Panorama 'E-bikes'

[ChrisF]

Just watched the most biased program I have ever seen on the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... ur-streets. I have complained to the BBC. Don't watch if you don't want to get angry.
I knew that the Daily Telegraph etc were anti bikes, but the BBC as well?

[Grandad]

To my mind the programme highlited the failure to stamp on the illegal bikes when they first appeared and now Pandora's box has been opened

[531colin]

A program about e bikes made by someone who is proud of not knowing the difference between street legal e bikes and electric motor cycles which require a license and insurance.
So what was the point of that?
To stir up the motor car lobby?
To cause a distraction from the chaos in everything this government touches?

Meanwhile, there is some evidence that the odd police force is trying to exert a bit of control over the worst of the illegal bikers, and the fire service warns there is a significant fire risk from some of this stuff.
I wonder how many kids were bought a death trap for Christmas?

People importing counterfeit alcohol or cigarettes may face prosecution, but that’s because they avoid import duty.

[Tangled Metal]

I watched an admitedly small part of the show and thought it handled some very pertinent points in an OKish way for an entertainment current affairs programme.

Of course I am not too protectionist of cycling and cyclists and do not see a lot of ebikes on the road today as being used by cyclists due to them not meeting regulations. There are a lot that are not legal due to high speeds and the removal or lack of the need to pedal to use the motor. Bear in mind that there are a lot of cheap ebikes on the road used by couriers of one kind or another that TBH need to be taken off the road completely and their sale stopped. I think that was what the programme said so fair play on that.

If I get the chance I may watch again on iplayer to see if there was anything I missed that it is worthy of getting angry about.

[Tangled Metal]

A program about e bikes made by someone who is proud of not knowing the difference between street legal e bikes and electric motor cycles which require a license and insurance.
So what was the point of that?
To stir up the motor car lobby?
To cause a distraction from the chaos in everything this government touches?

Meanwhile, there is some evidence that the odd police force is trying to exert a bit of control over the worst of the illegal bikers, and the fire service warns there is a significant fire risk from some of this stuff.
I wonder how many kids were bought a death trap for Christmas?

People importing counterfeit alcohol or cigarettes may face prosecution, but that’s because they avoid import duty.

So a reporter learnt in the process of making a programme that highlighted the illegal ebikes which are effectively e motor bikes. So how is that wrong? One more educated reporter and a programme that could educate more people on the issues of illegal ebikes. Is that not a good enough point to the programme?

The motor lobby will get stirred up about anything bicycle shaped anyway. It would happen without this programme.

To distract from the government's actions? Hmm! the BBC is complained about by politicians from all sides about being biased. I doubt very much the labour party sees this as to their aid by distraction.

[531colin]

……Of course I am not too protectionist of cycling and cyclists and do not see a lot of ebikes on the road today as being used by cyclists due to them not meeting regulations. ………

Pardon?

[rareposter]

So a reporter learnt in the process of making a programme that highlighted the illegal ebikes which are effectively e motor bikes. So how is that wrong? One more educated reporter and a programme that could educate more people on the issues of illegal ebikes. Is that not a good enough point to the programme?

But it didn't do any of that.
Throughout the programme, it repeatedly referred to "e-bikes" (you know, those street legal Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles) while showing pictures of chavs on electric motorbikes and presented by someone who admitted right at the start of the programme that he was grumpy about e-bikes, that he'd never ridden one and then proceeded throughout to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of the difference between legal and illegal and in fact the subject in general.

There's a much more detailed takedown of the whole dreadful half hour here:
https://www.cyclingelectric.com/in-dept ... many-flaws

That ongoing misleading use of the term "e-bikes" to describe anything from a proper legal e-bike from a reputable manufacturer (like both of mine) right through to random hotch-potch creations made from bolting internet batteries and motors to any old BSO all the way through to electric motorcycles makes its way through to other scare stories about "e-bike fire destroys building" which I noted in this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=163761

Edit: the BBC have done it here as well.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75w2xqewx5o

Referring to it as an e-bike hit & run. It's not. That's an illegal electric motorcycle being ridden illegally. But no-one reading the article will care, they'll just see "e-bike" and deduce that all e-bikes are that fast, being ridden in that manner, criminal etc.

