Debate contribution: Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Antisocial Scrambler and e-Scooter Use
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5497946
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to today's important motion on behalf of the Minister of Justice, who, unfortunately, is unwell. I am sure that Members will join me in wishing her a speedy recovery. Like the Members who have spoken today, the Minister is deeply concerned about the increasing use of scramblers and e-scooters in public places. Dangerous driving of vehicles such as those not only poses a significant risk to safety but has the potential to cause significant distress, as noted in the motion. At the lowest level, improper and illegal use of those vehicles in public spaces can be a nuisance to other members of the public, not to mention the noise that they create. Incidents such as the gathering of approximately 20 motorbikes in Falls Park earlier this month can also be accompanied by antisocial behaviour, which can cause further disruption to the public and even damage public facilities. In more serious cases, illegal use of those vehicles in public spaces can lead to significant injury and even death. The Minister of Justice has asked me to take this opportunity to acknowledge and extend her sincere condolences to the families of those killed on our roads through the dangerous use of scramblers and e-scooters, and I share that. Every one of those deaths is a tragedy, and, in conjunction with my Executive colleagues, the Justice Minister believes that it is essential that we consider very carefully how we work together to have the greatest impact on saving lives. The Justice Minister commends the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the dedication that it has shown in tackling the problem, using the existing enforcement powers available to it and other diversionary approaches such as the motorcycle awareness project. The motorcycle awareness project was developed following the establishment of a cross-government working group in 2016, convened by the Department for Infrastructure, which holds policy responsibility for road safety. The working group was convened following the death in July 2016 of Valerie Armstrong, who was tragically killed when she was struck by a scrambler being ridden illegally while she was walking her dogs in Colin Glen Forest Park. Sadly, that heartbreaking incident was followed by a number of others like it in 2016 and beyond. Previous interventions to address the illegal use of scramblers have often focused on awareness raising and enforcement, with limited success when it came to tackling the root causes of the issue. Instead, the motorcycle awareness project sought to harness young people's passion rather than suppressing it as the means for diversion from offending and antisocial behaviour. As recognised in today's motion, the motorcycle awareness project was a resounding success. Feedback from participants highlighted improved behaviour at home and changed attitudes to their riding and even to the police. There was also evidence of a ripple effect in the community as students informed peers of the dangers of that activity. Through feedback and evaluation, students also reported improved mental health, employment opportunities and personal development benefits. Students have subsequently contributed to off-road motor sport, including by working at Arenacross and local motorcycling events. As the motion correctly identifies, and as the success of the motorcycle awareness project demonstrated:
"when used responsibly and in appropriate settings, such vehicles can have recreational and community benefits".
Its success could not have been achieved without cross-sectoral support, however. If such initiatives are to be expanded urgently, as is proposed in the motion, the Minister of Justice believes that it is important that the justice system receive support from other Departments, such as the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities, as well as adequate funding from the Executive to support delivery. Under the current legislative framework for such vehicles, police constables have powers to seize vehicles, including scramblers and e-scooters, that are used:
"in a manner which ... is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance".
Those powers are in articles 65 and 66 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. Similar powers are provided to constables to seize vehicles driven without insurance under the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The motion refers to developments in other jurisdictions. Proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill, which I understand is now in its final legislative stages in Parliament, remove the requirement for officers to issue a warning before seizing a vehicle. The Home Office recently consulted on proposals to increase statutory charges and to reduce the disposal time frames for seized vehicles. The Justice Minister wishes to highlight the recent increased regulation of e-scooters that the Irish Government introduced in 2024 under the Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023 and the recent introduction of Grace's law, which has significantly increased regulation of the use of scramblers in that jurisdiction.
802 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: 0.03 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.87 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.06 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
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.