Adrian Chiles' Panorama episode on e-bikes is poorly researched scaremongering that isn't worthy of your attention

You Sir are part of the future  Stay awesome.

E6toSE3 wrote:

Watched parts of it after posting after reading this but before watching. What a third rate video essay. Maybe Panorama had a slot to fill and had to make something fast? Much as I'm growing to hate ebikes (don't care about different varieties) as used in SE London, this programme was weak to he point of being shambolic and bad. Having said that, yesterday evening I pushed our 1-year old granddaughter from Shooters Hill to Woolwich to handover to daughter. On my way back, three ebikes went past me on the pavement despite a perfectly good wide bus & bike lane that, age 69, I ride up with just 7 gears on my heavy urban pedal bike. Two well lit pedal bikes went past me in the bike lane so just a 3:2 ratio of illegal riding. One of the (silent) ebikes turned across me to turn left, like a car cutting up a bike, such that my left foot hit its back wheel - if that bike had been a fraction of a second back from its position, my foot would have been in its rear wheel spokes. Later in the evening, I put on a reflective waistcoat to walk to a meeting and be seen by bicycles on pavements. If reflective ankle bands and lights were to hand in the hallway, I'd have worn them

You say you don't care about the different varieties, but that is exactly the point.  From what you describe, it sounds like these were illegal electric motorbikes.  Generally, if it's a legal e-bike, on a casual observation you wouldn't notice the difference between an e-bike and a normal bike (except possibly up a hill).

Did these ebikes have riders?
The problems you have pointed out are the fault of the *rider* and not the bike.

Without the rider, the bike goes nowhere ...so put the blame where it should be.

Sredlums wrote:

As much as I hate poor reporting, in this case, it will not be long until they are correct after all. It's already happening.

Here in The Netherlands, ebikes are now the most common type of bike sold. They are getting ever heavier and more powerful. I recently worked in a bike shop setting up the bikes people bought, so that they are ready to use when they came to pick it up. Part of the routine was to test ride them.
In the 6 months that I worked there, I did at least 600 test rides. Take it from me, the newer and more powerful models are hardly bicycles anymore - even though they follow the regulations. Until you reach 25km/h, you hardly have to do anything. It's effortless, and the acceleration is lightning fast.
I have 45 years of experience riding in a 'sporty' style (I am 54 and got my first bmx at age 9 and am still active in mountain biking), I do everything by bike, and was a bike messenger. And still, even I find it hard to stay in control on those bikes sometimes. They are dangerous, especially for older folks and less experienced riders.

And that's just the legal bikes! Youth as young as 9 are now en masse riding monstrosities that are called 'fatbikes' here. Cheap, crappy Asian made 'bicycles' in cross motor/moped style. They are illegally imported, and even if they are capped at 25km/h as they should be, that limitation is very easily removed with a software hack. The vast majority of those fatbikes have been souped that way. They reach speeds up to 45km/h, often pedaling isn't even required anymore. They have crappy brakes and cheap tires, and those kids have youthful bravoure and are under peer pressure, but lack experience with riding and with traffic. Oh, and no helmets or licenses, even though they ride at moped speeds. Lethal accidents have already happened.

My point is that there's no stopping this. The flood gates have opened. People are lazy, and if a bike lets them get away with doing less, they will buy that bike. Soon enough everyone will be zooming around at 25km/h (if we're lucky) or way more, accelerating super fast, without the need to push the pedals, and without the required riding skills. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

TL;DR: Yes, that BBC show failed to discern between e-bikes and e-motors, but soon that will be a moot point anyway.

Is this a transcript of the Panorama programme...?

belugabob wrote:

Is this a transcript of the Panorama programme...?

If it mentions Hobbits it's probably Lord of the Rings, if Russians, War and Peace?

It was actually a social media post from a discussion I had in this subject, that I thought was worth posting here too.
It's long, I get that, but it's also an honest description of what I see happening around me, and it's just not all nice and wonderful.

