“30 minutes of Adrian Chiles gaslighting”: Cyclists accuse BBC of “attacking” e-bikes in “fishy, fearmongering” Panorama episode “littered with misinformation and bias”; Geraint Thomas leaves free beer on footpath… but it’s BrewDog + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
“Uninspired AND petrochemically tainted. Another British Cycling L”: The first reviews are in for GB’s new Alé kit… and they’re not holding back
Uninspired AND petrochemically tainted. Another British Cycling L.
— Ruby Roubaix (@rubyroubaix.bsky.social) January 7, 2025 at 11:57 AM
Ouch.
Others have perhaps more diplomatically described the new kit as “dull” noted, while one BlueSky user suggested that the minimalist design is “so that nothing distracts from the big Shell logo”.
Ah, the oil-guzzling elephant in the room that seemingly will never go away. But at least some people were fond of the one-cup table and beige backdrop anyway…
New kit season continues: British Cycling announces new clothing partnership with Italian brand Alé, as governing body says it aims to “progress further innovations in fabric, design, and aerodynamics” ahead of LA ‘28
With Paris now a distant memory and attentions slowly turning to LA in three years’ time, British Cycling has announced this morning that it has signed a four-year partnership with Italian clothing brand Alé.
After manufacturing Jayco-AlUla’s kit between 2021 and 2024, Alé will now provide clothing for the entire Great Britain Cycling Team, as well as those competing in non-Olympic disciplines, for both training and competition, while also making the jerseys worn by national series and championship winners.
The Italian manufacturer has replaced Kalas Sportswear, the Czech-based cycling clothing specialist who first partnered with British Cycling in 2017, providing kits for both the Tokyo and Paris Olympics.
Jude Jones, Max Greensill, Sophie Capewell and Ross Cullen model the new kit
According to British Cycling, the governing body’s collaboration with Alé “will see the continued development of performance kit, to not only maintain, but further the industry-leading standards of kit that have come to be expected of the team”.
And since its still ‘new kit’ season in the cycling world, what about the design itself? Well, British Cycling says the new partnership “brings with it a modern twist on the classic white racing jersey with the iconic GBR panel and the addition of asymmetric arm designs, bringing the red, white and blue to the right arm band, along with the team’s ‘inspire the nation’ mantra emblazoned along the inside collar”.
“In a nod to the past, the navy training kit is back featuring a tonal triangle-based pattern and stealth GBR branding across the chest,” Alé added.
Emma Finucane
In a statement announcing the partnership, British Cycling’s performance director Stephen Park said: “As GBCT, we are renowned for our world-leading training and competition apparel and needed a partner that would be able to not only meet our current performance level but work with us to continuously develop these standards as we start our preparations for LA 2028.
“Alé have already expressed their commitment and excitement in working with our in-house team to progress further innovations in fabric, design and aerodynamics, so athletes feel proud and confident in the new jersey as they head out to inspire the nation.”
Beth Shriever
Alessia Piccolo, the CEO of Alé’s parent company APG, also said: “For Alé, it’s a huge honour to be the Official Partner of British Cycling. For over three decades, we have equipped champions, bringing innovation, passion and high-quality apparel to the roads of the WorldTour.
“This new collaboration with the Great Britain Cycling Team represents a unique opportunity to continue creating increasingly high-performance garments across all of GBCT’s disciplines, crafted with expertise and one we’re incredibly excited and proud to take on.”
It’s alive! And it’s argyle!
Alright, to be fair to EF Pro Cycling and Rapha, they only teased this year’s kit for a day or so before unveiling it, so credit where it’s due.
(Jered Gruber and Ashley Gruber)
And, as someone who’s firmly stuck in 2008 when it comes to pro cycling style, I appreciate the team’s return to its trademark argyle pattern (though the symbols dotted around the kit – described as “hallmarks and hidden gems” in the typically effusive press release – arguably ensure the jersey looks better from a distance, if I’m honest).
