Merseyside Police says it has seized over 500 illegal electric bikes, scooters, and motorbikes so far this year, as part of a crackdown on their use in serious crime and anti-social behaviour – including one e-bike that was modified to reach a top speed of 62mph.
This week, the police force launched ‘Operation Gears’, a targeted campaign to tackle the “sharp rise” in organised crime across the area, including drug supply, robberies, and violent offences, linked to the use of these illegally modified vehicles.
In recent years, high-powered illegal electric motorbikes have been the subject of several police enforcement initiatives while also generating plenty of tabloid headlines and ill-informed BBC investigations, often causing confusion as to the legality of e-bikes in general.
Under UK law, it is legal to ride electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPCs), which are restricted to a maximum power output of 250 watts and cut-off assist speed of 15.5mph, on the roads.
However, the increasing use of high-powered bikes, which can easily exceed the legal limit – and therefore are classified as electric motorcycles – and cheap conversion kits have led to growing concerns about dangerous riding and the sharp rise in fires caused by cheaply made, poor-quality batteries which fail to comply with UK fire safety standards.
And, as Merseyside Police noted this week as part of Operation Gears, beyond their reputation as a “nuisance” and fire hazard, they are also “being used to commit serious crime and put our communities at risk”.
The force says it has witnessed a “spike” in thefts and robberies involving e-bikes in 2025, with criminals increasingly using them to transport drugs and weapons. This penchant for illegal e-bikes among the area’s criminals has also led them to steal high-value bikes to support their activities, the police added in a statement released this week.
Merseyside Police say they are aiming to “disrupt this growing threat” by “stepping up enforcement with regular operations aimed at those who continue to endanger lives and disrupt public spaces across the region”.
As part of Operation Gears, officers will be instructed to seize illegal vehicles, arrest offenders, increasing patrols in hotspot areas, and target anti-social behaviour.
“The illegal and dangerous use of two-wheeled vehicles across Merseyside is a growing concern,” Superintendent Phil Mullally, who leads Operation Gears for Merseyside Police, said in a statement.
“That’s why through Operation Gears, Merseyside Police is taking firm and proactive action, seizing illegal bikes, arresting offenders, and increasing patrols in key areas to disrupt criminal networks and keep our communities safe.
“The reckless use of e-bikes, off road motorcycles and e-scooters are more than just a nuisance to communities, they are being used to commit serious criminal activity including drug supply, weapons offences and violence.
“The public can expect to see various operations targeting two-wheeled vehicles over the summer months and beyond, to provide a visible presence and disrupt offenders.”
Since January, over 500 illegal e-bikes, e-scooters, and scramblers have been seized across Merseyside, with Inspector James May telling the BBC that “fast and heavy” bikes designed for use on private land are making pedestrianised areas of towns more dangerous.
“Members of the public can’t walk around the streets safely and they feel intimidated when these people are riding around, particularly with their faces covered or they’re wearing balaclavas,” he told BBC Radio Merseyside.
May also said that one of the 500 seized bikes had been modified with a battery pack, a throttle, and a power wheel replacing the chain, enabling it to be powered by the motor alone. Officers conducted tests on the bike and found that it could reach a top speed of 62mph.
“If any pedestrian was struck at such high speeds, they could be killed,” May added.
Meanwhile, Mullally also called on the public to make sure they understand the law surrounding e-bikes, warning parents who are planning to buy an illegally modified machine for their child to “really consider” if it is suitable.
“What we see is not only the illegal use in terms of the Road Traffic Act but also their use in serious criminality,” he told the BBC, clarifying that the campaign aimed to target criminals, not “law-abiding members of the public” using perfectly legal e-bikes to ger around.
Describing illegal e-bikes as an “enabler” for criminality, Mullally continued: “Innocent people using e-bikes are often targeted and fall victim to robbery or theft by individuals who are intent to use them to assist their criminal activity. We understand how distressing this can be and are working hard to reduce this through targeted patrols and wider prevention advice.
“We would encourage all e-bike owners to use security measures such as the Bike Register, investing in high quality locks and GPS tracking devices.