Are you a spokesperson for illegal bike importers and drug dealers who use them? Two wheels is not necessarily good and can be very bad indeed

E6toSE3 wrote:

Are you a spokesperson for illegal bike importers and drug dealers who use them? Two wheels is not necessarily good and can be very bad indeed

I'm sure there will be stiff competition over the next 357 days but that's a clear frontrunner at this early stage for stupidest and most unjustified comment of 2025 on this forum. Well done.

Not fair - I think it's just a misquotation from "1984 On Wheels" EDIT "Animal Farm On Wheels" obvs... - "Two wheels good, four wheels better!"

Looking less snarkily - better reassurance and arguments are needed *.  I would imagine there are more people who have this kind of emotional reaction to cyclists in close proximity - especially "on the pavement" - than there are "cyclists" in the UK.  Because in the UK we have a "problem of success" (lots of elderly people - indeed a large percentage, many in frail health).  And in the UK very few older people cycle.

* "Arguments" of course would need to address the fact this is coming from feeling and fear / sense of injustice - so facts would be of very limited help!

(Anecdata - I've had a couple of instances of people - though not elderly - getting very angry - because I was cycling by them on a very clearly marked and not very narrow shared use path.  I guess I shouldn't dress up like that shouldn't blast an airzound horn had "startled" them.  I do try to be considerate of walkers rather than solely "making progress" though so perhaps a less self-effacing cyclist would be more regularly winding folks up?)

Sredlums wrote:

 [Many] People are lazy have limitations, whether physical (age/disability related) or practical (carry shopping/kids, length of commute, need to arrive relatively unsweaty etc), and if a bike lets them get away helps them with doing less more on two wheels and using their car less, they will buy that bike, and what a splendid thing that is, fewer cars on the road and a much bigger two wheeled community demanding better facilities for cycling.

FTFY

Well, if you want to go that way…

'People are lazy' was hyperbole of course. What I obviously meant was that many people will choose the alternative that requires the least amount of effort. I don't think there's a disagreement there?

Anyway, IF people actually choose an ebike over a car, then yes, that's preferrable - in some aspects, like air polution in the city, less congestion, less parking space required etc.
In other aspects though, not per se.
For example, over here ebikes often aren't a substitute (let alone an actual replacement) for cars, but for a regular bike. That means people actually get less physical activity (like the kids I mentioned).
And because of the things I mentioned before, traffic has already gotten less safe for pedestrians an (e)bikers. Kids and elderly people have already died in ebike/fatbike accidents, and it will get worse.

Sredlums wrote:

Well, if you want to go that way…

'People are lazy' was hyperbole of course. What I obviously meant was that many people will choose the alternative that requires the least amount of effort. I don't think there's a disagreement there?

Anyway, IF people actually choose an ebike over a car, then yes, that's preferrable - in some aspects, like air polution in the city, less congestion, less parking space required etc.
In other aspects though, not per se.
For example, over here ebikes often aren't a substitute (let alone an actual replacement) for cars, but for a regular bike. That means people actually get less physical activity (like the kids I mentioned).
And because of the things I mentioned before, traffic has already gotten less safe for pedestrians an (e)bikers. Kids and elderly people have already died in ebike/fatbike accidents, and it will get worse.

Nobody realistically expects a bike (EAP or regular) to be a replacement for a car, but a supplement to one. Either will be providing more exercise for the journeys that they are used than if those same journeys had been made by car.
You're still conflating 'fatbikes' with 'e-bikes',though.
The increase in crashes involving the elderly is an interesting phenomenon, though - it would be interesting to know how many of those people involved were not previously regular cyclists, so found themselves going quicker than they would have done on a regular bike, and getting "out of their depth"

belugabob wrote:

Nobody realistically expects a bike (EAP or regular) to be a replacement for a car, but a supplement to one.

My Tern GSD (supplemented by my accoustic bike) is a replacement for a car, or at least has avoided the need for my family to have two cars.

