West Midlands Police is exploring alternative methods of spotting illegal e-motorbike use after the force apologised for seizing and destroying a legal e-cargo bike hired by a delivery cyclist as part of a council-funded scheme.
The charges against the cyclist, which West Midlands Police initially claimed related to him riding without insurance, have also been dropped, with the force agreeing to reimburse the Birmingham Bike Foundry, a co-operative bike shop in the city, for the loss of the bike.
In an email sent to the Birmingham Bike Foundry on Wednesday, West Midlands Police said it would stop using the test carried out by its officers when the bike was seized – described by cycling campaigners as “bogus” – admitting that, while there was “no malice” in the officer’s actions, it was inaccurate.
On Tuesday, ebiketips reported that the Birmingham Bike Foundry and the delivery cyclist, backed by cycling and disability groups, had lodged an appeal against the force’s wrongful decision to seize and destroy the rider’s Tern HSD S00, believing it to be an illegal e-motorbike.
The cyclist, who had been riding the e-cargo bike for a few months after renting it as part of Birmingham Bike Foundry’s Gear Shift scheme, funded by the city council, was stopped by police on 24 April 2026 at 8.15pm on New Street, Birmingham.
The Tern e-cargo bike was seized as part of the force’s Operation FRISLEN, a “targeted initiative” aimed at “addressing the growing concerns surround the misuse of e-bikes and electric scooters in Birmingham city centre”.
The term e-bike refers to an electrically assisted pedal cycle (EAPC), legal electric cycles that can be treated the same as a conventional pedal cycle, provided the user is age 14 or over.
They must have pedals that can propel the bicycle, have an electric motor with a maximum continuous rated power not exceeding 250 watts, and cut off electrical assistance when it reaches 15.5mph. Riders of these compliant e-bikes do not need to register or insure their bicycle.
However, the use illegally modified e-motorbikes, which do not cut off assistance at 15.5mph and can reach high speeds without pedalling, have become an increasing issue on the UK’s streets, leading to widespread confusion with their legal counterparts.
In bodycam footage obtained exclusively by ebiketips, three officers can be seen talking to the cyclist, who repeatedly tells them that the bike is legal.
“Just try riding it, it’s no problem,” he says, while one of the officers tells his colleagues: “Get the speed up again, I’ll get a photo”.
At that point, one of the officers raises the back wheel of the bike and spins the pedals, causing the bike’s computer and rear wheel sensor to purportedly record a speed of 47kph – which they deemed evidence that the cargo bike was legally powered, despite the cyclist telling them: “It’s off, there’s no assist”.
In audio of the incident, the rider tells the officers on several occasions that the electric motor is not even running as they carry out the test. Nevertheless, the officers proceeded to hand the rider a fixed penalty notice, including a £300 fine and six points on his driving licence, and seized the bike.
“It was a bogus test. They lifted the rear wheel off the ground and spun the cranks quite vigorously as well,” Allama from the Birmingham Bike Foundry told ebiketips.
“Any bike would fail that test, even the regular non-electric bike, because it’s not subject to resistance or friction or anything.
“And the thing with Bosch electrics is sometimes the motor doesn’t even start when the rear wheel is off the ground. He was pleading with them that the motor wasn’t even on and they were just ignoring him.”
Birmingham Bike Foundry then spent the following month appealing the seizure to West Midlands Police with the aim of retrieving the bike – only to be later told it was destroyed.
Now, however, following a public and legal appeal supported by Cycling UK and other groups, and press coverage in ebiketips and the BBC, West Midlands Police has accepted fault for the incident, while confirming that their officers have stopped using the “faulty” test used to seize the bike with immediate effect.
On Wednesday, an officer told Allama that the charges against the delivery cyclist were being dropped and that the Birmingham Bike Foundry would be reimbursed for the Tern HSD S00. The officer also informed Allama that the force is currently working on developing a “proper” test to determine the legality of e-bikes.
In an email sent to the co-operative bike shop owner today, the officer said: “I again offer my apology for the actions of the officers on the 24th April 2026.
