Almost two weeks since the BBC aired its controversial, Adrian Chiles-fronted Panorama episode on e-bikes, the complaints keep flooding into the broadcaster, after the owner of an e-bike shop branded the programme “troubling” and “misleading”, with the potential to “unfairly influence public opinion and undermine the efforts of responsible retailers who prioritise safety, respectful riding, and adherence to the law”.
A formal complaint lodged to the BBC this week by Ray Wookey, the owner of Energise E-Bikes in the south London town of Coulsdon, claimed the programme offered a “negative portrayal” of electric bikes by showing “very few legitimate e-bikes shown on-screen” – instead focusing on illegally modified or unregistered ‘e-motorbikes’.
Wookey argued that the use of the phrase “illegal e-bikes” is “misleading and damaging”, and has the effect of cementing in the public’s mind that all e-bikes are illegal, and that the general “imbalance” evident in the episode has the potential to “hurt trustworthy electric bike businesses”.
He also noted that while focusing on road safety issues – such as the relationship between e-bike riders and pedestrians – is important, it “should not involve the misrepresentation of an important and fast-growing sector” capable of promoting a safe, healthy, and environmentally-friendly form of transport.
Last week, the BBC found itself on the receiving end of a furious backlash from cycling groups after it aired the Panorama episode, ‘E-Bikes: The Battle For Our Streets’, hosted by Adrian Chiles, which saw the former One Show host ask whether electric bikes are “a new menace in need of tighter regulation”.
The episode’s prolonged focus on modified e-bikes – which exceed the maximum 250 watts and 15.5mph cut-off speed for electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPCs) permitted under UK law to ride on public roads – and the failure to consistently and fully distinguish between these machines proved controversial, however, provoking some strong criticism from cycling campaigners and bike industry groups.
“Panorama confuses legal with illegally modified e-bikes and ignores their benefits compared to the UK’s car use,” the London Cycling Campaign said in response to the episode, which many cyclists criticised for its conflation of the criminality, dangerous riding, and battery fires associated with illegally modified two-wheeled electric vehicles with legal e-bikes.
“If we switched lots of cars for e-bikes in the UK we’d see health, crime, road danger, and climate benefits, not the tabloid, crime-ridden, apocalyptic vision Panorama paints,” the group said.
Referring to the programme’s attempt to discover whether e-bike use is linked to dangerous riding and criminality, Alex Bowden, in his review for road.cc’s sister site e-biketips, said: “Clearly there are specific issues which nebulous questioning and imprecise categorisation won’t do much to resolve.
“Maybe we’re biased but ‘What can we do about e-bikes?’ and ‘What can we do about illegal e-bikes?’ are not to us the same question.”
Meanwhile, the Bicycle Association (BA), the trade organisation representing 140 cycling companies in the UK, and the Association of Cycle Traders both lodged formal complaints with the BBC concerning Panorama’s coverage of e-bikes.
The Bicycle Association’s technical and policy director Peter Eland called on the BBC to “remove ‘E-bikes’ from the episode title and instead reference what the group terms ‘illegal e-motorbikes’,” and in future programming on the subject to “make it fully clear and properly inform the public that e-bikes and illegal e-motorbikes are two entirely separate categories”.
He also urged the broadcaster more generally to “provide proper balance when addressing contentious transport issues, including featuring representation by responsible organisations in the sector”.
According to the association, the Panorama episode “repeatedly conflates the safety and social issues surrounding the use of illegal e-motorbikes with ‘e-bikes’ and fails to make it clear that these issues are overwhelmingly not caused by (road legal) e-bikes.”
This “misrepresentation”, the BA claimed, failed to properly inform the public of the current laws on e-bikes in the UK and has “unjustifiably damaged” the electric bike sector.
Jonathan Harrison, the director of the Association for Cycle Traders, also criticised the “division” the episode “tried to sow” and asked: “Does the hysteria match the actual harm caused?”
And now, independent bike shop owners are adding their voice to the industry’s chorus of disapproval, as Energise founder Ray Wookey lodged his own formal complaint and called on the BBC to “provide a more balance perspective” on the safety issues surrounding e-bikes in the future.
“While the programme intended to raise awareness about safety issues, I found the lack of representation from reputable and legitimate e-bike retailers troubling and potentially misleading,” the Croydon-based retailer, who has sold e-bikes to the Metropolitan Police during his 15 years in business, said in the complaint, titled ‘E-bikes are not illegal’.
“Naturally, the safety of road users is the most important thing, but highlighting danger should not involve the misrepresentation of an important and fast-growing sector.
“Up and down the UK, there are reputable retailers of electric bikes, many of which are independent, locally owned small businesses. Each of these establishments helps to increase the amount of healthy, eco-friendly travel in their communities through the sale of safe and legal products.
