Campaigners have criticised the BBC for publishing a “one-sided” story on e-bike pavement parking that assigned blame on hire bike users and did not address other obstacles to pedestrians.
Paul Horwood told the BBC that e-bikes in Colchester could make pavements difficult to navigate for him and his wife Anna. The hire bikes are operated by Dott and are photographed by users on the Dott app when the journey has finished.
“This newest idea is good in theory but it seems a lot of the people using them are being irresponsible in the way they just abandon them with no consideration for others,” Horwood said. “You need to get the e-bike companies to make their customers aware that they need to leave the bike in a safe place out of the way.”
The BBC also reported that Horwood wanted to see “irresponsible” users of the hire bikes prosecuted, with the 76-year-old quoted as saying “the general public is very good at just ignoring things. The government should take firm action even if it is against their own councils because that is where the buck stops.”
The BBC’s report has been criticised by active travel campaigners for only being based on Horwood’s testimony.
A spokesperson for the Colchester Cycling Campaign told road.cc that “this story was one sided”, adding that it didn’t include “the perils to pedestrians from cars mounting footways, as well as wheelie bins and — to come — car charging points.”
They added that Colchester Ecargo, who arrange and maintain the distribution of the 800 Dott hire bikes, “always leave them neat and tidy and well spaced where there is space.
“Users, too, have to take a snap of how they leave the bike to show Dott that they have fulfilled their contractual obligation.
“We have heard instances of vans deliberately knocking over bikes, and youths pushing one bike over to create a domino effect,” the spokesperson added.
Council powers to regulate and, where necessary, punish on-street cycle parking are expected to be included as part of the government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. A Department for Transport spokesperson told the BBC that e-bikes blocking pavements are “a genuine safety risk”, adding that they’re “legislating to give local leaders the tools they need to regulate shared on-street cycle rental schemes and take decisive action against poor parking.”
The legislation has passed the House of Commons but is currently in the Committee stage of the House of Lords, where it faces more than 160 amendments, though many of these will be withdrawn.
Dott also formerly provided electric scooters to the city as part of a five-year trial arrangement. However, that contract expired in August 2025 and was replaced by an agreement with Voi.
Colchester’s Daily Gazette reported in October that the Dott e-bikes were being used 1000 times a day across the city and were continuing to grow in popularity. Colchester City Council told the BBC that “reports from the community are very important and welcomed.
“Residents who find e-bikes causing an obstruction should report them directly to Dott. This ensures the operator can respond quickly and remove or reposition bikes where necessary.”
30 thoughts on ““This story was one-sided”: Cycling campaigners criticise BBC coverage of “irresponsible e-bike users””
The BBC stands for protecting
The BBC stands for protecting the status quo, that includes car dominance. Look elsewhere for fair reporting on cycling issues.
Where is this elsewhere of
Where is this elsewhere of which you speak?
Its a media problem not a BBC problem.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Every time I’ve heard Novara Media talk about transport it hasn’t been pro-car.
“Do you know who I am? You
“Do you know who I am? You soon will do.”
“Do I care? Who are you then?”
“Novara Media”…
EDIT clearly I’m not much of a leftie then…
@chrisonabike Ronnie Pickering?
Won’t someone think of the
Won’t someone think of the pavements. I hate seeing anything but cars parked on the pavement personally. Preferably blocking them as much as they can, as is their god given right.
I remember the first episode
I remember the first episode of ‘In Sickness and in Health’, the follow-up series to ‘Till Death Us Do Part’. Alf pushing his wife in a wheelchair, couldn’t use the pavement due to cars half on it and dog mess all over the sections without cars, so he went down the middle of the road with drivers tooting and swearing at him. Summed up Britain of the time. At least dog mess on pavements is rare now in London. But now, cars are so huge, they stick out beyond their driveways a metre or more into pavement, so I have to push granddaughter in road. Today, as pedestrian, I had to jump away from an escooter and a electric unicycle: first was a huge bloke going at least 20 pmh; second was doing 30 mph or more – scary! They use the pavement because pedal bikes in bike lanes are too slow and they want to overtake cars that are doing 20 mph
“Today, as pedestrian, I had
“Today, as pedestrian, I had to jump away from an escooter and a electric unicycle: first was a huge bloke going at least 20 pmh; second was doing 30 mph or more – scary!” Neither of these is legal as e-bikes are limited to 25kph (15.5mph). Legal e-Bikes should be on the road and illegal ones are e-motorbikes. E-scooters should not be on roads or pavements but on private land. The law is clear on all of this but we see people ignoring the law all the time, partly because the police have many other priorities and partly because all Governments have done nothing to inform the public about the issue.