“Most importantly, if your e-bike is stolen or you witness a crime involving this type of vehicle, please report it to us immediately. Timely reports help us take swift action and contribute to making our streets safer for everyone.”
Of course, Merseyside Police isn’t the first regional force to announce a crackdown on illegal e-motorbikes.
In May, Suffolk Police reported it had seized six bikes in the space of a week, while Leicestershire Police said it seized 187 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters in Leicester since the launch of a similar crackdown in January.
And last month, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking (APPGCW) warned that the government’s failure to tackle the unsafe and illegal use of e-motorbikes threatens to irrevocably damage the reputation of the UK’s legal e-bike industry, as well as undermine its efforts to promote cycling and active travel as a whole.
A report published in June by the cross-party group of MPs and peers called for stricter laws to prevent online retailers from selling potentially dangerous electric bikes and conversion kits, including closing a loophole which enables sellers to list illegal e-motorbikes under the pretence that they should only be used off-road.
The group has also urged the government to give the police new powers to seize unsafe “fake” e-bikes and introduce a scrappage scheme, to be funded by food delivery companies, for dangerous bikes used by their couriers.
Focusing on the gig economy, and its widespread use of high-powered, illegal e-motorbikes, the APPGCW says couriers should be given wider guaranteed rights and protections, while their employers should be required to carry out safety and compliance checks on their bikes.
50 thoughts on ““Pedestrians could be killed”: 62mph illegal e-bike seized as police say crackdown targeting “reckless” criminals, not “law-abiding” cyclists”
I’m confused that road.cc has
I’m confused that road.cc has generally been very good about highlighting the difference between ebikes and illegal electric motorcycles and indeed at taking to task other media outlets, organisations and individuals who have failed to appreciate said difference – a difference that is even highlighted in the above article – and yet the headline still refers to a 62 mph vehicle, clearly an illegal electric motorcycle, as an illegal ebike. Why?
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think that battle has already been lost – if it’s more bike-shaped than motorbike-shaped then it gets called an e-bike. Technically, I suppose they are all e-bikes if they have two wheels, though.
I’m disappointed with Suffolk Police only managing six bikes in a week – I can see that many in Bristol in half an hour.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Not in UK law, or indeed in the Oxford dictionary’s definition of them: in law to be an ebike the motor must be activated by turning the pedals; even linguistically, the machine must at least be capable of being propelled by turning the pedals. If the motor is solely activated by a throttle (Surron etc) then it’s definitely an electric motorcycle, not an electric bicycle.
Well pedantically is it not
Well pedantically is it not that UK law recognises bicycles, Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles and motorbikes *?
And clearly even EAPC is a bit of a mouthful so few bother.
* I know there are also all kinds of quirks : “mechanically propelled”, bicycles normally being legally “vehicles” but on occasion having different rules (overtaking at zebra crossings), the details of “invalid carriages” and “mobility vehicles” etc.
chrisonabike wrote:
It is but for legal purposes an EAPC is treated the same as a bicycle, the definition only exists to provide regulation regarding power, speed limiter and pedal assist requirement. In the words of gov.uk:
E-bike – no legal definition
E-bike – no legal definition AFAIK – the guidance you quote above suggests Gov.uk uses it as an umbrella term capable of referring to bicycles with some element of electric power, which could be:
Different people may be using “e-bike” as a convenient shorthand to refer to different things – but I’m not sure anyone necessarily has a better claim to the term.
Moreover, I maintain that when people complain about ebikes being the scourge of the streets, they’re not picturing what we’re picturing, so there’s no danger of e.g. retribution for riding an EAPC.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well funnily enough I saw one last week, lucky I did as the rider was busy using his phone and not looking where he was going, which isnt helpful riding an electric motorbike at 30mph with your head protected by a scarf and a hoodie, not more than 0.5miles away from where the police team dealing with this stuff are based.
Which I think shows how much effort they’re putting in.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’ve been staying on the edge of Bristol this week and did a couple of rides in. One of the differences from Edinburgh was I *didn’t* see as many of these as I would have expected. (More actual ICE motor scooters).
