Debate contribution: Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 21 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5497688
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
It is clear to anyone as they walk or drive around our cities and towns that the situation with scramblers, motorbikes and e-scooters has escalated beyond a public nuisance to a risk to life. Almost every week, I am contacted by constituents who have been terrified by near misses. They tell me of e-scooters weaving through pedestrians at speed on narrow footpaths. I am sure that many in the Chamber will reference the heart-stopping moment that a child on an e-scooter darts into traffic from behind or between parked cars. There is another dimension that we cannot ignore: the particular impact on blind and partially sighted people and those with limited mobility, who no longer feel safe when they are out walking. Motorists and pedestrians alike take their lives in their hands, as do those who use such vehicles. The situation is perennial. It is starkest in the aftermath of Christmas during the darker evenings. With Christmas comes an annual explosion of e-scooters onto our streets, and we see children, often in dark clothing and without helmets or protective wear, taking chances on vehicles that they just about know how to operate. Parental responsibility has to be a part of any serious conversation on the issue. Parents and guardians should understand and be educated on what their children are using, where they are using it and the risks involved. Too often, the vehicles are treated like toys, when, in reality, they can cause serious injury or worse, and we have, sadly, seen lives lost on this island. We see some reluctance here from Ministers to properly address or take responsibility for the issue. While that ping-pong, dither and delay goes on, the North falls further behind other jurisdictions on much-needed protections. I want to be clear that, when used responsibly and in the right setting, the vehicles offer a great, greener alternative to modern traffic, but the reality on our streets at the moment is far from that ideal. In my constituency, we see it play out daily. I think particularly of the field in Linear Park in the Galliagh area where antisocial scrambler use has caused headaches and heartache for residents for years. What should be a safe, green space for families, joggers and dog walkers has too often been transformed into a high-speed track for scramblers. Residents bemoan noise late into the evening, reckless driving across shared spaces, muck bombing, damage to property and the intimidation that often comes with that. I have met the PSNI locally on the issue, and it is trying its best, but it is fighting an uphill battle against a tide of unregulated, high-powered vehicles. While enforcement powers exist, officers with whom I have engaged explain that it is nearly impossible and often extremely dangerous to make pursuit on foot and even more dangerous in a car, especially in built-up residential areas. I acknowledge the amendment from the Ulster Unionist Party on expanding the use of drone teams and its view that that could help to monitor suspects from above and reduce the need for dangerous pursuits through housing estates, as well as easing pressure on an overstretched police service, and I look forward to hearing more about that proposal from the UUP.
Then we are opposed to it.
There is also a strong case for national standardisation. We clearly need safety standards, robust quality checks and mandatory registration at the point of sale. If every e-scooter sold met recognised standards and was linked to an owner, enforcement would be easier, accountability would improve, and unsafe products could be kept off the market. That is why legislative change matters. At the moment, we see the market being flooded with cheap vehicles purchased from sites such as AliExpress or SHEIN. Those products often bypass the safety protocols and regulations that we would expect and demand. That cannot continue. We need to crack down on manufacturers and online marketplaces. If the vehicles are being sold here or used here, they must meet clear safety requirements. I appreciate that today's motion calls on the Justice Minister to strengthen police powers to seize vehicles and to expand pilot programmes across the North. There is a clear responsibility there. However, I acknowledge that there must be a collaborative effort with the Minister for Infrastructure. I have been raising the issue for well over five years, and, in that time, the response from DFI has been to monitor developments elsewhere. The Irish Government introduced e-scooter legislation two years ago. In England, pilot rental schemes have provided a framework for safe, licensed use on public roads. Meanwhile, the North, as usual, sits in something of a legislative vacuum. In February, Minister Kimmins advised me, via an answer to a question for written answer, that the issue of e-scooter use and enforcement had been raised by officials at the PSNI-led silver command meeting and that:
"The Department is exploring measures to raise awareness around the dangers associated with e-scooters."
Where are those measures? The public have yet to see any evidence of them. I referred earlier to tragic fatalities that have occurred, and I fear and feel that it is a matter of when, not if, a similar tragedy occurs here if we do not act swiftly.
We must also recognise the need for safer, designated recreational spaces for young people. If we want to reduce irresponsible use on streets and footpaths, we must provide proper alternatives. Local councils have a key role to play in identifying suitable sites, investing in facilities and working with communities to create spaces that are safe and supervised. We have seen some successful projects, and my party colleague in west Belfast, Councillor Paul Doherty, has been to the fore on the issue.
I agree entirely with the Member and thank him for his intervention. Of course, there is the other issue that I mentioned: parental responsibility. We need to educate not just young people, who generally, but not exclusively, are the ones who use such apparatus for nuisance purposes or end up causing a nuisance, but parents as well. We need a public awareness campaign for parents and children alike so that they understand that those vehicles are illegal for road use and are potentially lethal. The buck cannot stop there, however: we need legislative teeth that strengthen police powers to seize vehicles that are being used to terrorise communities. Lastly, as both of us have said, we need to expand the successful pilot programmes that have worked and shown positive results in schools and community hubs. The time for monitoring is over. We need clear regulation, robust safety standards, cohesion from Ministers on the issue and the political will to reclaim our footpaths and parks in order to ensure the safety of all who use them.
1,143 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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.92 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:25 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.