Steve K wrote:

belugabob wrote:

Nobody realistically expects a bike (EAP or regular) to be a replacement for a car, but a supplement to one.

My Tern GSD (supplemented by my accoustic bike) is a replacement for a car, or at least has avoided the need for my family to have two cars.

All to the good and harm minimization (and hopefully cost saving!)

I do think it would be fairer - especially in the UK - to use the qualified version of the phrase e.g. "can be a car replacement if you already have one car" .  (Or have access to really easy car share / exceptional public transport - again not common in UK).

But that doesn't make for a good slogan - and currently the motor vehicle pushers have all the best ones.

chrisonabike wrote:

But that doesn't make for a good slogan - and currently the motor vehicle pushers have all the best ones.

They can be remarkably honest about the consequences of using their vehicles though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8GHiY6jmR8

chrisonabike wrote:

All to the good and harm minimization (and hopefully cost saving!)

I do think it would be fairer - especially in the UK - to use the qualified version of the phrase e.g. "can be a car replacement if you already have one car" .  (Or have access to really easy car share / exceptional public transport - again not common in UK).

But that doesn't make for a good slogan - and currently the motor vehicle pushers have all the best ones.

Maybe.  Though if I was single and without a family, I would not now have a car - my bikes would be my car replacement. 

Well it can be possible (I don't own a car and some others on the forum don't either).  I think there are benefits if you decide to do - and benefits to society in general.  But it's normally either harder or much harder.  It can involve some serious trade-offs including what you do with your life and where you live.  In the UK we often have an expectation of driving and places with few if any alternatives to it.

Most people do what most (other) people do and it's often not easy to exist in society and not have a car.  At the very least you're going to be fielding enquiries all the time.  You may find people think you're not so social (or at least less ... capable) if you can't pick people up and ferry them distant places, or turn up at an arbitrary location with a given kit list at a certain time (without spending half a day getting there)

Currently it's very definitely "make your choices"!

chrisonabike wrote:

Well it can be possible (I don't own a car and some others on the forum don't either).  I think there are benefits if you decide to do - and benefits to society in general.  But it's normally either harder or much harder.  It can involve some serious trade-offs including what you do with your life and where you live.  In the UK we often have an expectation of driving and places with few if any alternatives to it.

Most people do what most (other) people do and it's often not easy to exist in society and not have a car.  At the very least you're going to be fielding enquiries all the time.  You may find people think you're not so social (or at least less ... capable) if you can't pick people up and ferry them distant places, or turn up at an arbitrary location with a given kit list at a certain time (without spending half a day getting there)

Currently it's very definitely "make your choices"!

I do actually agree with you, but I can't resist adding that more than 1 in 5 households in the UK don't have access to a car, and in London it's getting towards half (46%).  So a significant minority of people manage to exist in society and not have a car.

I agree - and have used that argument myself.  (Last survey back it was higher in Scotland - "In Scotland, around three-in-ten households (28%) did not have access to a car in 2019".  Notable in a country with MAMBA ("miles and miles of  ... not many people") - although of course most live in the cities and central belt).

Hence my comment about "with access to excellent public transport".  The bulk of the population is urban.  BUT for the (few) people in the countryside / small towns a greater proportion of them might say they need one due to lack of public transport, plus requirement to travel further for jobs / amenities etc.  (e.g. see Scottish survey).

There is certainly an aspiration character with car ownership: how many those 1 in 5 in the UK would say "nah, don't want a car" rather than "can't afford one"?  And when I've seen references to these numbers it does seem to be e.g. "1 in 5 don't have access to a car and we need to improve that!"

(There are always complications - like NL actually having both high car ownership AND far more "mass transport cycling" than everywhere comparable.  Apparently the cars are generally idle for longer periods than in the UK and short trips are much more likely to be walked or cycled than in the UK, BUT there is a lot of long-distance commuting / less frequent trips).

"You're still conflating 'fatbikes' with 'e-bikes',though."