“By not including interviews with credible e-bike retailers or industry experts – and instead speaking to a so-called ‘e-bike collector’ – the programme failed to present balanced information. Such imbalance can unfairly influence public opinion and undermine the efforts of responsible retailers who prioritise safety, respectful riding, and adherence to the law.”
The complaint continued: “The negative portrayal of e-bikes without input from legitimate retailers may harm the industry, potentially affecting small businesses and employees reliant on this growing market.
“You may also like to consider that the majority of two-wheeled vehicles featured in the episode were in fact not e-bikes at all, but ‘unregistered e-motorbikes’ which have been mis-labelled as ‘e-bikes’, firstly by unscrupulous retailers and secondly by the programme itself.
“There were very few legitimate e-bikes shown on-screen, which again is an imbalance that will hurt trustworthy electric bike businesses.
“Repeated use of the phrase ‘illegal e-bikes’ is misleading and damaging. Using this phrasing, or similar, could persuade members of the public that all e-bikes are illegal, when in fact the problem is ‘unregistered e-mopeds’.
“Finding a wolf in sheep’s clothing should not be a reason to attack sheep. Call a wolf, a wolf, and call an unregistered e-motorbikes, an unregistered e-motorbikes.
“I kindly request that you consider these points and take steps to address the imbalance in future reporting. Providing a more balanced perspective, including input from reputable e-bike retailers, and using accurate language, will ensure a fair and informative presentation of the topic.”
83 thoughts on ““E-bikes are not illegal”: BBC hit with more complaints about “misleading and damaging” Panorama e-bike episode, as cycle shop owner says: “Finding a wolf in sheep’s clothing should not be a reason to attack sheep””
Has the BBC actually
Has the BBC actually responded to any of these complaints yet?
I submitted mine on 9/1/2025.
I submitted mine on 9/1/2025. In their reply they said that their “normal aim at this stage is to reply within 10 working days (two weeks).” and that “sometimes it may take us longer. If we think that will be the case here, we’ll try to let you know in advance.”.
I haven’t heard back yet but then I’m not expecting anything until the 23rd, and even then I’m only expecting them to say that there was nothing wrong with the programme and it adhered to all the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards.
They have had a reply, you
They have had a reply, you can read it further down in the article.
https://bicycleassociation.org.uk/news/press-release/60/60-BA-complains-to-BBC-about-Panorama-e-bike-misrepresentation
So the BBC’s main argument is
So the BBC’s main argument is essentially other people aren’t always clear, and it’s not the BBC’s job to do better.
The point regarding Lime bikes is valid to some extent (i.e. they are lawful EAPCs) but (as I understand it) the problem with Lime bikes is they can be easily “hacked” and then ridden by anyone, completely free and with none of the accountability that comes with being a registered user hiring the bike through the app. I haven’t actually seen the programme (don’t have a TV licence) but I presume that wasn’t made clear either?
OnYerBike wrote:
An extraordinary point to make in an investigative journalism programme – imagine if they did that for a Panorama programme on, say, massive banking fraud. “Well, we spoke to the bloke in the bank who said it was all totally legit, so that’s fine then”.
paul_Onabike wrote:
Thanks – that’s interesting. A totally rubbish reply from the BBC, but interesting.
From the response:
From the response:
“Throughout the programme, contributors outlined both positive and negative aspects of e-bikes.” Probably over 90% negative.
“Viewers will have heard that e-bikes (in their various forms) are beneficial for the environment, convenient for users and often fun to ride.” Not from the BBC they wouldn’t.
“This is not misrepresentation or inaccuracy, and we therefore felt it was justified to use a range of footage of different e-bikes both road legal and illegal throughout the film.” Oh yes it was misrepresentation, especially when the BBC has never (AFAIK) had any programmes about how great ebikes are. The illegal bikes predominated by a large margin.
“We believe that all of our interviewees were appropriate and sufficiently well informed.” You’ve got to be kidding me! Nobody from CUK or BA.
“This programme was not an attack on the e-bike industry or e-biking in general and we were not obliged to interview someone from the industry in order to achieve “fair balance.”” It most certainly was an attack on ebikes, and it could only be described as not an attack if the BBC had had lots of other programmes promoting ebikes. No? Case proven. The “fair balance” thing is just hilarious.
“We think the programme featured lots of positive comments about e-bikes.” I didn’t count them, but I don’t think I’d have needed all the fingers on one hand.
“There is widespread confusion about e-bikes.” Which that programme made worse.
And finally:
“Thank you for taking the time to write to us and we hope that this addresses the issues you have raised.”
