Bicycle Association formally complains to BBC over Adrian Chiles’ e-bike Panorama “misrepresentation”, claiming episode “unjustifiably damaged” legal e-bike industry

I'd quite like to see a similar principle applied to driving whilst banned / not insured - just make it a strict liability offence attached to the vehicle owner so the vehicle can be immediately siezed, made roadworthy and sold if being driven when or by someone it shouldn't be.  You'd think the scheme would pay for itself quite quickly.

That said, many years ago, a friend's brother worked for the police in Surrey.  I asked him why the police don't simply round up all the obviously modified cars and motorcycles being hooned about near BoxHill so that modifications can be notified to the insurers.  Simple answer "There's only two blokes in the car-checking department and they're both busy all day every day working on the aftermath of RTAs".

So ... add it to the very long list, basically.

danhopgood wrote:

I don't kow much about Ebikes.  In a few clicks on Google I found out that Giant are a member of the Bicycle Association and how to easily derestrict Giant  Ebikes.

There IS a problem  as I see it -  and the Bicycle Asociation's members - and therefore the Bicycle Association itself - are part of it.

Enforcement is the key.  If folks spent £3,000 on an Ebike knowing it would be seized and crushed if used modified - those bikes wouldn't get modified - simple as that. 

I don't think the major problem is with derestriction of more expensive e-bikes, but it's the "e-bike" kits that modify a cheap bike and turn it into an e-motorbike.

It's a waste of time and resources trying to prevent people from modifying bikes as the manufacturer is not going to want to put extra resources into making their products less desirable to customers.

I agree that the answer is sufficient road traffic enforcement.

You are playing with semantics for no benefit. No one is buying these bikes and riding them round their gardens, 99% of them end up on the roads. So yes they are illegal in a public space just like a lock knife in your pocket with no good cause is considered an illegal weapon. In your house the knife is legal.

I think we are in agreement and your point is the same one I was attempting to make. There is a proliferation of these bikes as they are legal to own / buy. That's why they need to step up the regulation on sales / possession; they are already illegal to use in public places, but the enforcement is not there.

I noticed it became horrifyingly populist tittle tattle, when the format reduced to 30 minutes.

I dipped in to it a few weeks back and made a very quick retreat.

Pub bike wrote:

Panorama used to be a serious programme based on serious journalism informing the public on important issues.   

What a fall from grace for the BBC.

I think it is a programme that can seem like serious journalism until it covers a topic you have decent understanding of, and then you realise it's sensationalist nonsense. And has been for years.

It must be a good twenty years ago since my old boss was interviewed for it as an expert commentator, but I still remember how livid she was after they left. They spent around about an hour asking leading questions, trying to get her to say something sensationalist and dramatic, with no interest in her actual expertise on the subject. It turns out they did similar to the eight other highly qualified experts in the field we knew were interviewed, but because none of them gave the response they wanted, their views weren't aired. Instead they used bits of an interview of someone known in the field as a bit of a crank.

The only difference now is it seems like they didn't bother approaching the relevant experts, having worked out in advance they weren't going to support their angle.

I generally defend the BBC when it comes to complaints about bias, because most of the time it's from people who simply want their personal biases amplified. Not saying it's perfect, but it's worth reminding ourselves of who benefits the most from undermining what is still, despite the flaws, one of the more rounded sources of news. But when it comes to Panorama, there's no doubt to me that it has long been the documentary equivalent of a tabloid that adheres to the mantra that bad news and scandal sell.

Your comment sums up Panorama perfectly for me.  It's deeply disappointing having for many years regarded the investigation and reporting as credible, to have that shattered as soon as it turns to something I have knowledge of.

It's all the worse when the presenter is a (metaphorical) light-weight like Chiles.

FionaJJ wrote:

The only difference now is it seems like they didn't bother approaching the relevant experts, having worked out in advance they weren't going to support their angle.

Yes, not a single person from a cycling organisation or the Bicycle Association, but a Pedestrians Association person was in there, as was a frankly idiotic Telegraph reporter.

They may well have approached the relevant experts, who would have dealt in facts and figures, not click-bait assumptions, half-truths and lies: so they didn't get on.

slc wrote:

One programme per weekday for the next two years should do it.

Optimistic, when all the other content exists in the "real world" of motornormativity! And that's been on screen for generations.

Even if it's not explicitly saying "road changes (for buses, for active travel) cause congestion" ... "why won't they fix the pot holes" ... "We have to drive" ... "Treated myself with a nice new car" ... "how electric vehicles help save the planet" ... "save money by doing a bigger bi-weekly shop" ...

slc wrote:

Well said the bicycle association. Let's hope the complaint is upheld and the BBC required to screen a proportionate volume of 'motor vehicles: the real enemy of pedestrians' episodes. One programme per weekday for the next two years should do it.

And to compensate for at least forty years of anti-bicycle bias, one programme a day for the next five years promoting cycling.