BBC claims its Panorama episode about e-bikes was “fair and impartial and clearly not an attack on the e-bike industry”

After a barrage of criticism from the cycling community following the controversial Panorama episode titled ‘E-Bikes: The Battle For Our Streets’, the BBC has claimed that it was “fair and impartial” in its assessment of e-bikes, adding that it was “clearly not an attack on the e-bike industry”.

The public-service broadcaster made these claims in an email to a viewer’s complaint, seen by road.cc, in which it also defended its use of the umbrella term e-bikes to describe not just Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPCs), but also “illegal” and “modified” e-bikes, e-mopeds, and e-motorcycles.

The episode, which aired on 6 January 2025, was hosted by Adrian Chiles, the popular Guardian columnist who in 2023 proclaimed “expensive cargo bikes, some with electric motors” as a “new kind of class politics”.

While the episode does touch up on the various benefits of e-bikes, such as their convenience and positive impact on the environment, the contentious issues about them were ushered in through a major focus on the illegally modified e-bikes, often seen in use by youths and delivery couriers, without ever explicitly mentioning that they are distinct from the e-bikes used by most people.

In fact, Chiles’ primary question paints them in a negative light, asking viewers whether electric bikes were “a new menace in need of tighter regulation”. He concludes the episode by saying that “in the absence of clear, enforceable rules, chaos could be coming our way.”

> “Chaos could be coming our way” – Adrian Chiles asks whether e-bikes are “a new menace in need of tighter regulation” on BBC Panorama

The episode was blasted by cyclists, who accused the BBC of “attacking” e-bikes in a “fishy, fearmongering” episode “littered with inaccuracy, misinformation, and bias” and painting “crime-ridden, apocalyptic vision”.

However, the BBC has now refuted such accusations, instead saying “throughout the programme, contributors outlined both positive and negative aspects of e-bikes” and they showed that “e-bikes are beneficial for the environment, convenient for users and often fun to ride.”

“We felt it was important to look at illegal e-bikes in the episode due to a growing concern from councils, police forces and citizens about ‘e-bikes’ of every form, not only those known as Electrically Assisted Peddle Cycles (EAPCs),” the BBC wrote.

“Some viewers thought we conflated different types of e-bikes, modified bikes, e-mopeds, and e-motorcycles, by using the terms ‘e-bike’ or ‘illegal e-bike’ throughout the film. Our commentary made clear that there are various forms of e-bike which are available to buy across the UK – including with a tax break on the cycle-to-work scheme.

“To the public and to all intents and purposes, e-bikes and those bikes which do not conform to EAPC regulations are indistinguishable: two-wheeled vehicles with an electric battery-powered motor and having the same or similar physical appearance to a bicycle. The former is governed by restrictions which are dealt with in the programme.

“The term e-bike is used for a wide range of products, not all adhering to UK law. The government states: ‘There are many products known as ‘e-bikes’ or ‘e-cycles’ available on the market. However, not all of these are classified as EAPCs.’

“Moreover, the police use the term ‘e-bike’ to describe both legal e-bikes and illegal e-bikes. Forces across the UK rarely use the descriptor ‘e-moped’ or ‘e-motorcycle’ but instead prefer to use the term “illegal e-bike” when discussing non-EAPC regulation e-bikes. In order to accurately reflect the information given to us by these forces, we felt it was appropriate to take a similar approach, and felt it was justified to use a range of footage of different road legal e-bikes and illegal e-bikes throughout the film.”

> Bicycle Association formally complains to BBC over Adrian Chiles’ e-bike Panorama “misrepresentation”, claiming episode “unjustifiably damaged” legal e-bike industry

The email mentioned the government guidelines which state that EAPCs “must have a maximum power output of 250 watts”, but also conceded that the law is not designed to stop “circumstances when an e-bike’s power output might briefly exceed the 250 watt rate in surge”, claiming that it further justified the commentary in the programme as “accurate”.

“This is also the case regarding the throttles on e-bikes, where we stated that the ‘motor should only work while you’re pedalling, not by pressing a button,’” they wrote. “The UK law allows for ‘walk assistance’ for up to 6 km/h but it is possible to get an e-bike reclassified via the DVSA as an e-moped and then use a throttle when not pedalling. This presents difficulty for police and councils who have to work out which e-bikes have been reclassified as e-mopeds.”

The BBC concluded, saying: “Some viewers felt the programme was too negative about e-bikes. However we believe it was fair and impartial and from the outset was clearly not an attack on the e-bike industry but an examination of how the huge rise in their use has impacted our towns and cities.

“The programme featured a range of views, many of them positive about e-bikes. For example, a Londoner talking about how he loved to use them to get around the city; Sushila Dhall referred to their positive impact on the environment; and Dr Alex Nurse explained their convenience.

“Adrian Chiles as the reporter was open-minded about e-bikes and showed viewers how easily you can use an e-bike as he rode across London. He later tried some other types of e-bikes and found it a positive experience. He was curious about their impact on his home city of Birmingham, but ultimately concluded in the programme that e-bikes are a ‘good thing’ and he can ‘see their value’.”

> “Reasonably balanced or needlessly confrontational?” New BBC Panorama episode about low-traffic neighbourhoods raises concerns over stirring culture war

Adrian Chiles riding an ebike on Panorama 2 (credit: BBC)

Despite the BBC making claims of fair and impartial reportage, many cyclists and those in the industry have expressed a contrasting view. Just days after the episode’s airing, the Bicycle Association (BA), the national body representing the cycling industry in the UK, lodged a formal complaint with the broadcaster.

It argued that the programme inaccurately and repeatedly conflated the “safety and social issues” surrounding the use of “illegal e-motorbikes” with road-legal e-bikes, claiming that this “misrepresentation” has “unjustifiably damaged” the e-bike sector.

> “E-bikes are not illegal”: BBC hit with more complaints about “misleading and damaging” Panorama e-bike episode, as cycle shop owner says: “Finding a wolf in sheep’s clothing should not be a reason to attack sheep”

The group also called for the term ‘e-bike’ to be removed from the programme’s title to better reflect its apparent focus on e-motorbikes — as the Bicycle Association (BA) refers to them — and claimed the episode failed to provide “fair balance or representation from the reputable e-bike sector”. The BA claims this was a breach of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, while also failing to properly inform the public about the current laws and regulations around electric bikes.

Last week, Ray Wookey, the owner of an e-bike shop in south London branded the programme “troubling” and “misleading”, with the potential to “unfairly influence public opinion and undermine the efforts of responsible retailers who prioritise safety, respectful riding, and adherence to the law”.

Wookey argued that the use of the phrase “illegal e-bikes” was “misleading and damaging”, and has the effect of cementing in the public’s mind that all e-bikes are illegal, and that the general “imbalance” evident in the episode has the potential to “hurt trustworthy electric bike businesses”.