According to EF, the new kit, which apparently will be available to buy for any Rapha/Slipstream enthusiasts in the next few months, along with the squad’s POC helmets and Cannondale bikes, “explores the theme of riders as diamonds forged under pressure”.
Shine pink like a diamond… Oh wait (Jered Gruber and Ashley Gruber)
“The women and men of EF Pro Cycling are a rare species, forged out of the terrain and the sport they inhabit,” the press release says. “Honed by courage and commitment, their brilliance lies in pushing themselves to ride faster, further and higher. Grit turns to glory, calloused hands and scars signal the sacrifice that shapes them.”
Okay, sure.
Lotto pro Jasper De Buyst reveals post-Covid asthma could lead to loss of “up to 35 per cent” lung capacity – but Belgian insists “it does not mean the end of my career”
Veteran Belgian pro Jasper De Buyst was told he could lost 35 per cent of his lung capacity due to post-Covid-19 asthma, though the Lotto rider is adamant than he can carry on racing.
De Buyst, who’s about to enter his 11th year with Lotto, told Sporza this week that he had suffered throughout 2024 thanks to the knock-on effects of Covid-19, with asthma still continuing to affect him as he approaches the new season.
“I was struggling with a lot of health problems in 2024. It turned out that I had developed post-Covid asthma,” the 31-year-old, who’s taken six wins during his career, revealed to the Belgian paper at Lotto’s press day.
(CorVos/SWpix.com)
“Certain tests showed that I could lose 35 percent of my lung capacity. That is quite extreme, but it does not have to mean the end of my career.”
De Buyst also pointed out that he was not the only rider in the peloton with asthma (oi, you at the back, stop sniggering and thinking about the good ol’ days of the 2000s, when it seemed every pro had asthma), and said he was now using inhalers on a daily basis to combat the problem.
The Belgian also noted that his race programme will be unaffected, and that he will ride the classics again this year in support of Lotto’s wonderkid Arnaud De Lie, before taking on a grand tour, most likely the Tour de France, which he has raced five times already.
‘Ow much for the bike bus?!
> “Ridiculous” bike bus through controversial new tunnel to cost £2m, as cycling campaign says “greenwashing” project “won’t help” cyclists
Those pesky Tour de France winners, always dumping their leftover beers from Christmas all over the footpath… Geraint Thomas leaves free cases of beer next to his golden post box in Cardiff (but fans moan that it’s BrewDog)
No, Geraint Thomas hasn’t been accused of fly-tipping by Cardiff Council after a heavy Christmas pondering the fate of his Ineos Grenadiers team, in case you’re worrying.
Instead, the 2018 Tour de France winner – who, as we all know by now, enjoys the odd beer when he’s off the leash and out on the lash with the lads while at home in Wales – has left a few cases of (thankfully) unopened beers next to his golden post box at Cardiff Castle, as part of a New Year’s giveaway in collaboration with BrewDog.
And because it’s ‘Dry January’ and the season’s starting soon, the 20 or so cases of beers on offer are, of course, alcohol-free.
The beers were available to nab at Cardiff’s “most famous landmark” (Geraint’s words, not mine) from noon yesterday, using the magic words ‘G sent me’ – which gives the impression that some bulky BrewDog minders were standing guard – while anyone who missed out can apparently get a pint of free alcohol-free beer at the chain’s Cardiff branch on Westgate Street.
Though, since it’s BrewDog, everyone’s favourite anti-establishment pub chain which refuses to pay their employees the real living wage, all the cases might still be there at the post box anyway.
“Will remain my favourite cyclist but a black mark for promoting BrewDog, I’ll never buy that beer,” Peter said in response to Thomas’ post on Instagram.
“Not the best company to team up with G,” concurred Jenks.
Though not everyone was up in arms about the publicity stunt, with Stephen writing: “Well I for one like BrewDog and their beer (OK, go on… hate me) and I love that G is doing this!”
