Debate contribution: Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5497899
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank those who tabled the motion and those who tabled the amendment, because it is a relevant debate on a prevalent issue. I will put that in a little bit of context. A number of weeks ago, I was in Lisburn Square in Lisburn, which is a beautiful, pedestrianised precinct. It is a great shopping area, which partners Bow Street Mall: the finest that Lagan Valley has to offer. In that area during the daytime, there were a number of young people on large bikes. They were not on e-scooters or scramblers, but they were doing exactly the thing that we are talking about today. They were not riding or using them in the manner that most young people and bike users do. They were using them in a way that was deliberately provocative and dangerous not just to other users but, sadly, to themselves.
I tried to intervene. I thought that I would be Billy Big Robbie, if you like, but, unfortunately, I found that they were not in a receptive mood. I could not engage them in conversation at all. I then had a conversation with a local shop owner. Regretfully, that shop owner, who has spoken to the PSNI, the local chamber of commerce and industry and the local council on the issue, has had to make adjustments to their opening times. They have had to close their premises because of the actions of a small number of people who ride around the area on e-scooters and bikes, which puts people off shopping there. That is only one impact, but that impact on our high street is something that we have not discussed today. People are put off shopping. The elderly are probably put off shopping, because of the decline in their reaction time and their difficulty with spatial awareness. They are scared. That is the reality. I will also speak for another sector of our community that does not have its voice heard nearly enough, and that is the disabled sector. This has more to do with the active pedestrian versus the cyclist, and I do not want to get into that today, except to say that we should all look at some of the testimony that the RNIB has provided for the debate. The RNIB is telling us that 77% of blind and partially sighted survey respondents said that the behaviour of e-scooter riders makes them feel unsafe, that 61% of them said that they cannot make the journeys that they want or need to make and that 70% of them avoid paths that are shared with cyclists or those on e-scooters. I am not here to demonise people who use any of those vehicles appropriately, because all of us probably had a BMX at one stage and rode around our streets. Thinking back to that time, however, we all knew what manners were. We also knew about safety. I said that I do not want to demonise young people, and I do not, but there are two approaches that we need to take. The first is contained in the motion and the amendment and concerns the legal context. It is about how we are going to support the PSNI in its endeavours to deal with repossession through the four Es process. I will, however, talk about the approach that is much more important, and that is the preventative approach. That is where the real energy needs to be directed. There is something that we can do even now, individually or collectively, and that is raise awareness and promote education at every level of society. After I had my experience in Lisburn Square a number of weeks ago, I wrote to the local PSNI superintendent, the local council and Lisburn chamber to try to arrange a collective meeting, which is still to happen. Other voices that need to be at that meeting are those of parents and young people, because, when we talk about making a cultural and societal change, all voices should be equal. We also need to better understand what facilities we have for young people. I mentioned that we all had BMXs at one time, and one of the best interventions made in Lisburn was to create a BMX track at Bells Lane park, which is still there and is still used. Yes, we need to look at the justice part, at the enforcement part and at the laws on the purchase and use of scramblers and e-scooters, but we also need to provide our young people with diversions. I can fully understand why those vehicles look, sound and are experienced as fun, but let us not forget about our local shopping centres, our disabled community and our elderly.
788 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: 0.08 (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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.96 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:26 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.