- News
- Live blog

BBC accused of “dogged determination to demonise e-bikes” after cyclist injured in cycle lane crash claims “recklessly driven e-bikes are a far bigger danger” than drivers + more on the live blog
SUMMARY

“The BBC’s shoddy reporting is leading to more dangerous roads”: Broadcaster accused of “dogged determination to demonise e-bikes” after cyclist injured in cycle lane crash claims “recklessly driven e-bikes are a far bigger danger” than drivers
Another week, another questionably worded BBC report about ‘e-bikes’. I’m sensing something of a pattern emerging here.
Last Monday, you may remember, Callum reported on this very live blog that Auntie Beeb’s news team came in for criticism after erroneously describing an illegal, high-speed bike user, stopped by police, as “an e-bike driver”. No mention of EAPCs, 15.5mph cut-offs, e-bike law, nothing.
Well, this week, they’re at it again.
Yesterday, the BBC published an interview with Morwenna Hughes, a cyclist who was seriously injured in a collision on a two-way cycle lane in Hammersmith in June. Morwenna suffered facial injuries in the crash and may not regain full mobility in her left arm.
Hughes, a cyclist in London for the past 25 years, says the incident happened so fast she couldn’t tell what kind of ‘e-bike’ the person who hit her was riding.
Nevertheless, she told the BBC that e-bikes should be subject to registration (though, as we point out all the time, if an illegal or modified bike was involved, it has to be registered and licensed to be used on the road).
And according to Hughes, ‘e-bikes’ (presumably of all legal stripes) are now a bigger danger to cyclists on the road than motorists, despite 60 of the 79 crashes which killed a cyclist in the UK last year involving a driver, and two involving another person on a bike.
(While cyclist deaths dropped again in 2025, the number of people on bikes injured increased sharply by 14 per cent. However, when we asked the Department for Transport, it said there is currently no way of finding out how many of these collisions and incidents involved electric motorbikes and illegally modified e-bikes.)
“I’m a huge fan of cycling and I’m an advocate for getting people on bikes,” Hughes said.
“But this has really shaken my confidence both as a cyclist but also as a pedestrian. And just being even a pedestrian in busy areas where there’s e-bikes around, I feel very anxious.
“Up until maybe a year ago, cars always felt like the biggest danger to me. But I think in the last year, I definitely feel that recklessly driven e-bikes are a far bigger danger to cyclists.
“And it feels like it is just increasing. So I do feel like it has got progressively worse over the last few months to the point now where in some parts of my commute, I feel like you’re almost outnumbered by e-bikes.”

But what kind of e-bikes? This is where the BBC’s report doesn’t really help when it comes to clarifying things.
Take this section, for instance, which manages to link illegally modified, high-speed bikes, legally classed as motorcycles, with legal hire bikes.
Hospitals have reported an increase in injuries to both riders and pedestrians.
Legal e-bikes can only go 15.5mph but many are illegally tampered with or “chipped” to go much faster and should technically be classed as motorbikes.
As first reported on BBC London, Jane Ouartsi was hit by a minor riding a Lime bike.
The impact was very serious and long lasting. She suffered a broken femur, a fractured collar bone and two spinal fractures requiring three operations.
Meanwhile, Hughes also reckons the proliferation of Lime, Forest, and Voi e-bikes in London have contributed to the rise of reckless riding.

“If people are renting Lime bikes or Forest bikes, they’re paying by the minute,” she said.
“I understand they might want to get to their destination as quickly as possible but there are so many people cycling recklessly and because they are unaccountable for their reckless cycling.”
In a statement to the BBC, buried near the bottom of the story, the London Cycling Campaign’s Tom Fyans pointed out that all-important distinction between legal e-bikes and their high-speed, illegal counterparts.
”Legal e-bikes help get loads more people cycle who never would have otherwise – with all the benefits to health, climate, pollution and yes reducing road danger these bring,” Fyans said.
“But we need to tackle the illegal bikes and ensure every road user, cyclist or not, obeys the Highway Code, to keep us all safe.”
Fyans’ helpful quote, however, wasn’t enough to prevent the BBC from getting another healthy dose of criticism for their reporting on all things e-bike.
“You never see this kind of anguish about drivers and cars do you?” Gaz wrote on BlueSky. “Cyclists say recklessly ridden and illegally souped up cars have become a danger to them on the capital’s bike lanes and roads.
“But then it’s the BBC and their dogged determination to demonise e-bikes.”
“You mean e-motorcyclist right, not e-bike rider, two different things!” noted Tony on Facebook.