“Whilst there was no malice in the officers’ actions and they believed they were acting lawfully, the method to test the bike was not an accurate measurement of the bike’s capability.
“As discussed, West Midlands Police do acknowledge that the testing used to seize your bike was not accurate and therefore the bike should not have been seized”.
The email continued that an inspector “has confirmed that this testing process will desist immediately and investigation will commence into alternate testing along with appropriate training for officers.
“The traffic ticket has been cancelled and the driver will be notified of this. I apologise again for any distress or inconvenience this has caused. I will notify the Legal Services Department of our findings so they can process your compensation claim swiftly.”
Following today’s Police’s U-turn, Cycling UK’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund has also confirmed that it is dropping its case against West Midlands Police.
Describing the apology as a “major win” for the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, Cycling UK’s associate director Duncan Dollimore said in a statement: “If police forces are going to destroy e-bikes worth thousands of pounds, they need to be able to carry out a proper test to determine whether they’re legal or not.
“It is encouraging that West Midlands Police have now engaged and acknowledged that the testing they carried out was flawed and that they will review their approach. Cycling UK’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund exists to help and highlight cases like this, so it’s great to see that not only have the police agreed to review the training of officers, but they will not be prosecuting the rider of the e-bike and they will fully compensate the Bike Foundry for the cost of the bike destroyed.
“This case demonstrated the importance of better training and greater awareness around e-bike regulations. It’s through the generous donations of our supporters that means the Cyclists’ Defence Fund can support cases like this, so huge thanks to all of those who have done so.”
26 thoughts on “Police to stop using “bogus” e-bike speed test as charges against delivery cyclist who had £6,000 cargo bike seized and destroyed are dropped”
“…investigation will commence into alternate testing along with appropriate training for officers…”
Translation: we’ll try to understand the law, you know, that legal stuff we’re meant to be upholding.
I’m not saying the officers acted with malice, just with stupidity and ignorance of physics and the law.
(Once again, well done CyclingUK, who are a very fine organisation!)
Absolute morons and its us the taxpayers that foots the bill for their stupidity to replace a perfectly legal bike
There is never any accountability with these muppets
Good to see the police admitting their mistake, and that they will be deleting the charges and compensating the owner. Will CUK and Birmingham Bike Foundry that spent a lot of time and some money getting this ludicrous decision righted be getting compensation for all the time wasted too?
They only need to pop over to the Netherlands and have a word with the Dutch police for suitable roadside test equipment, but of course they won’t or invest in such tech.
https://road.cc/ebiketips/content/news/dutch-police-have-a-roadside-device-for-identifying-illegally-fast-and-powerful-e-bikes
@eburtthebike It appears to be Bike Foundry, as the owner, that’s being compensated, though only for the bike and not the inconvenience. The rider doesn’t appear to be getting anything for their time and trouble.
Police officers As Thick as Bricks shock!
Two things I cannot prove but I rate as likely:
This would not have happened to a citizen with a British accent. At least I suspect a hint of unconscious bias.
The case would not have been resolved so quickly if it wasn’t for the BBC coverage. When has the police accepted wrongdoing so fast before?
Good job UK Cycling for getting this publicised and resolved rather positively.
The rider can clearly be heard telling the police to take it for a ride and see…
That’s all they had to do – listen and act on a concerned citizen’s request.
No malice my arse!
@GoodWheelHunting Or indeed if the person had a white skin I doubt the police would even have got a chance to hear their accent as they wouldn’t have bothered him. As I stated on the original thread, contrary to the opinion of a certain PBU and others, one doesn’t have to have an agenda or a chip on one’s shoulder to know that if Mrs Fortescue-Smythe had ridden her £6K Tern past the officers with Henry and Jemima on the back on their way to school there’s not a chance in a billion that they would have stopped her and accused her of having an illegal machine.
