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

lonpfrb wrote:

Given the widespread introduction of 20mph zones the road legal e-bike (EAPC) regulation needs to change from 15mph to 20mph since the difference is enough to encourage impatient drivers to go for a questionable overtake, either breaking the 20mph limit, or passing the 15mph cyclist slowly and dangerously as they retake the lane to avoid oncoming traffic. So not unregulated rather safer and more realistic regulation. A realistic limit should serve to reduce illegal limit hacks, too.

No thanks.  More enforcement of existing regulations instead, please.

For lots of reasons:

a) "the difference is enough to encourage impatient drivers to go for a questionable overtake..." - they do now (when people are cycling at the speed limit) and you effectively note this yourself ("...either breaking the 20mph limit").  I don't see any chance MGIF (or other dangerous driving behaviour) will be cured by faster bikes.

b) ... and the motor traffic is not infrequently exceeding the "minimum speed limits" regardless of whether cyclists are present, because "it's too hard / cars aren't designed to go at 20mph!"

c) While this may be welcomed by some (current) EAPC riders, most people aren't riding bikes.  They're not going to do so if they can have an EAPC that goes 5mph faster, or even "as fast as the cars".  Most people aren't riding because - in part - they just don't want to ride with lots of motor traffic whether or not they can keep up.

"Not interested in what others do, I'm alright Jack" is a response, but then don't expect "but stop the nasty driving though" to get far.  That requires fewer people driving / more interest in getting places by cycling, which needs more cyclists, which needs...

d) Why would this make any difference to illegal hacks?  It certainly won't when nobody is policing (or is interested in policing) such illegal hacks, and in fact totally legitimate high street chains are happy to sell electric transports which aren't legal to use in most places.  I doubt folks will trade in their kit mods and Sur-rons and Engwes because now you can get one that ... only goes 20mph.

e) 15.5mph for the assistance cut-out is somewhat arbitary, but in fact I appreciate there are considered reasons behind this e.g. striking a balance between enabling some cyclists / making transport cycling easier but not making cycling in general less pleasant.  There are very few totally illegals at higher speeds around my part of Edinburgh (thankfully) but they definitely don't make me feel good - and I may be one of the faster riders*.  There is also some debate as to whether the population at large can safely handle 15.5mph on a power-assist bike (e.g. debated in NL but some people feel there is evidence there for the young and older being more at risk from higher power / speed).

f) It puts us out of step with Europe so getting bikes might be an issue (OTOH I think the US might have the higher limit?)

* Not very fast!  I just don't seem to get overtaken often.

danhopgood wrote:

Enforcement is the key.  If folks spent £3,000 on an Ebike knowing it would be seized and crushed if used modified - those bikes wouldn't get modified - simple as that. 

If you believe that, I have a pink battleship I'm trying to move on...

You are playing with semantics for no benefit. No one is buying these bikes and riding them round their gardens, 99% of them end up on the roads. So yes they are illegal in a public space just like a lock knife in your pocket with no good cause is considered an illegal weapon. In your house the knife is legal.

I noticed it became horrifyingly populist tittle tattle, when the format reduced to 30 minutes.

I dipped in to it a few weeks back and made a very quick retreat.

Pub bike wrote:

Panorama used to be a serious programme based on serious journalism informing the public on important issues.   

What a fall from grace for the BBC.

I think it is a programme that can seem like serious journalism until it covers a topic you have decent understanding of, and then you realise it's sensationalist nonsense. And has been for years.

It must be a good twenty years ago since my old boss was interviewed for it as an expert commentator, but I still remember how livid she was after they left. They spent around about an hour asking leading questions, trying to get her to say something sensationalist and dramatic, with no interest in her actual expertise on the subject. It turns out they did similar to the eight other highly qualified experts in the field we knew were interviewed, but because none of them gave the response they wanted, their views weren't aired. Instead they used bits of an interview of someone known in the field as a bit of a crank.

The only difference now is it seems like they didn't bother approaching the relevant experts, having worked out in advance they weren't going to support their angle.

I generally defend the BBC when it comes to complaints about bias, because most of the time it's from people who simply want their personal biases amplified. Not saying it's perfect, but it's worth reminding ourselves of who benefits the most from undermining what is still, despite the flaws, one of the more rounded sources of news. But when it comes to Panorama, there's no doubt to me that it has long been the documentary equivalent of a tabloid that adheres to the mantra that bad news and scandal sell.

slc wrote:

One programme per weekday for the next two years should do it.

Optimistic, when all the other content exists in the "real world" of motornormativity! And that's been on screen for generations.

Even if it's not explicitly saying "road changes (for buses, for active travel) cause congestion" ... "why won't they fix the pot holes" ... "We have to drive" ... "Treated myself with a nice new car" ... "how electric vehicles help save the planet" ... "save money by doing a bigger bi-weekly shop" ...

slc wrote:

Well said the bicycle association. Let's hope the complaint is upheld and the BBC required to screen a proportionate volume of 'motor vehicles: the real enemy of pedestrians' episodes. One programme per weekday for the next two years should do it.

And to compensate for at least forty years of anti-bicycle bias, one programme a day for the next five years promoting cycling.