Debate contribution: E-scooters on Roads and Footpaths
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- E-scooters on Roads and Footpaths
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5482377
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Campaigns on the use of e-scooters and their legality is a matter for the Department for Infrastructure rather than the Department of Justice. I have, of course, during our regular meetings, had conversations with the PSNI about the concerns that have been expressed to me in this House and elsewhere about the proliferation of e-scooters and the risk that they pose to life. Ultimately, e-scooters are illegal, so, when the police see people using e-scooters on a public thoroughfare, they are at liberty to take action. I suspect that, again, the issue comes down to what resources are available. In some areas where e-scooters have been a systemic problem for some time, the PSNI has done very good work to target groups of young people who are engaged with e-scooters, scrambler bikes and other such vehicles. The PSNI has worked with those young people, not to dissuade them from having an interest in those vehicles but to educate them about their safe use and the dangers of using them on the open road. Given that that is a particular issue in the Member's constituency, it may be worth contacting the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) to see if something can be done between the it, the PSNI and, perhaps, even some of the Member's colleagues on the Policing Board, because I know that they, too, have shown an interest in this issue.
233 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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| 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 15:18 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.