[Vantage]

Well for starters, he said that legal ebikes had a max power of 250watts which is wrong. 250watts is constant max, not peak power.

He also couldn't state how many deaths were specifically caused by ebikes as the government records don't specify which type of bike killed who.

Then he made a point that ebikes are heavier than non powered bikes so more dangerous. No mention that a loaded touring bike is much heavier. Or that an overweight person on a lightweight bike might be heavier still.

Oh and there's the twerp saying that ebikes were dangerous because they're silent. Completely missing the point that they're noisier than non powered bikes or that electric cars are now also near silent...and much heavier.....and faster.

And let's not forget how many injuries and deaths are caused by cars, vans, trucks etc which number in the thousands despite their owners having mostly passed a test, issued with a license, mostly insured and registered. None of which stops dangerous driving.

Then he said he got scared when an ebike he rode went over 20mph.....despite being a motorbike owner which again is bigger, heavier, more powerful and much faster.

Good grief. What next? Pogo sticks have no brakes and so should be banned too?

[David Cox]

I thought the Panorama programme was pretty poor. Didn't it used to be a serious documentary programme?

We Are Possible and the Independent Workers of GB Union have just produced "Hot Wheels" interesting research on the gig economy and delivery riders experience which although only relating to London is I think worth reading and a useful contribution to issues faced in many cities. Typically cycle campaigners have had little engagement within-demand food delivery riders and local authorities usually even less. The cargo bike last mile companies and even taxi services have had much more engagement.

Here is the link

[url]https://www.wearepossible.org/our-repor ... people/url]

A lot of the emphasis is on moves to switch delivery riders away from petrol powered scooters, moped and motorcycles to (legal) electric power. Adrian Chiles coming along on his hi-powered motorbike is so irrelevant and the TfL data shows how much more likely motor bikes are likely to be involved in injuries to riders and pedestrians.

The delivery apps value speed of delivery, don't pay well and don't care about their riders much. Delivery riders do value cycle lanes and low traffic areas like most cyclists however. One reason for using illegal e-bikes is that riders are doing many hours and miles a day and a legal bike feels slow, underpowered and may need recharging. Hence the cheap conversions and illegal throttled controlled bikes. The days of courier chic on fixies are long gone.

Hot Wheels is well worth a read but the recommendations for national and local government and the delivery firms are unlikely to be delivered I fear.

[Tangled Metal]

So a reporter learnt in the process of making a programme that highlighted the illegal ebikes which are effectively e motor bikes. So how is that wrong? One more educated reporter and a programme that could educate more people on the issues of illegal ebikes. Is that not a good enough point to the programme?

But it didn't do any of that.
Throughout the programme, it repeatedly referred to "e-bikes" (you know, those street legal Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles) while showing pictures of chavs on electric motorbikes and presented by someone who admitted right at the start of the programme that he was grumpy about e-bikes, that he'd never ridden one and then proceeded throughout to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of the difference between legal and illegal and in fact the subject in general.

That reminds me of the situation behind the DVLA change in policy over self converted campervans getting the log book changed to motorcaravan. Something about the police investigating motoring offences and witness stations getting confused over the campervan so self converted became van with windows instead of campervan and you could not convert the log book from panel van category to motorcaravan even though you have a conversion almost identical to the OE equivalent that was registered by the manufacturer as a motorcaravan.

What I mean is it is not the person who knows the converted van is a camper because of the modifications that those new rules were for but the general public who knows little about the topic. Just like this ebike thing. It is not an ebike because you, knowing the finer detail of regulations and pretty much studied it well, it is the majority of people who make up the wider population who do not know those finer details and see something with two wheels, pedals (whether used or not) and an electric motor who then call it an ebike. If most people do not know that regulations say it needs to have 250watts constant max or that it needs to be pedalled to benefit from the motor or whatever else defines an ebike then they look for what they know. Two wheels, e-motor, remnants of pedals, etc make it an ebike for them.