Loved this one
Loved this one
“There is also confusion about the use of throttles. The law says that they should not be used for greater assistance than 6 kph but it is possible to get an e-bike reclassified via the DVSA as an e-moped and then use a throttle when not pedalling. This presents difficulty for police and councils who have to work out which e-bikes have been reclassified as e-mopeds. “
There would be no confusion for the Police as the legally reclassified e-moped would have to have a large bright yellow number plate at the rear. Who do the BBC employ to do basic fact checks these days?
“To the public and to all
“To the public and to all intents and purposes, e-bikes and those bikes that do not conform to EAPC regulations are indistinguishable; two-wheeled vehicles with an electric battery-powered motor and having the same or similar physical appearance to bicycle. The former is governed by restrictions which we detail in the programme. This is how the average, reasonable viewer and person understands them.”
So, in the BBC spirit of “Inform, educate and entertain,” this edition of Panorama decided to forego the inform and educate bits to concentrate on entertaining the anti-cycle lobby.
Indistinguishable? I overtook
Indistinguishable? I overtook a legal e-bike last week. I am a member of the public and I managed to distinguish it from an illegal e-motorbike because I was doing around 19mph and the rider was peddling quite fast and going a bit slower than I was. Simples.
paul_Onabike wrote:
Interesting that the BBC’s reply (which rather misses the point of the complaint) features the following quote: “The programme featured footage of an accident where a Lime bike rider knocked over a young child, for example.” I wonder if one of the many, daily, examples of a driver knocking someone over will be enough to trigger a similarly critical car – focused episode of Panorama?
Wasn’t that the incident
Wasn’t that the incident where the kid runs for the bus, across a segregated cycle path and apparently without looking, and knocks someone off their lime bike?
When the BBC cant do basic
When the BBC cant do basic fact checking for its documentaries you know it is not fit for purpose.
Great that yet another
Great that yet another interested party has complained about the travesty of a programme. This could be the most complained about prog for years!
“….the programme offered a “negative portrayal” of electric bikes….”
The BBC has a firm, but unwritten policy: no other mode of transport will be promoted except cars: every other mode of transport apart from cars will be endlessly criticised, especially cycling, no matter that the benefits are gigantic and obvious.
When I worked in West London
When I worked in West London for 3.5 years and C2W daily, there was a competition between the local corporations, and the consistent winner was BBC since so many employees C2W daily. So it’s very puzzling that BBC output suggests anti-cycling while BBC inputs are pro-cycling and not ignorant of the realities of C2W.
Perhaps the relocation northerly had some unintended consequences but I’m not going to suggest any stereotypes.
lonpfrb wrote:
Maybe that shows the disconnect between the higher-ups who can set policy and the actual workers.
lonpfrb wrote:
No. The BBC has been anti-cyclist for at least forty years. Like you, I’m puzzled, but I’ve been puzzled for forty years and nothing seems to change. Complaint after complaint after complaint: but nothing changes.
They also failed to address
They also failed to address the inconsistancy amost Police forces in dealing with the problem. In Leeds for example they are never challenged, I have complained to Police and our Deputy Mayor to ask why with no response, so we have lots of these modified vehicles running red lights, speeding, without lights at night, probably no insurance, ignoring all traffic signs, all mainly in the name of delivering food, but also in the Ward where I live they are also known to be used to deliver drug. I often see on Social Media other forces showing these vehicles on transporters after being taken off the road, they also then find other offences like no business insurance, no licence, imigration offences so why the incinsistancy? no one seems to want to answer.
In Leeds for example they are
In Leeds for example they are never challenged
I can’t exactly say that, but there are loads about in Preston and Blackpool where they could be easily picked up were it not for Lancashire’s proud ‘No Traffic Policing here!’ boast. Noticeably different in Lancaster, but I saw one there a couple of days ago. Note obligatory hood and mask uniform.
Don’t forget that the last
Don’t forget what happened last time Police “admitted” to policing the problem of illegal e-motorbikes. If I were a copper why would I risk my career?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/23/south-wales-police-van-was-pursuing-teenagers-in-cardiff-force-admits
[I]Police admit following e-bike before crash that killed Cardiff teenagers[/i]
Equally central guidance has
Equally central guidance has changed from putting perpetrators health and safety first to actually nicking the scumbags on mopeds / motorcycles. Often done on adventure motorcycles rather than pursuit cars so as to be proportionate.
Panaroma is supposed to the
Panaroma is supposed to the the number one flagship programme for investigative journalism of the BBC, one of the biggest media organisations in the world. It is supposed to be doing fearless, challenging, important yet rigourously researched investigative journalism, which helps us as a democracy and as a society.
The fact that they cannot get basic facts right, things that can be discovered in a 30 second internet search, is simply shameful. Panorama needs a reboot. Zero clickbait, more journalism.
There’s a lot of focus on
There’s a lot of focus on Panorama which is a bit nebulous.