OTOH I was only in and pottering about on two evenings and an afternoon, mostly travelled around the south east … and was distracted by the massive concentration of motor vehicles! Any time of the day, it seemed almost as many as rush hour in Edinburgh!
OTOH given the lumpiness of Bristol and environs I can see one reason for this…
These dearly need sorting and
These dearly need sorting and sorting bigtime as everyone I’ve seen on these, are masked and that’s only equates to bad things!
Per usual Plod has been
Per usual Plod has been asleep at the wheel for years despite everyone else seeing the growth in illegal eBike numbers and the balaclava wearing scroats driving them,
Maybe if the police had started aggressively applying the law 3 or 4 years ago the current endemic could have been avoided and a huge amount of police time would be focussed on other things now.
open_roads wrote:
FTFY
eMoto…I like that. Is that
eMoto…I like that. Is that a widely recognised term? Can we get the media to use it?
Per usual Plod has been
Per usual Plod has been asleep at the wheel for years despite everyone else seeing the growth in illegal eBike numbers and the balaclava wearing scroats driving them
An absolutely outrageous paragraph!! I’m sure it should be ‘scrotes’
That’s not an e-bike, it’s an
That’s not an e-bike, it’s an electric motorbike. Plod needs to step up, one was flying down the Bristol to Bath cycle path on a sunny Sunday the other week, 40mph+. It’s pretty damn risky riding at more than 15mph when it’s busy
I’ve never yet seen a Suron
I’ve never yet seen a Suron electric motorbike being used on that road that has a registration plate.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Of course not, they only make one street legal model and that’s only been out for a year as far as I know (and it costs nearly £5000, at that price you might as well buy a very decent 125 motorbike). All the other (much cheaper) models are “off-road only” and I’m sure as many as 10% of customers pay attention to this restriction. It really is ludicrous, it’s the equivalent of saying we’re not going to have firearms licences but anyone who buys a gun will be given a stern warning that it is not to be used to shoot human beings.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Nah, easier for your next phone snatch victim to hear a 125 coming.
Good point. Also of course
Good point. Also of course you can charge it in a lockup, shed or even a hallway without the risk of being apprehended and/or refused fuel that using a petrol-driven bike entails.
Whilst photographed seizing
Whilst photographed seizing an electric motorbike to highlight how they are protecting vulnerable pedestrians, police obstruct the pavement with their van on what appears to be a wide and clear road.
That’s very unfair – they’ve
That’s very unfair – they’ve clearly placed it there to warn people about the lamppost in the middle of the path and stop them walking into it.
Why is it that articles
Why is it that articles attacking ebikes outnumber the ones demonstrating their beneficial effects by 100:1? Despite the fact that the benefits outweigh the problems by 1000:1.
eburtthebike wrote:
Ebikes are wonderful (though I don’t own one at the moment), but to be fair these articles are not attacking ebikes but illegal electric motorcycles which are definitely a significant problem, certainly in London where the use of 40 mph plus machines on cycle paths putting legal cyclists and e-cyclists in real and potentially lethal danger.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Hah – clearly you’re making the whole thing up, and have never even seen or heard of ebikes before.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes, but the point remains: ebikes are amazingly beneficial, but the MSM never mentions it (despite thousands of articles about electric cars) but negative stories abound. And they, apparently deliberately, conflate ebikes with illegal electric motorbikes.
Probably for the same reason
Probably for the same reason the media reports stories about grannies getting run over more than they report stories about grannies getting helped across the road.
Human nature is what it is. We are attracted to stories about danger and/or wrong-doing, and the media reflects that. Always has and always will.
There are media outlets that aim to fill a gap in the market by offering positive news stories and/or ‘slow news’, but it’s a hard model to make a living from.
FionaJJ wrote:
All true, but there are thousands of stories about electric cars in which no-one is run over, but no stories about the benefits of ebikes.
I think the KTM [Macina
I think the KTM [Macina Action?] being seized in one of those pics is actually a legal EAPC. Assuming it’s not modified. Perhaps just stolen.
quiff wrote:
The Bosch system used by KTM is really easy to bypass to get above legal speeds, you just have to plug in a tuning chip which costs about £150 and fools the motor into thinking the bike is going slower than it actually is so it doesn’t apply the cutoff at 25 km/h.
