Member's statement: Road Safety
Member's statement by Mr Stephen Dunne on .
- MLA
- Mr Stephen Dunne
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Road Safety
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4536809
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise today to highlight the important issue of road safety and the tragedies unfolding on our roads all too often. A total of 71 people lost their lives on our roads last year — the highest annual number of deaths for eight years. That is truly shocking. Sadly, 41 people have already lost their lives on our roads this year. Meanwhile, PSNI figures also show that 880 people were seriously injured on our roads in the same year. What those stats do not begin to represent is the immense pain and suffering behind each number. Whether it be the loss of a dear friend or family member or the permanent mental or physical trauma from a serious road traffic collision, each death and serious injury on our roads causes incredible harm and heartbreak across our communities and every part of Northern Ireland. The Department for Infrastructure has launched its road safety strategy to 2030, alongside an action plan for 2024-25. The strategy sets ambitious targets to reduce those numbers by at least 50% by 2030. I very much welcome that strategy — we have talked about it a number of times at the Infrastructure Committee — and the action plan and the important targets contained in it for safer roads, safer vehicles and safer people. That is something that we can all get behind today. We need much more than just another strategy. It is important that every effort is made to ensure that the targets are met.
It is disappointing that a number of key targets from the previous action plan were not met, particularly those on mobile phone legislation and the important review of drink-driving legislation.
The statistics show that, between 2018 and 2022, 377 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads as a result of drink or drugs having been taken. It is vital that the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Justice and the PSNI take a collaborative approach to discouraging and punishing those very dangerous and destructive practices, given the severe impact that they are having on road safety. Another key aspect of the road safety strategy centres on safe roads, which ties in well with what my colleague from South Down has already said about how our road network must be improved. Real investment in it is needed in order to promote road safety and prevent unnecessary collisions. Unfortunately, many roads across the country have been neglected by the Department for Infrastructure, particularly in recent years. One prominent example in my constituency of North Down is the A2 dual carriageway between Bangor and Belfast, which carries over 35,0000 vehicles every day. That is an example of a road with the potential for accident black spots. The Minister for Infrastructure has committed to holding a road safety review of the A2, and I implore him to continue down that path and to ensure that action is taken. It is therefore important that we highlight the issue, and we all have a responsibility under the Share the Road to Zero programme.
508 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: 0.02 (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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 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 11:06 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.