That's correct, and it was actually the gist of my comment.
E-bikes have criteria that define them, and traffic regulations are made on the basis of those criteria. Motor assist capped at 25km/h, no throttle, etc.
So yes, the critics of the BBC show are right that they didn't make that distinction very clear.
But the thing is, that in the end, that all doesn't really matter.
Reallity is, that this is what e-bikes have brought us. An increasing amount of people zooming around on all kind of contraptions at a speed higher than their skill level allows, faster than the laws alow too, without licences or helmets, causing chaos and accidents, and a police force that is not sufficient to control it. That's what we deal with.

Sredlums wrote:

An increasing amount of people zooming around on all kind of contraptions at a speed higher than their skill level allows, faster than the laws alow too, without licences or helmets, causing chaos and accidents, and a police force that is not sufficient to control it. That's what we deal with.

But that's enough about cars…

Sredlums wrote:

'People are lazy' was hyperbole of course. What I obviously meant was that many people will choose the alternative that requires the least amount of effort. I don't think there's a disagreement there?

Indeed - ultimately one of the key motivators for humans is "easier".

Chris Boardman again - "The first thing is to make it easy ... that's us - we will do the easiest thing possible".

Unfortunately as you suggest - people will not "do it properly", will cut corners etc.  There will always be a market for selling "less effort" or convenience (short term, at the expense of "better things").  Of course now there is a well-established, massive industry pushing powered transport of all kinds.  And selling "computers with everything" - mostly just "because" but no doubt it gets the price up.  And it seems everyone outside political fringe groups is heavily invested in the idea of "growth", so ...

So ... while I personally lean your direction and think it might be a "better" thing to push against*  e-whatevers - e-scooters instead of walking, e-bikes instead of cycling, (e)-cars instead of (walking, cycling, taking the bus or train or ferry) ... I think this is not a battle anyone "wins"!  Probably an illusion to think we might even slowing that down fractionally.

* I still think trying to show that a) it's possible unpowered, or lower-powered - in fact can be fun (if we can't show it's fun then it really is a tiny cult for the ascetics!), and b) trying to make people aware of the consequences of short-term, convenient solutions or overconsumption ... is a good thing.  But that's definitely a rather niche concern / pastime - more niche than conservation at least (people love animals...)!

Just getting people off ICE motor vehicles is a massive undertaking.  And that actually does ... little, I'd say.  There's lots of difficulties comparing transport modes - they vary on what they're good at, what costs/harms they produce, efficiencies can vary (e.g. especially public transport, depending on number of riders).  Lifecycle costs can be pretty hand-wavy.  I would suggest though

Flying > ICE car (approximately equal to) electric car

> Buses - are several times more efficient, but that depends on usage.

>> Trains and trams are generally more efficient than buses - and can have vastly greater capacity and especially boarding speed.

>> Another big gap >>

... to low-impact things - walking, cycling / e-bikes.  Cycling is considerably more efficient than walking although you do need bikes and somewhat improved paths (ideally smooth).

Apparently when all things considered e-bikes are slightly more efficient AND more environmentally friendly than unpowered bikes (taking into account that human exercise needs powering, and people eat stuff with high environmental costs).  Although this depends on where you live / what you eat.

I'm also concerned about the materials (batteries) - how we get them and what happens after.  And there *may* be some small safety implications.  I've seen statistics argued over, I think quite a bit may be on different demographics tending to use ebikes e.g. older people.  However NL is indeed a test-bed so we will see....

But ... that's just minor noise on the graph when compared to e.g. people driving vs. cycling.

chrisonabike wrote:

Apparently when all things considered e-bikes are slightly more efficient AND more environmentally friendly than unpowered bikes (taking into account that human exercise needs powering, and people eat stuff with high environmental costs).  Although this depends on where you live / what you eat.

This is a dubious factoid based on the misconceptions that (a) the calories used to power the bike are 'extra' calories that wouldn't otherwise be getting burnt, and (b) calorie consumption is dependent on calorie expenditure, neither of which is actually how humans work.