Anyway, it’s just a pity Thomas didn’t team up with Guinness – I had my ‘Splitting the G’ pun ready to go…
“30 minutes of Adrian Chiles gaslighting”: BBC accused of “attacking” e-bikes in “fishy, fearmongering” Panorama episode “littered with inaccuracy, misinformation, and bias” and painting “crime-ridden, apocalyptic vision”
2025 may have only just begun, but it’s already time for the BBC’s by-now annual Panorama special on bikes and cycling, packed with extremely helpful words like ‘battle’, ‘chaos’, and ‘menace’.
Yep, last night the tactfully titled ‘E-Bikes: The Battle For Our Streets’ aired on the BBC, hosted by Roy Keane’s favourite football host – and cargo bike naysayer – Adrian Chiles, and seeking to discover whether electric bikes are “a new menace in need of tighter regulation”
In case you missed it in favour of catching up on the Traitors or watching University Challenge, our colleague Alex over at e-biketips helpfully summarised the, ahem, interesting 30-minute programme.
And, as Alex noted, in short, Chiles and the episode appeared to focus quite a lot on illegally modified electric motorbikes, without actually making it clear that the machines favoured by rampaging youths and delivery couriers are not, in fact, e-bikes at all.
Nevertheless, according to Chiles, these ‘e-bikes’ are responsible for criminality, dangerous riding, and serious injuries, due to them being faster (which, of course, normal e-bikes are not).
“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,” Alex wrote in his piece.
Anyway, the reviews are in for Panorama’s e-bike special. And let’s just say it hasn’t won over the critics.
“30 minutes of Adrian Chiles gaslighting on how legal e-bikes are dangerous, when the dangerous behaviour documented was simply people breaking existing laws,” the Infra-PM wrote on Twitter.
“Two per cent of pedestrian collisions are from bikes, the rest from vehicles. Will Panorama investigate the 98 per cent?”
“Very odd and fishy programme on Panorama this evening focusing mostly on illegal motorbikes masquerading as ‘E-Bikes’, presented by Adrian Chiles who starts the programme saying he has never ridden an e-bike before,” noted Karim.
“95 per cent of the footage is delivery riders, mostly on illegal motorbikes – constructed from regular bikes with an illegal aftermarket kit, providing the bikes with a throttle and motor (also known as a motorbike).”
Karim continued: “Adrian then goes on the internet and finds out about the Cycle to Work Scheme. Based on zero data he concludes that all illegal electric motorbikes are bought via tax breaks using the Cycle to Work Scheme. Steve Bird of the Daily Telegraph agrees ‘this is utterly absurd’.”
Meanwhile, the London Cycling Campaign argued that “Panorama’s attack on e-bikes tonight nails some of the issues but little of the solutions.
“Our view: e-bikes are brilliant,” the campaign posted. “They enable a far wider range of people to cycle more journeys, which is vital for public health, climate, and road danger outcomes.
“Panorama confuses legal with illegally modified e-bikes and ignores their benefits compared to the UK’s car use. 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 continued: “The main e-bike issue is illegal modification. Nearly all problems e-bikes in the UK are causing, highlighted by Panorama, come from illegal modification to not need pedalling and remove the top speed legal e-bikes cut out at, a (sensible) 15.5mph. These effectively are electric motorbikes.
“The government’s response to Panaroma ignores the opportunity to control sale/import of such modifications – just as they’re washing their hands of the import of dodgy batteries and chargers causing e-bike fires. The proper control of sales of street illegal e-bikes and modifications is needed from the government.
“‘Gig economy’ delivery companies also need dealing with. Construction firms used to pay tipper lorry drivers ‘per load’ – which incentivised lorry drivers to cut corners and drive dangerously. ‘Gig economy’ food delivery companies currently pay their riders ‘per drop’.
