[Sriracha]

A video story on BBC this morning purports to show “the moment an e-bike rider collided with a pedestrian before tumbling from his bike.”

The BBC are being mischievous by using the term ebike for something which is clearly not a legal EAPC, thereby associating both together.

But also, looking closely at the video, it seems that the innocent pedestrian in fact outstretched his arm to deliberately catch the handlebar of the motorbike, thereby causing the rider to crash heavily. So not exactly how the BBC presents things.

I’ll attache two clips below.

Topic

[brooksby]

quiff wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

quiff wrote:

Hurrah! Any other editorial policy we want to influence?!

If we could use our newfound leverage to educate reporters not to say “it was at 3 am this morning” or “the news broke at 4 pm this afternoon” that would be great.

Niche irritant – their insistence on using “judgement” (2 e’s) to describe a legal judgment (1 e).

Oh wow: you learn something new every day 

[Rendel Harris]

quiff wrote:

Niche irritant – their insistence on using “judgement” (2 e’s) to describe a legal judgment (1 e).

Definitely, also the use of “historic” (meaning an important moment in history) when they should be using “historical” (meaning happened in the past), as in “He is being investigated for allegations of historic tax fraud”.

[quiff]

Rendel Harris wrote:

quiff wrote:

Hurrah! Any other editorial policy we want to influence?!

If we could use our newfound leverage to educate reporters not to say “it was at 3 am this morning” or “the news broke at 4 pm this afternoon” that would be great.

Niche irritant – their insistence on using “judgement” (2 e’s) to describe a legal judgment (1 e).

[Rendel Harris]

quiff wrote:

Hurrah! Any other editorial policy we want to influence?!

If we could use our newfound leverage to educate reporters not to say “it was at 3 am this morning” or “the news broke at 4 pm this afternoon” that would be great.

[quiff]

Yeah, I should have pointed

Yeah, I should have pointed that out to be fair to them. But it’s very much an afterthought, after having written a whole article which says “e-bikes” while picturing only motorbikes. Would it be so hard to use “e-motorbike”?!

EDIT – looks like they moved the explainer higher up the article at the same time they changed it to e-motorbike.

[quiff]

Hurrah! Any other editorial

Hurrah! Any other editorial policy we want to influence?!

[Steve K]

Rendel Harris wrote:

Maybe BBC read road.cc: headline and most references to ebikes and illegal ebikes in the article have now been changed to e-motorbikes.

I just came here to post exactly the same thing! – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981d8n7452o

[Rendel Harris]

Maybe BBC read road.cc –

Maybe BBC read road.cc: headline and most references to ebikes and illegal ebikes in the article have now been changed to e-motorbikes.

[Rendel Harris]

They kindly provide an

They kindly provide an explainer…

There are essentially two types of electric powered bike – generally, lower-powered bikes are considered equivalent to pedal cycles, while higher-powered bikes are considered equivalent to motorcycles. 

However, some electric bikes that appear to be similar to pedal bicycles can be altered to be made much more powerful.

…but then there’s a picture of what they are calling an ebike at the head of the article. Not that many people would think this looks “similar to pedal bicycles”, would they?

[quiff]

They’ve relapsed. “Dangerous
They’ve relapsed. “Dangerous e-bike riders putting town under siege”: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981d8n7452o

[lonpfrb]

In that most of us do not
In that most of us do not have 1.2m long arms, touchable is egregious close.

[OnYerBike]

Definitely an improvement.

Definitely an improvement. Although the section on the “Potential law changes” makes no sense given the context. Illegal e-bikes (i.e. electric motorbikes) are motor vehicles in law, and so riders can already be prosecuted for dangerous driving etc. Any cycling-specific law changes would presumably therefore have no effect – they would only be relevant for riders of pedal cycles and (legal) EAPCs.

[quiff]

BBC got the memo – this one

BBC got the memo – this one tries to distinguish between EAPCs and others: BBC – Delivery Riders getting illegal e-bikes seized:

BBC wrote:

The broad term ‘e-bike’ is commonly used for any electric-powered bike, but it can actually refer to very different types of equipment which are covered by different laws.

E-bikes: What is the law and is there an age limit?

Bikes which have a small electrical motor which helps cyclists to move the pedals have the 15.5mph (25 kph) speed limit, and their motors cannot exceed 250 watts of power.

These are electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPC), and under the law these are treated the same as a bicycle and therefore riders do not have to seek insurance.

Illegal e-bikes are more powerful and reach higher speeds, and are not necessarily illegal in themselves – but under the law they are classified as motorcycles, and should not be driven without a licence on the roads.

 

[chrisonabike]

Agree – it is a bit

Agree – it is a bit triggering.

Especially when they’re perfectly happy to (rightly) deliberately and carefully use “migrant” (without “illegal” or “economic” etc.) in all their stories about “immigration” AND (until recently I think) have a footnote explaining their particular choice of language.  Whereas for stories of this kind it’s somewhere between “but but we were just using the term as people understand it” and “actually, don’t give a stuff”.

I guess “can get away with it” as cyclists are not protected group / “it hurts nobody – OK, well only a few people – and that’s due to the unpreventable actions of violent nutters.  And responsibility can in no way be attributed to anything the media transmit…”

[Sriracha]

I think you’ll find that
I think you’ll find that depends on their perspective. Those who are sympathetic to cycling and cyclists doubtless draw a distinction between what the law sees as bicycles, and what the law sees as motorbikes.

Whereas those who are antagonistic towards cyclists are only too happy to justify their position by lumping cyclists together with illegal, anti-social or downright dangerous behaviour.

The BBC definitely knows the difference. Draw your own conclusions as to why they[b] choose[/b] to throw their lot in with the second group.

[Author]

Replies