I see a lot less kids riding
I see a lot less kids riding with their parents on the inner london section of ther CS3 since a few years ago.
See an awful lot of illiegal ebikes been driven at speed though (mostly by delivery riders).
There is a connection.
EddyBerckx wrote:
Those kids you saw are now delivery drivers?
eburtthebike wrote:
Ha! If only.
I am always bemused by all
I am always bemused by all this stuff. Why is it such a problem? EAPCs good, illegal unregistered/uninsured motorcycles with unqualified rider bad. Why do they allow the sale of bikes for off road use only when they know that 99% will go straight on the road? How many people actually have enough private land to warrant such a vehicle? So ban them. Yes, that’s tough for those who have vast acres of land, but couldn’t they just use a registered emotorbike? And the illegal kits. I mean, you can’t buy firearms and drugs on Amazon, so why other illegal merchandise? And enforcement? Many on here have pointed out how easy it would be for the police simply to descend on a site where deliveristas congregate. Anyway, perhaps someone smarter than me (not difficult) can explain.
Geoff Ingram wrote:
Exactly this, if they want it just for scrambling, farm use or as a kid’s toy they could pay the minimal registration fee (usually included in a new vehicle purchase anyway?) and then immediately declare it SORN so it wouldn’t cost them anything but the whereabouts of the registered keeper would be known.
Geoff Ingram wrote:
— Geoff IngramAbsolutely, but from reading/watching/listening to the MSM, you wouldn’t know that there was a difference. They call them all ebikes and call them all bad, never mentioning that the legal ones are incredibly beneficial.
Geoff Ingram wrote:
Off-road motorbikes (ICE) have been easily available for many decades – the problem isn’t the availibility, but the lack of traffic enforcement.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Respectfully, I would say that there is a massive difference between the off-road ICE motorbikes one could/can buy and the new breed of electric motorbikes. Some of the Sur-Ron range weigh just 47 kg and have a really small footprint so they can be kept in a hallway and easily manouevered around a stairwell etc. Also, they can be powered up at home without having to go out to petrol stations. Much easier to use and to hide away.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes – they’re now cheaper and more convenient, but the problem is still the same although now far more common. Back in the day, scrotes would ride an old beaten up trails bike on public land (parks, footpaths) and have to be chased off by the police. I don’t see how it’s worth trying to ban the sale of off-road machines when there are valid uses of them and due to the number of franken-e-(motor)-bikes around, a ban on the sale would have little effect.
Traffic policing is the answer to mis-behaved traffic.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Why not both more restrictions on sale AND use? We do that to some extent with alcohol, motor vehicles, firearms etc. None of those are “solved” of course but if it’s worth doing both for them why not with e-things?
Having seen how well we’re doing with motor vehicles * I would limit that – it is *part* of managing human transport use and behaviour. The infra and “what people are pushing to sell products and how they’re doing it” may be equally if not more important. So why not address them also?
* We may be doing amazingly well compared to the past / places where “traffic policing” equates to “way for police to obtain a living wage via corruption”. Or we’re not doing very well at all compared to other places where they’ve started to “tame the car” (or rather “manage the motorist’s use of motor vehicles for a better environment”).
We may be doing amazingly
We may be doing amazingly well compared to the past / places where “traffic policing” equates to “way for police to obtain a living wage via corruption”
Judging by the present police refusal to do anything about vehicles reported to them with no MOT for several years, or vehicles with dangerously failed MOT for many months, this is not ‘in the past’
chrisonabike wrote:
It would cost more money in terms of enforcement to try to stop all the various places importing e-bikes and equipment than it would save. We’d still need lots of police to crack down on the importers and this would also penalise the valid users of e-motorbikes. With the electric motors, how would people differentiate between motors for things like washing machines or garage door openers and motors for franken-e-(motor)-bikes?