“So some of the poorest, most marginalised residents are being pushed into cutting corners in order to make enough money to feed themselves and their families. Gig economy companies need to stop incentivising corner cutting and if needed, the government should step in to protect riders better.
“E-bikes are a great idea – far better than current car-dominated status quo – but where they’re being misused we need more government involvement, not more fear-mongering.”
The LCC’s City of London branch was also critical of the lack of focus on the duties of food delivery companies.
“BBC Panorama continues to disappoint. Tonight’s on e-bikes was actually mostly about illegal battery powered vehicles,” the campaign wrote.
“Maybe get representatives of food delivery companies in front of a camera and ask some hard questions, instead of accepting the usual ‘we take safety seriously’ rubbish.”
Likewise, Better Streets for Birmingham, which is currently fighting a proposed PSPO designed to clamp down on ‘dangerous’ e-bike delivery riders, said: “Today’s BBC Panorama hits the nail on the head: The danger is posed largely by food delivery couriers, who are incentivised to deliver as many orders as fast as possible. The non-statement from Just Eat, Deliveroo, and Uber Eats shows how little they care.
“However, it’s dangerous to conflate e-bikes with illegally modified electric motorbikes. One helps many to cycle, the other is dangerous and illegal!”
Turning to the potential effects such BBC ‘investigations’ could have on the cycling industry, Mark Sutton from Cycling Electric described the programme as “littered with inaccuracy, misinformation, and bias”.
“The bike industry should explore legal options against this type of content,” he said. “It is also laughably, truly bad in terms of its grasp of the law. Adrian Chiles has done no research whatsoever and is often asking leading questions to fish for an answer. Terrible journalism.
“The wall of misinformation the press has put up around e-bikes has had a profound economic effect. It has seen insurers stop covering many bike shops. No insurance, no shop.”
“I’ve found some of it staggering,” added Adam Guest. “The ‘189 pedestrians injured by bicycles last year’ stat. No mention of how many were injured or killed by cars.”
> BBC Panorama – Road Rage: Cars v Bikes – the road.cc Podcast debrief
“What a shitshow,” agreed Alastair. “I’ll never understand how Chiles carved a career as a journalist. All he had to do was draw a clear distinction between what’s legal and what isn’t, but either he chose not to, or he still doesn’t understand.”
The Hammersmith and Fulham Cycling Campaign concurred: “Unfortunately, between the title and the presenter, not much hope held for reportage. And so it came to pass.”
Addressing the benefits of legal e-bikes largely ignored in the programme, Green Party politician and London Assembly member Caroline Russell said: “Legal e-bikes help everyone, including older and disabled people, use bikes more and use cars less cutting congestion, pollution and road danger.
“Dockless hire bikes help people make door to door trips not served on public transport often favoured by women getting home (safely) at night.
“There are so many serious issues but if ‘e-bike’ Panorama can’t even identify what is and isn’t an e-bike, and hints about harm from badly-ridden bikes without considering the greater harm from badly-driven motor vehicles, I fear we won’t see practical healthy street solutions any time soon.”
And finally, DJ asked: “If e-bikes have the potential to usher in chaos, what terminology would you use to describe the effect of motor vehicles on public safety Adrian?”
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
38 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
To carry on my argument from yesterday. This is an incident between two employees on private land at their place of work. I'm not sure things like the RTA apply. I think the only potential charge would be manslaughter. At my old company we had Forklift drivers that didn't have a driving license. We had procedures, risk assessments, training etc to allow them operate the FL. There were rules they had to follow if they didn't want to be on a disciplinary. From the Centre Parcs statement I would suggest that their corrective action / risk assessment is to concentrate on training and whilst they are recommending use of helmet their own findings are not saying that this should be mandatory. We of course do not know the outcome of the HSE report (ie were their procedures sufficient/were they fined) or what disciplinary action was taken against the employee. As an aside I knew somebody that knocked over and injured a pedestrian in a supermarket carpark. I know his insurance company massively increased his premiums but I never heard that the police were involved at any stage.