Adrian Chiles is an extremely highly paid journalist so why isn’t he being held accountable for seemingly failing to understand very basic legal concepts and presenting them accordingly / with appropriate balance?
open_roads wrote:
Because Chiles is, I imagine, just the face. He wouldn’t have had any input on the words he is speaking.
He’s a journalist. The
He’s a journalist. The journalist presenter always gets input on Panorama – that’s the whole point of it.
OK, didn’t know that
OK, didn’t know that <shrug>
open_roads wrote:
No. Journalists report facts.
I have not needed a tv
I have not needed a tv license for 32 years, I’m afraid the quality of BBC journalism is virtually rock bottom.
As for BBC verify ! Ha ha ha
They don’t need new laws.
They don’t need new laws. They just need to enforce the laws they already have. If anything the laws need to be loosened. Why is the speed limited to 25 km per hour but in North America it is 32 km per hour?
If anything the laws need to
If anything the laws need to be loosened
Oh no they don’t!
diggler wrote:
Yeah! Also – I can carry around a machine gun * in much of the USA – what do you mean there are some silly regulations stopping me doing so here?
* Or even this fantastic revolving cannon, which legally is not even a “firearm” at all according to some laws there I am told (historic artefact – as long as you use black powder and don’t use the original exploding ammo that is)? Obviously with a few helpers though!
I think it would make sense
I think it would make sense to have 32km/h. With so many roads switching to 20mph speed limits it would allow e-bikes to become part of the traffic, rather than still being seen as an obstacle. A large portion of my London commute is now on 20mph roads. If I’m on my normal bike it is fine (albeit with some speeding cars desperate to get past), but as soon as I’m on my electric you can sense the urgency to get past at any cost.
In America the e-bike can do 30mph can’t they? Certainly when I was chatting with a policeman at the airport in Las Vegas he said his one did 30. I wouldn’t suggest a need for that fast, but definitely 20 makes sense.
squired wrote:
Class 1 and 2, 30 km/h (18.6 MPH), class 3 is 45 km/h (28 MPH.) I think class 1 at 30 km/h with pedal assist is fine, pretty comparable to what a fit amateur can do, although most people can’t do that for a couple of hours like they can on an e-bike.
squired wrote:
Im mostly against faster ebikes just for the sake of it but this in conjunction with a heavy information and enforcement campaign (against both rogue drivers and rogue cyclists) could be revolutionary. Needs some joined up thinking at National and Local level and the appropriate funding.
It should be done with 1 piece of legislation and plently of carrots and sticks for local councils to comply.
Im mostly against faster
Im mostly against faster ebikes just for the sake of it
Whereas I, in contrast, am adamantly against faster ebikes just for the sake of it
We’ve all seen your speeds on
We’ve all seen your speeds on upride.cc
You know you need one , you’re just in denial!! ?
The solution there is to
The solution there is to lower the speed limit for all vehicles to 15mph, if it’s too fast for a bike it’s certainly too fast for a multi ton vehicle piloted by a mobile user
squired wrote:
On the face of it a reasonable argument. However the performance yardstick by which ebikes [EAPCs] are judged is not motor vehicles but ordinary bicycles. And if ebikes are to continue being treated in legislation the same [all but] as ordinary bicycles then that link must not be broken.
It might seem reasonable to loosen the legislation to allow ebikes to keep up with motor vehicles, but then expect the clamour for them to be regulated as such to grow ever louder.
That, and the idea that
That, and the idea that motorists keep below the 20mph limit stretches credulity…
I don’t need speed, but more
I don’t need speed, but more torque. Steep hills mean 250W motors don’t cut it. I’m considering CYC Stealth at 980W limited with a Cycle Analyst. I don’t think I’ll be that fast with my weight and a trailer.
Torque and power are not the
Torque and power are not the same thing. You can have unlimited torque at any given power – you just need to adjust the gearing to achieve it.
Agreed – but no doubt the
Agreed – but no doubt the motors (or – certainly if the in-hub type – their mountings) have some limits?
AFAIK deraillieur gears should be OK (along with frame – should already be sturdier if an EAPC). My Shimano hub gear has a range of “within spec” input ratios however, to avoid putting too much force through the locking pawls and other tiny parts inside the system (mine’s on a non-power-assisted bike, not that it matters).
Even in the UK where “but we have hills” the current EAPCs will work very well for the vast majority of folks. Because most people (and most short journeys that future cyclists are likely to cycle) are in urban areas which tend to be relatively flat or not have prolonged climbs at high gradients. I stay in Edinburgh – I can easily find some steep gradients if I want to but there are almost no journeys which require tackling them – there are flatter alternatives.