There’s also the issue that we’d be pushing the enforcement of the issue onto the retailers who have a financial incentive to not care about strict enforcement.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It would cost more money in terms of enforcement to try to stop all the various places importing e-bikes and equipment than it would save. We’d still need lots of police to crack down on the importers and this would also penalise the valid users of e-motorbikes. With the electric motors, how would people differentiate between motors for things like washing machines or garage door openers and motors for franken-e-(motor)-bikes?
There’s also the issue that we’d be pushing the enforcement of the issue onto the retailers who have a financial incentive to not care about strict enforcement.— chrisonabike
Well – I guess it depends, some of that seems to me a “not perfect so don’t try” argument. In many cases something being less freely available (where there are legal alternatives) does in fact mean most people don’t choose it.
Also some of those issues are the same for the cases I’ve listed – they don’t seem to be barriers to applying sale restrictions there.
As for people smuggling in motors and then attaching to bikes – would that really be a major thing? I guess it depends … what’s the actual market for e-motorbikes, given that EAPCs are street legal? (If some of it is already “for criminal use” that can probably be discounted – those folks will sort themselves out regardless).
With alcohol, tobacco, firearms, furniture not compliant with fire regs etc the “but retailers have incentive to ignore the rules and sell” applies too. (Certainly in the tobacco case in some places there is indeed a substantial illegal market being served from shops). Not sure that’s an argument for “don’t bother with the rules restricting sale” though. (But you’re correct that enforcement is needed somewhere…)
Ultimately perhaps this isn’t a massive issue (since people already can and do misuse existing ICE vehicles, particularly motorbikes in this context – there have been deaths even in Edinburgh – but for those not killed or injured or seems “not a biggie”). BUT I don’t see any principled reason to let it become a much bigger (nuisance) issue by ignoring the supply side – and I suspect that policing that end (also) may be more effective than the other (once people have bought things).
Still not convinced of a massive demand for “but off-road use though” either.
chrisonabike wrote:
There’s entire ranges of motorbikes and ATVs that are specifically designed for off-road use only, so there must be some people buying them
https://www.honda.co.uk/motorcycles/range/off-road.html
So … they’re already
So … they’re already catered for?
Granted we’re supposed to be reducing the numbers of ICE vehicles in favour of emit elsewhere (and hopefully less). And the smaller ICE engines can be much less efficient / rather polluting. But if we’re not talking about a big concentration in an urban area perhaps we can worry about that later? Unless someone has spotted that e.g. 5% of the UK’s emissions of something are due to dirt- and quad- bikes (and are there even EV quad-bikes? I guess someone makes them…)
Returning to “but can we avoid some of the problem in the first place, even if we don’t address all of it” I haven’t noticed anyone looking for a sheep-herding EV in the local Currys/PC World. I could well have missed them, but they’d likely be very disappointed as most of the “not legal for on-road use” things on sale there look like they’d struggle to handle most Edinburgh pot holes, never mind anything more rugged.
I would bet that lots if not all of these things are indeed ridden on the local roads and streets. No, it’s not the apocalypse, but why be binary about it (e.g. “because a few people may have a want / need / existing legal use, everyone can get these” – and really easily, everywhere; to the degree that I’d bet many people honestly have no idea they’re restricted)?
chrisonabike wrote:
My point is that off-road vehicles have been freely on sale for many decades, along with the problem of people using them in public spaces where they are illegal. Yes, the new electric ones are cheaper, lighter and more convenient, but I don’t see why we should suddenly think that policing them should be the retailers’ job. If the sudden proliferation of them requires extra traffic policing, then so be it.
I agree that most people don
I agree that most people don’t want to motorbike – as you note that option has been available for decades, most don’t.
BUT If the motorbikes become smaller, lighter, cheaper to buy and run? And with in practice essentially zero requirements like having to go to a dedicated motorbike or ATV shop / training/ licence / tax / helmet / not being allowed on “paths”? I would predict a greater take-up. Although still pretty tiny compared to driving *
I note your point – mine is that it’s all on a scale. Depending on the relative ease of doing things there many be more or less take-up, with more or less consequences. But at the moment we’ve effectively lessened some of the barriers to take-up, at the same time as providing no extra resource to manage any consequences – and in fact AFAICS provided no directions to address this / guidance on how to for the police, as it becomes harder to distinguish these things. (Never mind the popular understanding…)
Again the analogy is not exact – but even though most agreed that e-cigarettes are much less harmful than the originals there are still restrictions on sale. And retailers have responsibility. (But there is probably a lot more tax at stake, and the costs of smoking casualties likely weight much heavier than the few due to motorbike use).
