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
- 13 January 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Road Safety
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5315853
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to address an issue that affects every community across Northern Ireland, which is road safety, and to highlight the tragic year that we had on our roads in 2025. According to figures provided by the PSNI, 57 lives were lost on our roads last year. Whilst that represents a modest reduction compared with the previous year, when 69 lives were lost, each of those deaths is a real tragedy, leaving a family devastated, lives cut short and communities grieving. One death on our roads is one too many, and, sadly, two lives, as well as the life of an unborn baby, have already been lost just days into the current year. What is particularly concerning is the continuing vulnerability of pedestrians, cyclists and young drivers, and too many lives are being lost due to speeding, distraction, drink or drug driving and simple lapses in judgement and concentration.
Those are not abstract statistics or figures; they are often preventable tragedies and real lives. Road safety is not solely the responsibility of government or enforcement agencies; it is a shared responsibility. Every time that any of us gets behind the wheel, we all have a duty and a sense of responsibility. Whether we are crossing a road or setting off on a journey, we all have choices to make that can either save or cost lives. I acknowledge the work of members of our emergency services, who often have to deal with very tragic circumstances upon their arrival at road traffic incidents; road safety partnerships; community organisations and groups such as Road Safe NI; and road victims' groups that are scattered across the country. They work tirelessly all year round, educating, enforcing and responding, often in very difficult circumstances. I thank them for their commitment. However, more must be done. We need to see further investment in safer roads infrastructure, improved road design, better road maintenance and lighting and targeted education campaigns for young and new drivers. Enforcement alone is not enough. Prevention must be at the heart of our approach. I know that the Executive agreed the road safety strategy 2030, which, rightly, recognises that progress depends not just on enforcement but on education, engineering and ongoing public engagement. As we move through 2026, it is worth noting that the associated road safety action plan 2025-26 has yet to be published, despite our receiving assurances from the Infrastructure Minister on several occasions that it would be published in the summer. As we remember the 57 lives lost last year, the most meaningful way to honour them is through a renewed commitment to providing safer roads and effective policy and to doing all that we can to prevent more families from suffering the same tragic loss.
456 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.92 | 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 | 0.83 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.13 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:12 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.