Well probably not the bit when it's being lifted to tip into the truck.
Re : Operation Snap. The State treats cyclists suffering a nearmiss as the witness to an offence, the State being the victim. IMO this is one of the main issues that cyclists need to campaign against. Remember when indecent exposure was seen as a victimless crime ; you'd witnessed bad behaviour. Now I can use this comparison because as a 13 year-old boy living right next to Cliffe Castle Park , in Keighley, I was regularly flashed at . I ran away and was deeply distressed/disturbed by the behaviour witnessed. I'd say I was the victim of a crime but that's not how it was back then (>40 years ago) and that's how it is now for cyclists. Only concerted effort will change things. Let's start a letter writing campaign to our MPs. We could post the answers on the forum. A bet it's already happened.
I will bet money that it is procedure that the bin and bin-person have to stay connected at all times whilst the bin is being moved.
Whilst the company has noted the incident and is taking action ("training") I would hope they take this very seriously. Not just for public safety but their own bottom line. If the cyclist had been seriously hurt the company would have face a big public liability claim. And unless I'm seeing it wrong (the clip could be distorted), I think it looks like there could have been enough of a gap next to the lorry for the driver of a small car (or motorcyclist) to squeeze through. So any damage to a vehicle would also have been costly.
They'd probably refuse to take any action, so it would be a waste of time. It looks like he found a better disposal anyway - trash them through road.cc.
@lesterama Belgium team lucky ICE didn't shoot them
Wait. I didn't realise that the victim, Penny Bulpitt, was stationary at the time of the collision. (Not that it makes any difference, even if she was moving the major responsibility to avoid a collision is usually on the road user behind.) Quote Among other things, he said that there was, “a reasonable possibility that Mr Davies saw Mrs Bullpitt but did not register that she was stationary until a collision was unavoidable." End quote That line alone should be considered enough to charge the driver with careless, if not dangerous, driving. This makes the result of the whole case and Centre Parcs actions and the reporting almost entirely focussing on helmet use absolutely ludicrous. If the situation was the same but the victim was simply someone standing still, then this would have been a KSI leading to a 6 or 7 £ figure public/employee liability claim and also potentially involve the Health and Safety Executive. But no, as it involves someone on a bike, it is basically the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet. I am usually angered by reports of dangerous drivers facing lenient or non-existent punishments but this is something else.
This is pretty much the definition of motornormative. If you drive around a blind corner too fast to stop if there's an obstacle, that's reckless. Simple.
Belgium team lucky ICE didn't detain them indefinitely
38 thoughts on ““30 minutes of Adrian Chiles gaslighting”: Cyclists accuse BBC of “attacking” e-bikes in “fishy, fearmongering” Panorama episode “littered with misinformation and bias”; Geraint Thomas leaves free beer on footpath… but it’s BrewDog + more on the live blog”
I was wondering whether we’d
I was wondering whether we’d get a review of that programme here, or whether it would be on that weird e-bike specific sister site you also run 😉
My electric motorbike
My electric motorbike anecdote for the day:
Riding home last night in the dark. Going downhill on a tarmacced shared-use path, wide sweeping bend to the left with a hill obscuring whatever or whoever is coming uphill.
I could hear petrol scooters, and see headlight – er – light coming round the bend so I slowed down. Two teenagers on typical old-skool motor scooters, sounding like insane hornets, coming uphill on their left (my right). I move over to the left, only to nearly run headfirst into two much young kids (upper half of primary school) wobbling toward me on electric motorbikes, with no lights at all.
I’m guessing people have bought their kids these things over Xmas, as toys?
Surely a complaint to Ofcom
Surely a complaint to Ofcom is needed here? If most of a programme supposedly about e-bikes, with e-bikes in the title, isn’t actually about e-bikes, then this must count as deeply inaccurate?