Probably I should just go try buying an old-style motorbike vs. an electric motorbike to compare, since I’ve never done either.
* that is, until there is plenty good cycle provision – then we may find we have an unwanted arms race there, having just got away from the one on the roads… I note that – wisely/fairly or not – *ICE* motor scooters generate a lot of complaints from many on NL cycle paths. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/why-are-all-these-scooters-here/
I think the real issue is
I think the real issue is that along with the easy availability of off-road e-bikes, there’s been a deliberate scaling back (defunding) of traffic policing – presumably to fight back in the War Against The Motorist. This means that people know that there’s sod all chance of them being caught as law breaking is endemic on the roads.
So, this means that we have two obvious methods to tackle the issue – either try to restrict the sale of off-road vehicles and kits or to step up traffic policing to dissuade their use in public areas. If we introduce new legislation, then that puts an additional burden on policing, but if we increase funding for traffic policing, then multiple societal ills can be dealt with by making people realise that sooner or later their law breaking will be caught.
What I’d like to see is squads of unrestricted e-bike mounted police that zip through traffic jams and capture all the phone using drivers whilst also being well placed to chase down crims on e-motorbikes.
Agree – we have seen a
Agree – we have seen a reduction in policing – both less road policing and less trading standards type stuff.
As usual I think the eventual way forward will involve going round some of the issues rather than getting bogged down. So a more fundamental change in terms of infra (taking from the motorist to give to the rest), much more (and better) public transport etc.
And “but motorists (in cars or bigger)” will be by far the biggest issue for the foreseeable future.
But I don’t think it’s “either/or” (if that is what you were saying)? Resources are limited but since we’re doing an “if I was in charge” exercise I don’t see why we necessarily have to pick. Police tackle e.g. drugs at the import, distribution and end use ends to some extent – they don’t just say “ignore the boatloads of gear coming in, let’s wait until street dealers and users are causing a nuisance and tackle things there”. (Granted that is a very different situation). Of course there are different cost/benefit analyses for tackling issues at different points.
I think my general concern with e-things is that they are in fairly direct competition with plain old cycling – for space and “user share” (and decent mobility space is in minimal supply in the UK currently). I’m wary of repeats of the “but there are only a few motor cars on the cart track now, and they’re hardly going much faster” creeping takeover… Plus while harm minimisation / far lower resource usage than cars, electric motorbikes have more impact than unpowered bikes (and I wonder about the long-term safety numbers on e-scooters).
I think police being equipped to better deal with the old driving issues as well as the new ones is indeed a good idea, probably the minimum we should be doing.
Why is it such a problem?
Why is it such a problem?
The ‘sod that for a lark’ attitude of the police- there were 3 of them together last night, even in sleepy Garstang, which could be immediately confiscated = end of problem after a few weeks. I appreciate that chasing is difficult, and you’d need 2 officers on legal electric motorbikes with a back up vehicle to cart the bikes away, but the government should force the police into it. They could find loads of them any time in Preston.
I saw this on the news. Seems
I saw this on the news. Seems like Birmingham are targeting delivery riders. I wonder if it’s possible to break the model? Ie when customers complain about late or failed deliveries. If a rider accepts a job and when they turn up to collect and plod is stood outside what happens?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyqw2zg98lo
Food delivery companies
Food delivery companies should also bear some liability towards the self-employed drivers who deliver for them. Uber drivers (who are not empoyed by Uber) do not tear around breaking rules left right and center (well, no more than your average driver) and I think that if delivery companies were jointly liable for their drivers behaviour, you can be sure that the drivers would soon be forced to clean up their act?
But then I guess the MSM would place a higher priority on the delivery riders sorting out their immigration staus first.