Jack Fifield added: “BBC London posts a video where someone injured by an e-bike rider (type of e-bike, whether legal or illegal, unspecified) says the danger from e-bikes is greater than cars.
“No stats presented to show that this is demonstrably false. The BBC’s shoddy reporting is leading to more dangerous roads.”
“Without invalidating the experience of this person, this certainly isn’t universal,” Anton argued on Instagram. “Let’s remember that for every serious injury caused by an e-bike this year there are very approximately 30 caused by motor vehicles.
“I find it odd this account is silent on those. I wouldn’t object to tracking and publicising these rates more carefully, but for the love of god can we have some journalism?”
Same time, same place next week, alright?
“Looking at the new proposals, it would appear that the area would be far safer with them than without them”
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
2 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Ah, good old Tom Edwards of the BBC. He who blocked me on Twitter when I argued (politely, not abusively) about his incorrect use of language (referring to cars/vehicles over drivers), without being able to justify why he felt he was right (when he wasn't).
" On balance there is not considered to be sufficient evidence to strongly indicate a direct link between the proposals and any further nuisance occurring." Fair play to the local council for telling the fuzz to do one.
@mjvande@pacbell.net Well now Michael, it's very naughty to lie and as James has pointed out below the charges were not dismissed, you got away with a plea bargain involving community service, probation and a ban from the areas in which you committed the offences. Looks like you were extremely lucky to get away with that, I've seen the court docket setting your bail at $30,000 which would appear to indicate an extremely serious offence. In answer to your question, no I don't wish to discuss mountain biking with you, partly because I don't do much these days but mainly because everything I have found out about you online indicates that you are a monomaniacal loony notorious for trolling cycling websites who is prepared to carry out serious assaults using weapons on mountain bikers so I get just the suspicion of a feeling that any discussion is not going to be terribly productive. Happy trails!
“But then it’s the BBC and their dogged determination to demonise e-bikes.” To be fair, the BBC doesn't only demonise e-bikes, they hate all bikes. They are so utterly biased that they can't even report the incredible health benefits of regularly riding a bike. Then there is their thirty year campaign promoting cycle helmets, breaking all their own rules, and refusing to allow counter views. It seems likely that the increasing rate of collisions involving e-bikes is in line with their increasing popularity, so it isn't that they are uniquely dangerous. Really sorry to hear of Morwenna's collision and injuries, and I hope she recovers quickly and fully, and regains her confidence.
@chrisonabike Or 'Palestine Action Supporter'
Definitely spoiled it - this is not the terrifying high-speed lift journey I was envisaging.
increasing stack can decrease the roundness of pedaling motion depending on how much one ankles or points. it also offsets the pedaling circle upwards, away from the crank circle which could arguably (50/50) feel like a shorter effective crank length.
He clearly hasn't seen the film Field of Dreams or he would have realised that "if you build it they will come" and welcomed the cycle lane and his new customers using it...
I was thinking the exact same thing about Corley services on the M6; a major distribution hub for county lines. It's remarkable the number of overly blacked-out mercedes cars, driven like assholes, which join the M6 from the A444 and immediately pull into the services...

2 thoughts on “BBC accused of “dogged determination to demonise e-bikes” after cyclist injured in cycle lane crash claims “recklessly driven e-bikes are a far bigger danger” than drivers + more on the live blog”
“But then it’s the BBC and their dogged determination to demonise e-bikes.”
To be fair, the BBC doesn’t only demonise e-bikes, they hate all bikes. They are so utterly biased that they can’t even report the incredible health benefits of regularly riding a bike. Then there is their thirty year campaign promoting cycle helmets, breaking all their own rules, and refusing to allow counter views.
It seems likely that the increasing rate of collisions involving e-bikes is in line with their increasing popularity, so it isn’t that they are uniquely dangerous.
Really sorry to hear of Morwenna’s collision and injuries, and I hope she recovers quickly and fully, and regains her confidence.
Ah, good old Tom Edwards of the BBC.
He who blocked me on Twitter when I argued (politely, not abusively) about his incorrect use of language (referring to cars/vehicles over drivers), without being able to justify why he felt he was right (when he wasn’t).