(Only ones I can think of in North / West Edinburgh which might constitute a “route” might be Drum Brae North or Clermiston Road – but these can be avoided albeit at the price of going half as far again (just over half a mile). And the NCN pull up Scotland Street from Cannonmills to Queen Street – but not quite as steep).
I completely agree, even
I completely agree, even though I narrowly escaped death ( probably) in new York as there are thousands of lunatics on them. But for Europe and the UK where road bikes especially average over the 25 kph, that small rise to 32 kph might have the effect of attracting a lot of cyclists to assisted bikes, me included!
It might attract a lot of
It might attract a lot of “cyclists” (e.g. the tiny fraction who already cycle for transport, plus maybe a few extra brave young
crimsthings).It will not attract a lot of people who now drive (the major transport mode beyond walking very short distances). Because for years they’ve been able to have quite capable electrically assisted pedal cycles, power-assisted up to 15.5mph anyway.
It will likely continue to piss off / scare people who are walking or wheeling and possibly some who are cycling without power assist (if little Johnny is going 8mph how will he/his mum feel when someone steams past at 18+?).
The above two are of course not so much to do with the properties of e-bicycles / low powered electric motorbikes. They are a consequence of the domination – by motoring – of public space, bureaucratic planning and regulation, the market and ultimately people’s mental lists of “what we can do and with what tools”.
Without changing that, all that happens is about the same number of cyclists can get to the next traffic light a bit faster, but are still experiencing fear and indeed casualties from motor traffic (and possibly slightly greater injuries from coming off at higher speeds).
People in the UK commonly report that “safety” is a major concern (e.g. not feeling safe around cars). I’m pretty confident that “now going faster with cars revving behind me” won’t fix that. I don’t think “going a bit faster with power” fixes “cycling is not convenient” either.
What would help to attract lots of new people to cycling is … well, a whole range of measures *. Without doing that? Lots of cyclists are going to be avoiding the traffic on our “shared use” spaces – which are often rubbish e.g. where a council has just stuck a sign on an existing narrow footway. (If not just cycling on footways).
* Won’t be easy – we need to provide genuine alternatives to driving at the same time as we reduce convenience for drivers. The first would be seriously improving public transport and building cycle parking (home and destinations) and infra (both have to be convenient relative to driving that journey). The latter – limiting permeability of residential areas to drivers (access-only, LTNs etc) and redirecting through-traffic away from town centres.
On infra – we need to address junction design [a] [b], separate the motor vehicles from cyclists where speeds are above say 20mph and seriously reduce the numbers of motor vehicles in places it’s appropriate to have lower speed limits (residential areas) [1] [2] [3].
Sadly the cost of national
Sadly the cost of national separate cycle infrastructure is huge so will never happen. It’s taken decades in the bravest country, Finland, to make it happen in a road network of little complexity and legacy when compared to the UK.
The best fix is to reduce the danger of shared use of the public highway by changing attitude and behaviour of motor vehicle operators. Starting by making cycling a Protected Characteristic to use existing law on the mainstream media.
Then joined up government between the Ministries of Transport, Health, Culture Media and Sport will focus on Vision Zero to address the attitudes and behaviour required to achieve zero casualties.
It won’t be easy as people but change is going to happen.
lonpfrb wrote:
Not disagreeing about the general scale of the transformation *. And whatever happens we will need to deal with at least some junctions – which will immediately create “conflict” (there’s no “just build stuff out of sight, which doesn’t trouble drivers in any way).
And in the UK countryside this may be a bit of a lost cause – at least initially. Albeit it’s just not likely that most people will cycle the longer distances anyway.
BUT … I think people may overestimate what can be done more locally – within urban areas. That does not necessarily require a lot of new “cycle infra” beside all roads, but transforming old patterns of “everywhere permeable” motor access (and letting the cyclists through). See articles here and here.
That is exactly the kind of thing which has happened – in many places. Out of nothing – Seville, but it’s in motion in Paris, Oulu, Oslo …
Attitudes need to change, but I suspect that is just a part of the process – because apparently “careful and competent” drivers kill people every day, because they are human. This is where the “Sustainable Safety” philosphy and principles come in (human factors, essentially).
* To actually effect more than a couple of % change will require far more than just “cycle infra”. For one there won’t be space for if we continue to allocate almost all of it for motoring, squeezing in some footways with what’s left and adding the odd couple of pedestrianised streets as a sop to motoring-afflicted “high streets” (and internet – which needs delivery fleets…). For another it will stall at at a low level without a massive improvement in public transport. BUT – the crucial one is that “where driving is easy, Brits drive”. The relative convenience of motoring compared to other modes must fall, otherwise people just won’t bother.
best fix is to reduce the
best fix is to reduce the danger of shared use of the public highway by changing attitude and behaviour of motor vehicle operators
Unfortunately, the attitude of the police (sod the cyclists, it’s their own fault!) operates in direct and determined opposition to any such ‘fix’, and to active non-motorised travel.