If you accept that mass knowledge gap then does the programme not make a little more sense? It is using the type of personal transprt that the wider public without specialist knowledge see as e-bikes. So if it is talking about issues with those and using the e-bike term then that is just what is more widely known than what is known on here.

As i said before, iI only watched a small part of it and have not seen the whole programme but it seemed to me that it was talking about the types of personal transport that courier riders for the food delivery companies tend to use. A two wheeled machine with e motor and even if they have pedals the pedals are not used unless the battery is dead or just fro show. I knew they were not meeting e-bike regulations but they were still half bike like. Of course I have the emotor bike type that is clearly a motor bike IRL (ridden by youths with balaclavas and black clothing that is not easily distinguised from others in black clothing on these deviced. These are not what I saw in the section of the programme I watched, with the police officers lifting the back wheel and measuring the speed of it and noting how the back wheel turned without pedalling.They were in between but it was fair to say they looked more bike like than motorbike like. As I said I can not say what was in the parts of the programme I did not see. I do think you need to look at it not with the knowledge of what is a legal bike but what looks like a bike to someone with little knowledge of what a bike is.

BTW on an aside, there is a book published by an engineer whos name i can not recal who used drawings of what a bike is by a wide sector of the population and it listed their job.It was a funny book showing what people drew from memory what a standard upright, rigid bike is. Most of those he got to draw got it wrong with some spectacular images. Even the mechanical engineers who drew for him got it completely wrong. People do not always notice the details of things they see what they and their POV or perceptions let them.

[Cadence]

So a reporter learnt in the process of making a programme that highlighted the illegal ebikes which are effectively e motor bikes. So how is that wrong? One more educated reporter and a programme that could educate more people on the issues of illegal ebikes. Is that not a good enough point to the programme?

But it didn't do any of that.
Throughout the programme, it repeatedly referred to "e-bikes" (you know, those street legal Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles) while showing pictures of chavs on electric motorbikes and presented by someone who admitted right at the start of the programme that he was grumpy about e-bikes, that he'd never ridden one and then proceeded throughout to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of the difference between legal and illegal and in fact the subject in general.

That reminds me of the situation behind the DVLA change in policy over self converted campervans getting the log book changed to motorcaravan. Something about the police investigating motoring offences and witness stations getting confused over the campervan so self converted became van with windows instead of campervan and you could not convert the log book from panel van category to motorcaravan even though you have a conversion almost identical to the OE equivalent that was registered by the manufacturer as a motorcaravan.

What I mean is it is not the person who knows the converted van is a camper because of the modifications that those new rules were for but the general public who knows little about the topic. Just like this ebike thing. It is not an ebike because you, knowing the finer detail of regulations and pretty much studied it well, it is the majority of people who make up the wider population who do not know those finer details and see something with two wheels, pedals (whether used or not) and an electric motor who then call it an ebike. If most people do not know that regulations say it needs to have 250watts constant max or that it needs to be pedalled to benefit from the motor or whatever else defines an ebike then they look for what they know. Two wheels, e-motor, remnants of pedals, etc make it an ebike for them.

If you accept that mass knowledge gap then does the programme not make a little more sense? It is using the type of personal transprt that the wider public without specialist knowledge see as e-bikes. So if it is talking about issues with those and using the e-bike term then that is just what is more widely known than what is known on here.

As i said before, iI only watched a small part of it and have not seen the whole programme but it seemed to me that it was talking about the types of personal transport that courier riders for the food delivery companies tend to use. A two wheeled machine with e motor and even if they have pedals the pedals are not used unless the battery is dead or just fro show. I knew they were not meeting e-bike regulations but they were still half bike like. Of course I have the emotor bike type that is clearly a motor bike IRL (ridden by youths with balaclavas and black clothing that is not easily distinguised from others in black clothing on these deviced. These are not what I saw in the section of the programme I watched, with the police officers lifting the back wheel and measuring the speed of it and noting how the back wheel turned without pedalling.They were in between but it was fair to say they looked more bike like than motorbike like. As I said I can not say what was in the parts of the programme I did not see. I do think you need to look at it not with the knowledge of what is a legal bike but what looks like a bike to someone with little knowledge of what a bike is.

