The Labour MP for Leeds North East has written to the BBC’s director of editorial policy and standards to demand that an article about millions paid out in compensation to people injured by the riders of illegal e-bikes and e-scooters be amended, saying the article had factual inaccuracies and that the use of the generic term ‘e-bike’ was misleading.
In his letter to David Jordan, backed by the Bicycle Association, Fabian Hamilton says the article, titled ‘E-bike injury payouts top £110m and push up insurance premiums’, does not distinguish clearly enough between road legal electric bikes (EAPCs) and “illegal electric motorbikes”. The broadcaster also ran an accompanying TV segment based on the article on BBC Breakfast.
While we’ve heard of cases where police on the ground have struggled to distinguish between EAPCs and illegal bikes, and data such as TfL’s collision stats don’t always tell us the category of bikes that were involved in incidents, Hamilton points out that the £110m paid out by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) since the first claim was made seven years ago all involved bikes that are not legal to ride on the road.
“Not a penny of the reported £110m paid out by MIB can relate to a road-legal e-bike, because by definition the MIB cannot pay out for one”, says Hamilton in the letter.
“Every “e-bike” claim it has settled concerned a machine that is, in law, an uninsured and unregistered motorcycle, and the headline and standfirst should say so. This is backed up by the MIB spokesperson in the article specifically referring to “e-scooters or electric motor bikes”, rather than e-bikes.”
Hamilton points out the original version of the article stated that micromobility vehicles were all “legally classified as motor vehicles”, which is untrue, since EAPCs are treated almost exactly the same as conventional pedal cycles in UK law. The article also wrongly stated that EAPCs have a maximum legal riding speed of 15.5mph, when this is actually the speed at which the motor stops offering assistance. Both of these inaccuracies were corrected, but Hamilton complained that the corrections were not acknowledged in full.
> E-bikes and UK law: everything you need to know
“The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines are clear that significant errors should be corrected transparently”, said Hamilton.
“Readers who saw the original wording, and the outlets and social media accounts that repeated it, have been left with a false
understanding of the law.”
As well as the correction notes, Hamilton has demanded the BBC amends the language in the article so that it refers to ‘illegal e-bikes’ throughout, rather than just ‘e-bikes’. He also suggests that BBC editorial teams are briefed “across BBC News, online and broadcast, on the legal distinction between EAPCs and illegal electric motorbikes”, noting that a previous BBC article about a hit-and-run was amended – with correction notes – to make it clear that the offender was riding an illegal electric motorbike.
“Language matters here”, says Hamilton.
“Every time the word “e-bike” is attached to these machines, a legal, healthy and increasingly important form of transport takes the blame for the behaviour of people riding illegal motorbikes. The consequences for the responsible industry are real: unwarranted restrictions, rising costs and public distrust of a product that is central to cutting congestion and transport emissions.”
Hamilton, a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for cycling and walking, regularly talks about his enthusiasm for active travel, and rides an Estarli e20.7 folding e-bike according to an article on the brand’s website.
Mentioning in his letter to Jordan that the Bicycle Association is set to launch a national campaign to help the public to purchase legal e-bikes, including an industry trustmark, Hamilton continued: “We understand this is a complex issue and the general public need clearer information to be able to understand the law and the issues and we would suggest the BBC has a duty to educate in this area.”
It’s not the first time the BBC has been accused of misleading its audience when it comes to the distinction between EAPCS and illegal electric bikes.
In January last year, the Bicycle Association lodged a formal complaint with the BBC over a panorama episode presented by Adrian Chiles, titled ‘E-Bikes: The Battle For Our Streets’, again arguing that the use of the term ‘e-bike’ was inaccurate in the context of the program, in which Chiles largely referred to the safety risks posed by illegal bikes: “Panorama confuses legal with illegally modified e-bikes and ignores their benefits compared to the UK’s car use”, the BA said at the time.
Yesterday’s road.cc live blog highlighted a BBC Nottinghamshire article with the headline ‘E-bike capable of 72mph seized in crackdown’ was highlighted, noting that the title failed to mention that the bike in question was not legal to ride on the roads.