Owing to the distributed
Owing to the distributed organisation of the police services it varies hugely. I’m sorry that Lancashire are so bad, and I’m fortunate that Kent are better.
This suggests that Vision Zero will require commitment from Police Commissioners and Chief Constables across the country.
I’d prefer them to start by restoring the Traffic Division focusing on road policing.
TD would be the obvious specialists to change attitudes and behaviours on the public highway.
You know that on an EPAC you
You know that on an EPAC you still have to put effort in, right?
In order to stay at 25kph, you have to put the relevant effort in so the motor maintains 25kph.
As soon as you slacken off, the motor reduces its output accordingly … it doesn’t keep you at 25kph.
[Or at least the Bosch Powerline and the Polini that I have, work like that].
The magic word is *Assistance* … otherwise, its a moped.
At last – someone who
At last – someone who actually knows what an e-bike is and how it works.
But is there any restriction
But is there any restriction on the multiplier? I get the sense that on some EAPCs the pedals basically act as a dead man’s switch – if you stop rotating them the motor cuts out, but you don’t actually need to put any effort through them. In some there is not even a mechanical link – the pedals supposedly charge the battery, which powers the drivetrain independently.
Pretty sure that still complies with the law (and no problem with that either). The problem comes where it is combined with demands for ever increasing power – even if assisted speed remains limited to 25kph. At that point we open the door to road-train cargo behemoths under guise of being, essentially, bicycles.
I have a 750W Bafang. At
I have a 750W Bafang. At power level 1 of 9 I can do 25km/h on the flat with my legs just going through the motions.
diggler wrote:
My gut feeling when I hear calls like this is that the proposers want all the speed & convenience of a motorbike, but without any of the hassle & responsibility that comes with it. An EPAC is an electrically assisted bicycle, a 32kph machine is a pedal assisted motorbike, and that’s a big difference. By all means call for new classification but expect to need a licence, helmet, insurance and all the crap the average Daily Mail reader calls for.
Spot on. The arguments are
Spot on. The arguments are always muddied by people advancing whatever laudable case for more performant machines to be allowed. Of course, they almost always [i]are [/i] already allowed. What these people are asking for is for those more powerful machines – motorbikes, mopeds, sub-cars, etc – to be de-regulated. But if they framed the argument in that way nobody would give them the time of day.
And the motive power being electric rather than fossil is just a red herring. But it serves to smuggle their argument into the domain of EAPCs.
And you can in fact legally
And you can in fact legally ride a “speed pedelec” in the UK. It’s just that it involves a lot of extra regulatory legwork, plus legally you are a moped rider and have to comply with the same rules. (road.cc’s sister site did this a couple of years back).
I am probably a dinosaur on this (lots of companies are motivated to lobby to make it different!) but just because some European countries * have this doesn’t make it a good idea for the UK, where we don’t even have mass cycling / cycling as mainstream transport yet! (Perhaps quietly in parts of Cambridge, or maybe just in bits of London?)
Places like NL have been wrestling with their historic situation of “motor scooters on the cycle path”. If they decide at national level this is no longer on I don’t think even they would be well-advised to simply swap those for electric ones. But they are in a completely different transport situation from the UK!
* Let’s not invoke the US – they mostly have “what not to do” lessons for us on road safety / vulnerable road users / nicer places etc.
chrisonabike wrote:
Perhaps we as cyclist ought to stop calling them ‘speed pedelec’ or similar and call them what they are, electric mopeds. Chiles’s program would have been completely different if he’d been using the term electric moped instead.
Nope, nothing to do with
Nope, nothing to do with performance, everything to do with safety by keeping up in 20mph zones. Obviously doesn’t help with 30mph or more, but does support the Active Travel initiative that provides much of the 20mph network.
a licence, helmet, insurance
a licence, helmet, insurance and all the crap the average Daily Mail reader calls for
Including the Mail Grail: the number plate which ensures that all vehicles so equipped are driven carefully with due regard for the law. Unfortunately, to accompany these Brave New World bikes and regulations we’ll still have the ‘sod that for a lark’ Idle Old World police, so the great majority would remain without licence, insurance, helmet and plate and with mask and hoodie, more power and sold on the promise of even easier hackability, all charging around ruining the meagre cycle infa we have. No, thanks.
Nonsense. The difference is
Nonsense. The difference is just to achieve the 20mph that is so prevalent being safer than MGIF stupidity caused by 15.5mph restriction. Whilst 20mph is glacial slow for motor vehicles the difference to pedestrians with 15.5mph is within their margin of error I.e. they can’t tell the difference. Further it’s nothing like unrestricted electric motorcycles, so all the Daily Fail bingo doesn’t apply.
lonpfrb wrote:
I don’t expect UK pedestrians will be happy with mingling with increasing numbers of cyclists actually going someplace … well, ever.
