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

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"

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.

I've not seen anything particularly "scientific" on either side of the argument.  As you say I think currently there are other variables in most real-world numbers (or rather what people are actually measuring) which probably make more difference.  FWIW here are some further factoids around cycling on EAPCs and unpowered bikes from the European country where people cycle the most for anyone interested.

In a sense it is all small beer at that point - especially if the availability of ebikes could help get or keep more people cycling (so there are more people who sometimes cycle who might then start to be interested in making cycling easier and safer).

But ... without several other barriers to mass cycling being removed * ebiking is likely also to remain niche in the UK, probably only growing by taking modal share from existing unpowered cycling trips, or as an occasional "recreational extra" with people perhaps driving to the ride.

* e.g. networks of cycle infra of sufficient quality, road traffic speed and volume reduction reduction - which itself probably needs massive efforts with public transport etc.

Sredlums wrote:

lots of anecdata

None of your statements are supported by the data.  The ebike market is mostly owned by the big players.

https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/netherlands-e-bike-market-15321

Sorry, but I take offense to your post.

First of all, don't put words in my mouth.
What you presented as a quote is not something I said. I may very well be what you get out of my words, but it still is bad form to act as if those are my words.

Second, I never said anything about who owns the market, and even more, it isn't relevant to what I said. Also, more and more of the ebikes sold are direct sales from Asia, and/or bought outside of the usual bike shops. Most of those aren't even accounted for in those numbers.

THANK YOU! I've commented on how the programme was very bad, unworthy of BBC Panorama brand and undermining of that brand but...
Round me in SE London, ebikes are horrific. I'm a very sprightly 69, my acquaintances are far less mobile and rightly terrified of the things - far more than fear of cars because cars are on roads so we know where they are. Pushing our 1-year old granddaughter or walking with 8-year olds is very scary.

E6toSE3 wrote:

THANK YOU! I've commented on how the programme was very bad, unworthy of BBC Panorama brand and undermining of that brand but... Round me in SE London, ebikes are horrific. I'm a very sprightly 69, my acquaintances are far less mobile and rightly terrified of the things - far more than fear of cars because cars are on roads so we know where they are. Pushing our 1-year old granddaughter or walking with 8-year olds is very scary.

They're still far more likely to be killed by a driver, even though cars are supposed to be driven on the roads. (see here for more information: https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441)

Although I don't think that the various illegal e-scooters and e-motorbikes are being particularly safely ridden, I do think that they are better than people being in cars - it's just harm reduction. When someone comes off an e-motorbike, it'll hurt them and they should hopefully fix their behaviour.

If they are a big problem, then it should be up to the police to do their job and seize them. It should be easy enough to just rock up to a take-away outlet and seize all the duck-taped battery devices.

E6toSE3 wrote:

Round me in SE London, ebikes are horrific.

Sorry to hear - but while "it's behaviour" contrary to your previous comment I would say it's meaningful to draw a line between EAPCS ("is heavier than many unpowered bikes and may accellerate faster BUT requires pedalling effort only above about 15.5 mph") and illegal * motorbikes ("is a LOT heavier than most bikes, doesn't require pedalling and can go any speed you pay for - oh and as it's already illegal to use almost anywhere and tends to be more pricey than a legal EAPC, I would guess is also favoured by people doing other illegal things").

E6toSE3 wrote:

my acquaintances are far less mobile and rightly terrified of the things - far more than fear of cars because cars are on roads so we know where they are. Pushing our 1-year old granddaughter or walking with 8-year olds is very scary.

Understandably terrified - yes.  I definitely understand why something new, moving fast and "in my space" and often very quiet is scary.

Rightly?  Don't forget those cars kill more people on pavements and footways every year than are killed by cyclists in total.  And indeed you're not safe in your own home (as HP says - cars somehow make their own way into buildings and structures every day).

Of course this is all compounded by a) extremely lax UK road policing (of all kinds) and b) a shortage of separate (from footway) mobility lanes - and the UK long-time policy of "just put the cyclists [and now riders of illegal e-motorbikes] and pedestrians together because we need every scrap of space for motor traffic".

* Illegal by not being type-classified and specifically being used where not licenced (they're not legal to ride on roads, or cycle paths or footways).

pockstone wrote:

I was going to say that the bigger problem lies with the BBC (and other media outlets), not Chiles, but Little Onion has put it better than I could.

I understand why the Guardian gives this lightweight a free pass to write shite, but why does the BBC enable him as well? (Panorama ffs...I'll bet Richard Dimbleby is spinning in his grave.)

IAF I don't think that modern Panorama is anything like 'classic' Panorama…

(and he has a Grauniad column because his wife is the editor, IIRC).

"IAF I don't think that modern Panorama is anything like 'classic' Panorama…"

...clearly not, on this showing.

"(and he has a Grauniad column because his wife is the editor, IIRC)."

Indeed.

[/quote]

The BBC has hated and always will hate cycling and cyclists. I do not know why. Must be some kind of deepseated mistrust of the common man. 

It's a good call on Panorama having trashed its own brand.

I'm more encouraged by C4 Despatches though - which I had earmarked as no longers serious some time ago.

But I watched the programmes on the Far Right, as investigated by Hope Not Hate, and the evidence supplied to the police, inlcuding around Stephen Yaxley-Lennon broadcast October 24 2024, and it was excellent.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-enemy-within-the-far-right-dispa...
 

So there's a balance.

The problem is not (just) the BBC. Don't make this (only) about the BBC. Imagine the newspaper headlines, and speeches made in Parliament, if the BBC did a programme about the problems with illegally-modified cars, but portrayed it as an issue with cars in general.

britesparkfilms are the company that made that crap, not so bright afterall.