Actually, a complaint to the BBC is needed – see here:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/make-a-complaint/complain-about-tv-radio-or-on-demand-services/
There is also the BBC’s own
There is also the BBC’s own complaints process, which is utterly useless, but it might be good to submit a complaint there to show Ofcom that you tried the BBC’s own process. If you do use the BBC’s complaints system, copy and paste your complaint text into a word document so that you have a copy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/submit
This is my complaint:
The programme was grossly biased and inaccurate, with no examination of the benefits of ebikes, focussing almost exclusively on the problems. This was evident from the title itself “E-Bikes: The Battle for Our Streets” deliberately presenting the issue of ebikes as a conflict, when the vast majority of ebikes are ridden safely and legally. There was no attempt to put the risks posed by ebikes into context e.g. comparing them to those posed by motor vehicles, thus implying a grossly exaggerated view of the actual risks.
It was never made clear that the illegal ebikes aren’t actually ebikes, they are electric motorcycles, thus conflating the legal ebikes and illegal motorcycles, implying that they are all extremely dangerous. It was not made clear that the problem is not ebikes, it is enforcement of the law about illegal motorcycles. Since the programme falsely presented these illegal motorcycles as ebikes, it was totally misleading and inaccurate.
There was no indepent opinion sought, with most time being given to a Telegraph journalist, no expert from a cycling organisation was interviewed, nor an expert on road safety, so what was said was extremely questionable, biased and unverified.
The language used was grossly inaccurate and inflammatory e.g. “Chaos could be coming our way” and “a new menace in need of tighter regulation” and “The ebike is a very dominant form of transport” and “Some ebikes can go absurdly fast” and “They’re convenient for criminals”
It is stated that illegal electric motorbikes can be bought using the Cycle to Work scheme, but that is not true.
There are numerous sections of illegal electric motorcycles, and legal ebikes, being ridden dangerously and crashing, again, grossly exaggerating the risks.
I have insufficient room to list all my complaints about this programme, and I expect to be able to do so at the next stage. The BBC is institutionally biassed against cycling.
I’m assuming given that this
I’m assuming given that as this is the fair & unbiased BBC that we can expect an exposé on untaxed, uninsured, illegaly modified & ghost plated vehicles any time soon. Featuring Fiona Bruce aghast about KSI stats, and just to be on a level playing field with the e-bike programme (that used a Torygraph commenter) a vox-pop from a fundamentalist JSO member.
Deary me what am I thinking. We’re just lucky it wasn’t presented by the darling of BBC balance – the frog faced moron herder (anything rather than show up in Clacton).
I caught the later 2/3 and
I caught the later 2/3 and knew what to expect, given that it was Chiles and some Torygraph columnist. There was some police propaganda showing the City of London police confiscating obviously illegal bikes- doesn’t happen anywhere else. There are loads of them parading around Blackpool and Preston, although I haven’t seen them in Lancaster. There is one possible benefit to the programme- possibly the apocalyptic publicity will persuade the government to lean on the exceedingly reluctant police to confiscate the obviously illegal ones elsewhere
Surprised G hasn’t teamed up
Surprised G hasn’t teamed up with this Alaskan company, given how appropriate their beverage name is for the current state of INEOS…
Brains, in Cardiff, already
Brains, in Cardiff, already made a G beer, whilst Fixed Wheel brewery release G-Whizz as a seasonal beer in June.
Nothing wrong with Brew Dog,
Nothing wrong with Brew Dog, their Af beer tastes like their normal beer, which isn’t necessarily a recommendation, just an observation. But free beer is free beer.
stonojnr wrote:
I think people are more concerned about the fact that they are a notoriously unethical company and a very bad employer, rather than the taste of their beer.
I’m sure some people have
I’m sure some people have very strong feelings about their packaging… (article here / Brewdog blog here)
chrisonabike wrote:
Their rep is worse than the
Their rep is worse than the reality imo, they court controversy and pr, and so have become a lightning rod for alot of the complaints against the hospitality industry as a whole, because complaining about some noname backstreet boozer practices, doesn’t get the same headlines.