BTW on an aside, there is a book published by an engineer whos name i can not recal who used drawings of what a bike is by a wide sector of the population and it listed their job.It was a funny book showing what people drew from memory what a standard upright, rigid bike is. Most of those he got to draw got it wrong with some spectacular images. Even the mechanical engineers who drew for him got it completely wrong. People do not always notice the details of things they see what they and their POV or perceptions let them.

Accepting completely what you say about the perception of the general public, it is even more important that programmes like Panorama actually get the facts right. In one part, with a line-up of different bikes, the "expert" stated "but they are all illegal because they have throttles", which is not the case. A throttle is permitted to operate without pedalling up to 6km/h. In that configuration it is no different to the "walk-assist" button included on many displays - referred to by some manufacturers as "start assist". It can also be operable above 6km/h, but only if the pedals are turned (i.e. it is providing pedal assistance). If the police test such a throttle by lifting the back wheel it will max. out at 6km/h - perfectly legal. "Twist and Go" throttles however (any speed above 6km/h without pedalling), are illegal.

[rareposter]

If you accept that mass knowledge gap then does the programme not make a little more sense? It is using the type of personal transprt that the wider public without specialist knowledge see as e-bikes. So if it is talking about issues with those and using the e-bike term then that is just what is more widely known than what is known on here.

As Cadence says above ^^ - that's why it's even more important that it corrects those misconceptions! Not just panders to them...

e-bikes are one of the absolute essentials for getting people out of cars, for helping with short-distance mobility. But this constant mis-naming of them, the way that everything from a legal EAPC to an illegal electric motorbike gets lumped in as "e-bikes" is doing untold damage to the industry.

The public perception (and this will have been hardened by that programme, not helped) is that all "e-bikes" are dangerous, too fast, illegal, ridden by chav scum intent on stealing your phone, will catch fire the second they're plugged in to charge....

Have a proper read of this:
https://www.cyclingelectric.com/in-dept ... many-flaws

It's what I linked to earlier but it explains the string of errors and flaws that were repeatedly stated throughout the programme.

[Galactic]

We Are Possible and the Independent Workers of GB Union have just produced "Hot Wheels" interesting research on the gig economy and delivery riders experience which although only relating to London is I think worth reading and a useful contribution to issues faced in many cities. Typically cycle campaigners have had little engagement within-demand food delivery riders and local authorities usually even less. The cargo bike last mile companies and even taxi services have had much more engagement.

Here is the link

[url]https://www.wearepossible.org/our-repor ... people/url]

Thanks for the link to the IWGB / We are Possible report, I've downloaded it and shall have a look.

However, you missed out a [ at the end so the link doesn't work. Here is the correct link:
https://www.wearepossible.org/our-repor ... ing-people

[David Cox]

@Galactica many thanks

[mattheus]

We Are Possible and the Independent Workers of GB Union have just produced "Hot Wheels" interesting research on the gig economy and delivery riders experience which although only relating to London is I think worth reading and a useful contribution to issues faced in many cities. Typically cycle campaigners have had little engagement within-demand food delivery riders and local authorities usually even less. The cargo bike last mile companies and even taxi services have had much more engagement.

Here is the link

[url]https://www.wearepossible.org/our-repor ... people/url]

Thanks for the link to the IWGB / We are Possible report, I've downloaded it and shall have a look.

However, you missed out a [ at the end so the link doesn't work. Here is the correct link:
https://www.wearepossible.org/our-repor ... ing-people

They've got this right. Seems like more sense than the (massively funded) BBC could manage:

Illegally modified motorcycles, which are often similar in appearance to (and wrongly perceived to be) a type of e-bike, have also become a source of concern to the transport sector and the wider public. These vehicles are often associated with food delivery work, and concerns around the risks they pose to other road users, especially pedestrians, have gained prominence in recent years.

The very real need to enable a shift towards legal e-bikes is complicated by the rise in illegally modified motorcycles perceived as e-bikes.