; acknowledges that, when used responsibly and in appropriate settings, such vehicles can have recreational and community benefits; welcomes the success of community and school-based pilot initiatives, delivered in partnership with the PSNI, the Department of Justice, schools and community organisations which have significantly reduced illegal scrambler use; supports legislative changes to strengthen police powers to seize vehicles being used in a dangerous or antisocial manner; and calls on the Minister of Justice to urgently expand successful pilot programmes across Northern Ireland.
133 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: 0.04 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:22 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.