Can’t speak for all their UK
Can’t speak for all their UK outlets but those I’ve frequented in NE Scotland seem to be full of pretty content staff who are usually friendly and chatty.
Aberdeencyclist wrote:
I wonder how pleased they were with the company’s decision to stop paying the “real living wage” in April last year? Being a real ale man myself I’ve never actually tried one of their establishments but I do know that staff at their flagship bar in Waterloo station published an open letter last year alleging bullying, gaslighting, sexism, ableism and racism alongside a “culture of fear” and that things hadn’t improved since similar allegations were made in 2021 when the company apologised and promised to do better. So whilst I certainly don’t doubt your experience in Scotland, employee satisfaction would certainly not appear to be universal in the company.
Adrian Chiles presenting the
Adrian Chiles presenting the viewpoint of the man in the pub. Light on research and knowledge. His target audience consisting of people who avoid the wordier columns in The Sun.
I can still remember his hilarious spell as anchorman on the BBC coverage of the World Athletics Champs.
“But presumably he did some training during his 2 year drugs ban?”, when refering to Rashid Ramsay winning the 1500m shortly after his reinstatement.
‘Adrian Chiles has done no
‘Adrian Chiles has done no research whatsoever’ sums up his career.
On BBC 5 Live he repeats the first few words of every sentence two or three times, as a run up to saying the whole thing. It’s clearly the first time he has ever seen it.
“What a shitshow,” agreed
“What a shitshow,” agreed Alastair. “I’ll never understand how Chiles carved a career as a journalist”
He is married to the Editor in Chief of the Guardian, where his lumpy ramblings appear weakly.
I was about to correct your
I was about to correct your spelling of “weakly” when I realised that it works both ways.
The fact that this idiot is married to Katherine Viner is the only reason that his boring, vapid thoughts are published.
The issue about illegally
The issue about illegally selling non-compliant motorcycles already exists, and has done for decades. It even places a responsibility on the seller to ensure that the purchaser of the motorbike has a valid CBT pass before they can ride it on the road.
The issue is that fundamentally current legislation is not enforced.
As an aside, it is not just e-bikes out here in the Fens. A few months back I was out on my “fastest”* bike, and I heard a very noisy small engine approaching from behind. When it passed it was a chap on an old steel framed mountain bike (Specialized Rockhopper c.1990?) with a lawnmower engine and a 1 gallon plastic petrol container strapped to the rack with a couple of bungee cords.
*Fastest bike still not fast due to inadequate power to weight ratio of rider.
I can only conclude because
I can only conclude because “bikes” (or rather “look a bit like bikes”):
a) The sorting out* of categories of e-things this is considered a total non-issue for government (even the last which featured some late dog-whistling / fight to the bottom with Labour on “save you from war on the motorist”).
b) Unless perhaps they’re biding their time until some new “disruptor” / established motor company comes by with a big enough bung to get some new class of e-things legalised.
* For me that would ideally be confirming the current system is basically what we want (but hopefully taking another look at the “mobility vehicle” / “invalid carriage” categories e.g. so small mobility scooters can officially use cycle paths and cycles may be counted as mobility vehicles, just like in NL). So that that stuff other than EAPCs that is not type-approved is right out. And anything with more speed / much more weight or far more oomph than an EAPC needs full registration/insurance/plates and doesn’t get to use the cycle paths). AND ensuring that this is actually policed e.g. illegal used stuff gets confiscated, there should be some kind of push-back on sellers. It certainly seems these things are being pushed, and people are definitely making money selling them. But sellers ATM seem to be either “out of reach because online who knows where” or (because some are in high street e.g. Currys) can just wave their hands and say “ah it’s not illegal to sell though, we always tell people they basically can’t use it anywhere, honest, but if they then still buy it, job done”.