I don’t think mixing modes is ever a “great” idea. It’s workable or tolerable in some cases. Even in NL – on “routes” mixing is avoided *.
While I can’t say for sure if going at 20mph will make some existing cyclists feel safer I’m very confident it won’t make them all feel safer. Nor will it stop MGIF (even where 20mph is the limit) … because it doesn’t now when cyclists are riding fast!
I am certain it won’t lead to many more current non-cyclists (e.g. drivers, motor transport users) cycling though. Fundamentally people don’t enjoy mixing with volumes of motor traffic. And going at 20mph rather than 15.5mph isn’t really attractive when many people have already got a car, which goes up to whatever you like, sat right there. (Which you can just drive to your destination, park and lock etc. etc.)
* The exceptions are worthy of note. In the countryside – where there are few cyclists and likely very few people walking – the Dutch build … cycle paths only! In urban centres where numbers of pedestrians will dominate it isn’t a problem (mostly…) because a) most cyclists are just coming or going from that “destination” and b) it doesn’t make sense to try and speed through on a bike. (Noting that of course in NL there is a cycling network – there will normally be more efficient through routes close by).
If the speed and volume of motor traffic is seriously reduced AND motorists accept that people cycling on streets are there by right, sharing there is workable also.
There are never absolute
There are never absolute results just improvements and it’s a long journey. Coming from London, where C2W makes cyclists pervasive, to the countryside, I noticed so many clueless drivers, and suspect the data says that more cyclists make cycling safer. So every improvement builds critical mass for safety.
Partly agree – and the great
Partly agree – and the great thing with cycling is it can be “a little here, a bit more there” – it’s local so it could still flourish in just a region, or a city!
I think the notion of “safety in numbers” in terms of cycling safety vs. drivers is best explained in some separate terms. So “skin in the game” for motorists (e.g. knowing those cyclists could include your family and friends), “understanding” (e.g. you cycle yourself so have “intuition”) and “exposure / continual training” (you don’t have to remind yourself to “look for cyclists” – you’re constantly being reminded because each day you see people cycling everywhere).
Not to be “defeatist” – BUT the thing with “critical mass” is that there may be a line (well lines) which need to be crossed before certain changes occur. And I do think that some of these “adds a few cyclists” interventions – even added together – simply won’t ever create that critical mass in the UK to leap to a different level.
Look at how many “encouraging cycling” (training, campaigns) or even actual infra interventions were made in the past. Cycling Demonstration Towns, the National Cycling Strategy (and others going back in time). Now it may be debatable how “genuine” the intention was to change things or whether enough resources were used. But little or nothing remains of those in terms of cycling modal share levels (I hope I’m wrong for some?).
While support * remains intermittent, or at a level 100 times smaller or more than the “road budget”, or something which is entirely “opt in” with no consequences for not engaging … and ultimately while we don’t actively choose to make driving less attractive – changes will only even be measured in increases of a few percent, and will not be sustained (there are always political crises which will pull “spare” money away).
Parts of London are looking a bit better than this. Maybe a special case as (by fiat) motoring has already been reduced in dominance as a mode and public transport can be good?
* Really political will – support at national, civil service and council / regional levels. But as a proxy this can probably be measured in funding?
The laws in the US vary by
The laws in the US vary by state. It isn’t 32km/h everywhere.
The headline tells you
The headline tells you everything you need to know about BBC bias.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gzppd0ejyo
Language is the tool of journalism and phrasing tells you all you need to know about the attitudes on view.
It doesn’t coun’t though,
It doesn’t coun’t though, because they’ve put those little disavowal marks on it – the headline writer’s equivalent of BOLAs.
“The problem centres on
“The problem centres on modern vehicles being wider due to the introduction of side impact protection technology,”
So nothing to do with the Seriously Useless Vehicle (SUV) preference of big auto then..
Obviously taking up more space on the public highway should have no consequences for the selfish. /s
This was just a really poor
This was just a really poor programme, as so much of the BBC’s output across platforms now is. Chiles is a very average journo – his Guardian column usually reads like one of those “what I did in my holidays” essays we used to get forced to write in primary school. Serious factual stuff is totally beyond him.
He’s only got the job because
He’s only got the job because he’s the partner of the editor.
https://www.bbc.com/news
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0lldd30xlo
Interestingly, this article is featured on the BBC site. I look forward to a coruscating episode of Panorama in which all EVs are judged on the basis of this incident.
Now do some programs telling
Now do some programs telling us how dangerous car and van drivers are and compare the number of people killed and injured by cars and vans with e-bikes.