The police in Surrey do
The police in Surrey do nothing about illegal e-motorbikes and e-scooters. Ever.
The police in Surrey do
The police in Surrey do nothing about illegal e-motorbikes and e-scooters. Ever.
Neither do Lancashire Constabulary. And they’re not interested in vehicles without MOT either. CU72 DYH is parked next to a Lancashire Traffic vehicle on Aldi car park in Garstang.
Wtjs. What concern is it of yours if a vehicle parked and not being used on the road has an MOT or not, particularly if it is on private land as you suggest, that is a matter between the landowner and owner. Even if parked on the public road, if the vehicle is taxed and insured what is the problem and on what possible measure is it yours?
@Surreyrider Vehicles without MOTs are a potential danger to other road users and if the brakes/steering/controls fail badly enough other people as well e.g when a car crashes into a building
Can’t reply to Robert Hardy but it is the business of every road user whether a vehicle is roadworthy.
“Vehicles without MOTs are a potential danger to other road users and if the brakes/steering/controls fail badly enough other people as well e.g when a car crashes into a building”
@wtjs It’s a police car – they’re exempt from MOT.
To be honest, as in all parts
To be honest, as in all parts of society there are people who act like arseholes, many ride bicycles many drive cars, how about everyone rises up against the arseholes?
Both sections need to be prosecuted to show that wider society has had enough.
I was in London with Big Kid
I was in London with Big Kid a month ago. Used a hire e-bike to get fr om her flat to theatre land. Great experience – cheaper and quicker than an Uber. On dropping off the bike we noted 3 machines lying on the floor. We decided not to write to the BBC; instead we picked them up and put them back on their stands. No drama.
Good for you, I do the same.
Good for you, I do the same. However it does get a bit wearing when on a Sunday morning on the 200 metre walk to the bakery I have to move two or three or sometimes more rental ebikes from where they’ve been parked perpendicular to the kerb blocking the pavements so that they won’t get in the way of the elderly, disabled or people with pushchairs. It doesn’t take very long but the attitude of which it is symptomatic – sod it, I’ll just leave it here and someone else can deal with it, why should I take three seconds to make sure it’s not inconveniencing anyone – is infuriating. Nothing to do with being anti-bike, I just hate it like I hate any other form of selfishness such as littering and inconsiderate motor vehicle parking.
True. Although it’s even more
True. Although it’s even more tiring trying to push the motor vehicles back onto the vehicle lanes than picking up litter or fallen ebikes…
The media scaremongering of
The media scaremongering of ebikes is very irresponsible. I’ve got an ebike; when my elderly neighbour found out, she looked slightly horrified. “Where do you charge it?”, she asked. Me, “in the cellar, or sometimes the hall”. I knew she’d been convinced (by the media) that all ebikes were a fire hazard, and I was about to torch the place. Explained that it comes with a proper manufacture supplied charger. Also took the opportunity to educate her about legal and illegal ebikes. All this moaning about hire bikes and parking; I wish the complainers would just say what they really mean ie I hate cyclists and they shouldn’t be on the road (which they know they can’t say, unless it’s the DM comments section).
Shades wrote:
So when I (forty-plus years cycling as an adult, 7000km-12,000 km per year, no car, massive enthusiast for cycle racing, commuting and leisure use, enthusiastic proponent of investment in cycling infrastructure et cetera) say that parking like this (Dog Kennel Hill, East Dulwich, during a recent Dulwich Hamlet football match), which makes it totally impossible for people in wheelchairs or with buggies to pass and represents a serious hazard for people with vision impairment, really pisses me off I’m actually saying that I hate cyclists and they shouldn’t be on the road?
Rendel Harris wrote:
I guess he means most of the moaners.
I do sympathise with people trying to get around blocked pavements, whether it’s bikes or cars. With the e-bikes and e-scooters, I think the companies responsible should be held accountable as they can exert some control over how their vehicles are parked. Ideally, they should have marked zones on the road, but I can imagine some asshole driver just parking in it though that can be easily solved with a tow truck.
