[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

[Secret_squirrel]

Its really not bias and we

Its really not bias and we shouldnt be using that word.  Like it or not the average person in the street sees them as eBikes.

Uninformed choice of language perhaps.

[Sriracha]

Here they go again. For the
Here they go again. For the record, Sur-Ron don’t make EAPCs (AKA e-bikes)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2yekll793o

[Dnnnnnn]

Eton Rifle wrote:

Eton Rifle wrote:

said chav seems to be a disgusting POS with an extensive criminal record

You prompted me to Google him… POS is generous. Fingers crossed he’s deported.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wannabe-gangster-poses-group-masked-29502050

[Eton Rifle]

Blimey, given Wales Online’s
Blimey, given Wales Online’s normal anti-cyclist bias, that is quite impressive. It only refers to the chav’s bike as a “motorbike”.

I think you’re probably correct that the pedestrian caused the chav to fall off his (illegal) bike but, given that said chav seems to be a disgusting POS with an extensive criminal record, I’m not losing much sleep over it.

[Rendel Harris]

Take your point, well made –

Take your point, well made – like you I remember certain areas being made very unpleasant by kids on scramblers back in the day. The thing is I don’t remember anybody conflating the activities of the youths using those with the activities of legal motorcyclists and using them as an excuse to ban motorcyles from areas where one would reasonably expect it to be acceptable for them to be used in the way illegal electric motorcycles are currently being cited as an excuse to ban all ebikes, and in some cases all bikes of any sort, from various locales.

[HoarseMann]

It looks to me as if the

It looks to me as if the pedestrian deliberately knocked the rider off, but it’s difficult to say for sure. What we can see from the streetview, is the pedestrian would have been able to see the rider coming from quite some distance, as the road is quite straight.

As pointed out by jh2727, vehicles can be expected on this road from 5pm and loading/disabled vehicles prior to this time, so it’s not exclusively pedestrianised. Add to that the wet conditions, with a covered walkway available to the pedestrians left side and I do wonder why this pedestrian was walking in the road – they didn’t appear to be crossing the street.

Seeing some footage a few seconds prior would be interesting, to see if the pedestrian moved from the pavement into the road; a deliberate action in order to obstruct the rider perhaps? They could have seen them coming from some way off.

The hand behind the back is perhaps telling too – almost like they were primed to lash out. I guess this wasn’t probed too much, as it was the rider being prosecuted, not the pedestrian.

Irrespective of the actions of the pedestrian, it was dangerous driving.

[quiff]

To play devil’s advocate – I

To play devil’s advocate – I suspect that the type of motor is relevant in one limited sense – that it is perceived as “a new menace” and therefore considered newsworthy. Compare e.g. prevalence of news items on car battery fires vs engine fires, or XL Bully incidents versus Yorkshire Terrier bites.

The easy availability of electrically propelled bikes (and scooters) and conversion kits and their near silence perhaps means that there is a wider group of people who will unthinkingly ride them around pedestrianised areas than would choose do so on an unlicensed loud 2 stroke scrambler (though when I was growing up, there were plenty of them menacing people in local parks). I know that legally it’s no different, but I think in the general public consciousness (to the extent that is a thing) it makes it a “new technology” issue rather than an “every era has wrong-uns” issue.       

[Dnnnnnn]

brooksby wrote:

brooksby wrote:

So are you saying it was a bit like the Auriol Grey scenario…?

Not really, for reasons pointed out in others’ comments.

I didn’t suggest anything was “definitely never intended or envisioned”. The point of my comment was that I don’t believe there is compelling evidence as to intent or otherwise (others are asserting there was).

[Rendel Harris]

jh2727 wrote:

OnYerBike wrote:

By using the term “ebike” rather than “electric motorbike”

LMFTFY: By using the term “ebike” rather than “unlicensed motorbike”

* the type of motor is wholly irrelevant.

That’s a very good point which hadn’t really occurred to me before, I’m sure the BBC never say someone was hit by a petrol car/electric car, they are just hit by a car, so in this case they should just say someone was riding a motorbike on the pavement and leave any suggestion that they were in any way related to pedal cyclists, electric or not, out of the equation.

[IanMSpencer]

It tends to be disinterested
It tends to be disinterested ignorance followed by denial and evasion when the complaints come in.

That the BBC changed the description is almost surprising. Typically they suggest that it’s just a title and the website user is capable of using the article to correct the headline so what’s the problem?

[jh2727]

OnYerBike wrote:

By using the term “ebike” rather than “electric motorbike”

LMFTFY: By using the term “ebike” rather than “unlicensed motorbike”

* the type of motor is wholly irrelevant.

[jh2727]

mitsky wrote:

Whilst I do not condone violence…

The rider was riding at excessive speed on an area which is evidently not meant for motor vehicles.
The rider rode towards and exceptionally close to the pedestrian, probably in an attempt to intimidate/scare him and thus feel “empowered” when it had plenty of space to pass more safely (which is debatable anyway given the speed etc).

I’m glad the pedestrian didn’t appear to be significantly hurt by the impact, regardless of whether he intended the rider to fall off by extending his arm/hand.

Basically, the rider was an idiot.
It F-ed about and found out the results of its actions.

The pedestrian suffered a fractured wrist – scaphoid bone, which is quite slow healing. One of the articles reports that he had to wear plaster cast and was ‘under the care of medics’ for 2 months. He will have been in a cast and unable to drive or cycle for at least 6 months.

[jh2727]

HoarseMann wrote:

It’s a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am. 

Google streetview for that area is about 13 years old, but if it’s still the same restrictions, it isn’t “a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am”

It is a pedestrianised street between 10:30am and 5pm, Monday to Saturday, where loading and disabled access are permitted at all times. Before 10:30am, after 5pm and all day on Sunday, there are no restrictions.

*edit – the Streetview photos which show the signage are newer – from 2022.

*edit2 – not that this in anyway legitimises riding an unlicensed motorbike there, at anytime.

[Sriracha]

It did go to court.
It did go to court. And you may be right about the ramifications. I was not trying to establish the legal outcomes, but only what actually happened. Specifically, did the pedestrian reach out to catch the handlebars, or did the rider hit the pedestrian unassisted?

[brooksby]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Personally, I think that if someone is close enough that merely lifting your hand up causes contact, then they’re within your personal space and shouldn’t be travelling at speed as that’s clearly dangerous (to themselves by the look of things).

Which is the argument used on here a lot, that if your car was close enough for me to touch it then you were driving too close! 

[Author]

Replies