It’s a label. To the average
It’s a label. To the average person in the street, if it looks like a bike and is electric, it’s an e-bike. If it looks like a scooter and is electric, it’s an e-scooter. Same for motorbikes and motor scooters.
If the average person in the street is terrorised by an electric two wheeled device that looks like a bicycle but it’s going very fast and faster than it should be legally, they are going to think we have a problem with illegal e-bikes. And I’m with them on that front. As far as I’m concerned, we do have a problem with illegal e-bikes! Things that look like motorcycles and are electric aren’t a problem, no matter what they are called.
Only nerdish electric bicycle apologists are going to get upset about the Panorama report. Do we have a problem with people riding electric two wheeled conveyances illegally? Yes we bloody well do. Now shut up and get on with trying to find a way to prevent illegal “e-biking” rather than arguing about what they are called!
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Living up to your name again with another pile of…electric motorcycles that look like dirtbikes, such as the one in the picture at the top of this page, are a huge problem in many suburban areas. Models in the Sur-Ron range can do up to 68mph and are used by youths terrorising estates, tearing up recreation grounds etc and also in the commission of crimes (road.cc has already reported on their use in attempted bike jackings).
Probably right though that
Probably right though that public (not cycling) is going to think what they think – and the media will “merely reflect popular understanding”.
Those who are triggered as usual will be the last to learn.
On balance worthwhile to correct this – but may be a losing battle and just make us pedants at best.
Although I had a (pleasant) chat with a chap commenting on my “electric bike” (it has a slightly oversize down tube and hub gear with a black shell at rear). He was quite surprised to find that it only *produced* electricity (dynamo) and was actually powered by cake (croissant that day).
But the language is important
But the language is important. An e-bike with a motor over 250W, or that doesn’t cut out automatically at 15.5mph, is a motorcycle. Some of these e-motorcycles might look indistinguishable from a pedelec, but their higher performance is usually an obvious giveaway. Plus the fact the rider is not pedalling.
so those things you claim are ‘terrorising’ people are NOT e-bikes they are illegal e-motorcycles. So the whole premis of the Panorama programme is incorrect.
Between falling to
Between failing to distinguish kids pedal cars from cars, and failing to distinguish illegal (unregistered / no MOT) cars from cars.
“We have a problem” – well, I don’t see why we should have these things added to our woes either – but don’t tell the OP about scrambler bikes, or good old stolen motorbikes… (like what have actually been involved in deaths in Edinburgh).
Or … actual cars.
Do they look like bicycles? I
Do they look like bicycles? I think they mostly look like Mopeds. Think 50cc 70s Puch. I think the average person can distinguish between the design of many e-motorbikes and a pedal assisted e-bike.
IanMK wrote:
Quite a lot of them here in Bristol look like cheap MTBs with batteries duck-taped into the frame triangle.
Quite a lot of them here in
Quite a lot of them here in Bristol look like cheap MTBs with batteries duck-taped into the frame triangle
It’s a bit classier up here- I think the one in my photo below is using a frame bag. I haven’t seen any looking like mopeds, and there were a lot of illegals at Blackpool’s Ride the Lights.
It seems I don’t have any pictures of the fat-tyre-no-pedalling illegals at Ride the Lights, I’ve only got a scooter, so you can have this instead
Even if the general public
Even if the general public cannot differentiate these categories, which public service broadcaster has a mission to educate and inform the public rather than accept general ignorance?
Better Be Careful expecting licence renewal when you don’t fulfil your public service obligations!
As a community, we should
As a community, we should probably abandon the category ‘e-bike’ because it has no legal definition and is too broad.
Instead, use either EAPC or electric motorbike or moped.
An EAPC has a strict definition in law being restricted to 250 Watts, 15.5.mph and pedal assist, in general.
Anything else is a motor vehicle and nothing to do with us cyclists.
The vast majority of ‘e-bikes’ razzing about and causing problems are motorbikes and need licence, insurance and registration.
Make them a problem of the motoring community, instead.
Nighttrain123 wrote:
The citizenrider blog always refers to them as “smokeless mopeds”.
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
“If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck”. When I was teen the first FS1E’s had pedals and with a lot of phaffing around, in theory, you could, supposedly, pedal it (which was a requirement of a moped back then). In practice though it was a motorbike and to the general public it passed the duck test. Today the same general public applies that to ebikes. If it looks like a push bike, albeit an elctric one and on steroids, it’s a push bike.
Back then myself and my gang of fellow reprobates rode like lunatics terrorising the local on our sixteener specials. We weren’t kids giving mopeds a bad name, we were kids giving motorbikes as bad name. The same applies to high powered ebike now.
Scooters/e-scooters/motor
Scooters/e-scooters/motor-scooters, what are you talking about. Perfect example of misusing a label. They mean completely different things to different people in different countries and regions of the UK.