Follow the money. Except in a
Follow the money. Except in a few “partnership” cases AFAIK the dockless bike hire companies are mostly funded by venture capital and/or advertising. They’re just using public space as a free resource to leverage, and I’m not sure they’re much more “for the public good” than Pokemon Go.
Still happy to be corrected but that’s just the business model – you don’t make money from mass cycle hire. Costs are always far higher than the general public will pay for a casual bike ride. The balance has to come from somewhere else.
So I think we’re more likely to see “public nuisance” aspects dealt with or prevented where those paying the cash are more linked to local government or the local area (eg. partnership models) rather than just those attempting to capture “market share”. Or in cases like the Dutch OV Fiets where the bike provision is in aid of encouraging more train usage. And it’s the national railways so they’re probably more inclined to care about stuff beyond the bottom line.
I had a discussion this
I had a discussion this afternoon about cycle parking, and found out that my council does not allow ebikes in the building “elf and safety innit”. I did manage to get them to agree to having a power point in the cycle compound outside the building so that at least people can charge their bikes there.
It was quite an interesting meeting, as it was supposed to be about the cycle parking at the council offices, but I derailed it by starting with “I’m in a bad mood because I’ve been going through the planning committee agenda and the cycle parking for the leisure centre has got almost everything wrong.” We spent half the meeting talking about that and managed to sort it! My existence is justified.
Apparently, neither officers, planners or consultants know anything, anything at all, about cycle parking: despite thirty years of guidance being published. I quoted the latest Bicycle Association stuff, very good.
There are dual standards here
There are dual standards here. If a hire car was speeding (for instance), the driver would be at fault, not the hire company. The police would contact the hire company, who would give them the details of the driver, who would then be prosecuted.
In the case of a badly parked ebike or escooter, the hire company will have the details of the last person to use it, which could be passed to the council when requested for a fine or prosecution. (Unless they have a photo of the vehicle parked correctly at the end of the hire period)
Squidfish wrote:
A couple of points – often hire car companies do not give out the driver at the time of the incident. Sometimes this is semi-valid as the hire car might be in use by several people, but it’s a loophole that should be closed e.g. make the hiring company fully responsible for the driving unless they can give accurate information about who it was hired to.
With badly parked ebikes/escooters, it may be the fault of the last rider, or it could be anyone else moving them around e.g. drunken hijinks or someone angrily moving it out of their way. That’s why I think the owner should be held responsible as they can use their GPS sensors to determine the time that the vehicle was left blocking the pavement.
Squidfish wrote:
Good luck with that, I have two friends who have been hit by Lime bike riders when they (the friends) were cycling in London, one sustained a broken wrist and finger, the other escaped with bruising but with their front wheel and forks mangled. When they tried to get the names of the culprits from Lime they hid behind customer confidentiality and said they only give details to accredited insurance companies or law-enforcement agencies. I’m pretty certain they would do that to councils as well.
No double standard.
No double standard.
The police would normally write to the owner of a car to ask who was driving at the time of an incident.
They can do the same for a hire car, given it could be being used by multiple people on a group trip even if only hired out to one person.
If the hirer doesn’t give the details then the police can apply any points and fine to them.
BBC in biased anti-bike story
BBC in biased anti-bike story shock horror! Just add it to all the other hundreds of BBC anti-bike stories.
The BBC is institutionally biased against cycling.
@Robert Hardy if the vehicle [without MOT] is taxed and insured what is the problem?
At first I thought your comment on your 5 month-on revival of a zombie topic was so stupid that it must be a spoof at the expense of very stupid people. Now I’m not so sure. Just as a test: answer your own question above! The site ‘renovation’ has lost the original photo, so here it is again showing the offender’s vehicle next to an ANPR police car on Aldi carpark next to Garstang Police station- how do you think it got there? Note that CU72 DYH has now achieved over 6 months without MOT because Lancashire Constabulary routinely condones criminal offences- perhaps you should lend your talents to a campaign to abolish MOT and VED? That would likely gain the approval of HN21 VXB’s owner, Marcus Wright of M Wright Carpentry Ltd, although he’s already being protected by Wyre Neighbourhood Policing Team
@wtjs Couldn’t reply direct to you above because the thread’s too deep – but the grey Skoda is also a police car, it’s not required to have MOT because it gets more regular and stringent checks.