Did St Chris of Boardman know
Did St Chris of Boardman know about the Panorama production?
https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-calls-out-anti-cycling-media-coverage-311889
Quote:
Not sure they’re going about that the right way – how did that get them awarded gold?
All the diesel is organic…
All the diesel is organic…
(Works with electricity too – just ask those in charge of Drax power station. The energy grows on trees!)
“petrochemically tainted”.
“petrochemically tainted”. Please.
The very modern and comfortable lives we all live today, were courtesy of petrochemicals. How distorted these petulant generations have become. Its a jersey, its a sponsor, the sponsor of our very lives, without which you wouldn’t have even been able to grow up into the entitled, soft, wet group of complainers, always biting the hand that feeds it. You are not victims, you are the benefactors of an essential step in our evolution as a species. Focus on creating something new, the future, rather than playing victim to the past.
{insert suitable image of
{insert suitable image of gnome with fishing rod}
chrisonabike wrote:
alexuk wrote:
A very significant part of the modern and comfortable lives we all (I assume by all you mean all in western developed economies, apart from the very significant minorities in those economies who live in poverty) live today is courtesy of slavery, theft, colonialism and genocide, should we continue to celebrate those as well saying that they were essential steps in our evolution as a species from which we have benefited? Just because something has made our society richer and more comfortable doesn’t mean it’s an unalloyed good that shouldn’t be examined, criticised, and rejected if necessary.
The sign obviously means “Do
The sign obviously means “Do not beware of falling bicycles” and since it is a blue circle it is mandatory so anybody caught being ware of falling bicycles will be prosecuted!
Backladder wrote:
I’ve not seen any falling or hovering bicycles as I go past – it’s on Chester Street in Shrewsbury and indicates where the so-called shared space ends. You shouldn’t cycle on the pavement beyond it. [street view]
The pavement from Welsh Bridge to here along Smithfield Road, with its uneven slabs and a row of huge trees taking up most of the width in one part, became shared use about 12 years ago (except for one section opposite the bus station where cyclists should gerroff and walk) as part of a series of Connect2 ‘improvements’ to Shrewsbury’s woefully inadequate cycling infrastructure.
The really frightening thing
The really frightening thing in that Panodrama prog was Chiles on that motorbike.
And so it goes on with the
And so it goes on with the BBC, “E-bike hits pedestrian…” when it’s quite clear from the speed at which the vehicle is travelling whilst carrying two grown men that it’s an illegal electric motorcycle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c75w2xqewx5o
I am generally pro-BBC, but
I am generally pro-BBC, but the Corporation does persist with this anti-cyclist blind spot. If they simply declared these to be motorcyclists carelessly/ dangerously riding on an illegal motorcycle, they could solve the problem straight away
wtjs wrote:
Me too, I don’t really watch TV apart from sport but I would gladly pay the licence fee just for R4, R3 and the website but they really are letting themselves down in this area.
I would willingly sell my
I would willingly sell my house and all it’s contents to help the BBC !
It’s an old trick, but oh my
It’s an old trick, but oh my how powerful it is. Frame the debate on foundation of half-truths, distortions, confusions or outright lies.
Start by using the term e-bike in the context of illegal machines typically used by people with no regard for the law. Gain all round agreement that self evidently this is a menace which must be stopped. Then pivot the conclusion to include everything that is commonly understood by “e-bike”.
I wouldn’t be caught dead in
I wouldn’t be caught dead in that (or any other,or replica) GB kit.
Quote:
I believe there was research done at the University of Kent around the time of the Froome asthma inhaler contretemps demonstrating that given the nature of pro cycling (long, long days often in very hot and dry conditions through primarily agricultural landscapes throughout the pollination and harvest seasons, riding behind a load of diesel cars and petrol motorcycles, inhaling twice the volume of air with each breath as a normal person) that it would actually be strange for a top pro cyclist not to exhibit exercise-induced bronchoconstriction or “exercise induced asthma”.