I was quite disturbed by this story yesterday and I’m glad that it seems to be getting resolved a bit. Presumably the bike looked fairly standard and was not covered in gaffer, with tern graphics, so surely one quick web search would have shown the ridiculous expense of this machine (you pay for quality mind…) hinting at it’s full legality in unmodified state and preventing this embarrassment through incompetence.
That sounds like work, though.
And even in the apology statement they call him a driver 🤦♂️
“West Midlands Police is exploring alternative methods of spotting illegal e-motorbike use”
Somebody please tell them easiest way to ‘spot’ would be the rider’s going faster than any typical cyclist for the conditions. And if the rider isn’t even pedalling – well bang to rights, innit?
Or if they’re scouring popular stops for Deliveroo etc. couriers, just look for the throttle.
RE: “suitable roadside test equipment”
Does this mean “UCI-level scrutiny is needed” ….
Or “eyes plus awareness that bikes normally slow down when on the flat / going uphill *without being pedalled*”?
Of course this will rightly be subject to meeting legal evidence requirements. Which will then be amended to “we have been told that the minimum evidential standards are…”
Which a cynic might suggest will allow police to dismiss enough cases so they don’t get too busy. Except when a few of them get suspicious of someone and decide to make up the law again…
Ignorance is not an excuse but it is a reason. A year or so ago, I was contracted by the Met Police in North London to do some free bike checks with them. We would set up on cycle lanes etc and the Police would offer advice on how to lock a cycle correctly and what types of lock to buy and they would offer to security mark the cycle. My small team would offer free bike checks.
It was very well intentioned and all about ‘community relations’.
However, the Police didn’t have a clue ..They were stopping illegal e-motorbikes and asking me to check the brakes (wot brakes? LOL) etc. I was pointing out to them – without causing any trouble for anyone – that these were not bicycles. The riders had no idea these were e-motorbikes. The police and riders all thought these were bicycles.
@judda6610 Oh please Lord no, don’t start telling them they can tell a dodgy bike by the rider not pedalling, I can already imagine the dimwitted local rozzers pulling me over and seizing my bike to crush as I desperately try to explain the concept of “riding downhill” to them.
“West Midlands Police is exploring alternative methods of spotting illegal e-motorbike use”
So, per my comment on the original story yesterday, they had no formal guidance/training/policy in place.
This is such a waste of taxpayer money due to the cost of having police in a role they aren’t adequately trained for and the cost of compensating for the destroyed legal bike.
How many others have faced this and will also be able to claim the cost?
The only thing missing here is the user suing the police for distress and loss of income.
But given all these costs are bared by the taxpayer, there should be actual consequences for the police force staff that let themselves get in this situation in the first place.
If the bike has a torque sensor as many do no meaningful result can be obtained from their so-called ‘test’. I’m fully prepared for the police to be stupid but not THAT stupid. And it’s unbelievable that they destroyed the bike without a technical evaluation.
So they will be refunding the other bikes that they crushed?
If not, might a lawyer ask the police for the details, so a class action can be considered.
AS I read this, I was wondering hao many other legal e-bikes may have been seized and crushed as a result of this bogus test? As I pointed out recently in a reply to a Facebook post that stated that e-bikes are limited to 25kph/15.5mph any bike, whether a pure pedal cycle or an e-bike, can exceed this speed if the rider can pedal hard enough, or when going downhill. The regulation just states that the motor must switch off at higher speeds. If the rider can achieve higher speeds unaided, that is legal. The test that the police used just demonstrated the maximum “speed” achieved by pedal power alone with no or little resistance can be much higher than the motor cut-off speed.
They never even compensated him. Should sue. Just refunding the Council is a joke.
The general public could be left with the impression that being as thick as two short planks is no obstacle to becoming a police officer in the West Midlands.
I wonder though whether the same is true of the senior officers who presumably dealt with the initial complaint and still allowed the destruction of the bike to go ahead and the fine to stand.
It doesn’t inspire me with any confidence in this police force.
My perfectly legal 200W motored 15mph restricted 2011 ebike has a throttle and does not require peddling. What hope of pc not the nicest listening to me in similar circumstances?