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

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:

That means people actually get less physical activity

Except actual research shows this is not true.

Actual research will show it is true in the long run.

It's not rocket science. Kids riding to school and. sport club etc.:
Up until now: kids rode to school on a regular bike, head wind or tail wind, all on muscle power.
Now: kids zoom to school on a fatbike. Because their speed is doubled their trip takes only half the time, and they either don't pedal at all, or they only need to lightly spin the cranks to keep the motor running.
Ergo: the are less active.

The only people who actually get (somewhat) more active, are those who go by ebike instead of going by car. Those are also the kind of people who were in the research group. But - and that was my whole point - these new ebikes are (getting) so powerful that they hardly require any input, except very lightly turning the cranks - if that.

Sredlums wrote:

It's not rocket science. Kids riding to school and. sport club etc.:
Up until now: kids rode to school on a regular bike, head wind or tail wind, all on muscle power.

No, up until now they are now riding to school.  Not in the UK, anyway - only about 2% of children do.

And the research I quoted was based on the legal use of road legal e-bikes.  So no children under 14 will be on one; and those that are will have to pedal.

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.

You are missing my point.
Even if I was wrong in everything I said, "lots of anecdata" is still not a quote of me. It wouldn't have been hard to write something like 'Basically what you wrote boils down to a lot of anecdata". But you chose to present it as a quote, and that's just bad form. Disagree with me, but don't put words in my mouth.

About that 'The ebike market is mostly owned by the big players', I get that's what those statistics say. But the fact is, that here in The Netherlands, those socalled 'fatbikes' are extremely popular, but only a small portion of them are sold through bike (web)shops.
The majority is either ordered directly online from cheap webshops with a broad range of poducts (Ali Express etc.) or from shoddy shops trying to make a quick buck from it. And in case you missed it the first time I wrote it: those sales are NOT included in those statistics, because they are not registered as bike sales, and fly under the radar.
Those numbers simple don't tell yhe whole tale.

Sredlums wrote:

Even if I was wrong in everything I said, "lots of anecdata" is still not a quote of me. It wouldn't have been hard to write something like 'Basically what you wrote boils down to a lot of anecdata". But you chose to present it as a quote, and that's just bad form. Disagree with me, but don't put words in my mouth.

Have you used the internet before? Writing "stuff" or "anecdata" or "tldr;" as the quote they're replying to is very very common usage in BTL comments sections like this or on other fora (forums?)

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.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

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.

Good luck with that, there is a Pret A Manger at the bottom of my road which is regularly swarming with food delivery riders on illegal electric motorcycles (how lazy we have become as a society that people pay somebody else to go and pick up a doughnut and coffee for them is a whole other question). Police cars and vans regularly pull up, parking illegally, and their denizens then waddle* through the crowds of bikers to go and get their sugary treats which they eat sitting in their vehicles whilst gazing upon the delivery drivers zooming in and out on blatantly illegal, dinner-plate-sized-motor bikes.

*Not fat shaming, people can be any weight they like but I don't think they should be employed in unsuitable jobs; half of the coppers I see now wouldn't be able to catch me in a sprint, let alone a fit young person. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Good luck with that, there is a Pret A Manger at the bottom of my road which is regularly swarming with food delivery riders on illegal electric motorcycles (how lazy we have become as a society that people pay somebody else to go and pick up a doughnut and coffee for them is a whole other question). Police cars and vans regularly pull up, parking illegally, and their denizens then waddle* through the crowds of bikers to go and get their sugary treats which they eat sitting in their vehicles whilst gazing upon the delivery drivers zooming in and out on blatantly illegal, dinner-plate-sized-motor bikes.

*Not fat shaming, people can be any weight they like but I don't think they should be employed in unsuitable jobs; half of the coppers I see now wouldn't be able to catch me in a sprint, let alone a fit young person. 

Yeah, that suggests to me that the police don't see electric motorbikes as a major problem and can't be arsed with doing the paperwork. There's plenty of rampant law-breaking on the roads that is arguably a lot more dangerous than people trying to earn a living delivering pizzas etc.

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).

Sredlums wrote:

They are getting ever heavier and more powerful.

But legal e-bikes can't be getting more powerful, and they have a maximum legal power.

Steve K wrote:

Sredlums wrote:

They are getting ever heavier and more powerful.

But legal e-bikes can't be getting more powerful, and they have a maximum legal power.

Quite.  But ... looking ahead, in countries where there is some cycling infra (certainly Germany and NL) obviously companies are seeing this as an opportunity.  They are already pressing hard at the door of legalising "Speed pedelec plus" or "fewer restrictions on speed pedelc use".  Plus "new EAPCs but more powerful / faster" and all kinds of commercial delivery vehicles which could use this space.

In the UK this is only tempered by the lack of useable cycle infra but it's possible to see the same trend e.g. road.cc (and their powered site!) reported the consultation on doubling power restrictions on EAPCs.  (road.cc article from late 2024 here, same on ebiketips, one saying that some cycling trade orgs thought this was a bad thing).

Personally I am even leery of "normal" speed pedelecs - despite road.cc saying these should be easier to get.  Neither fish nor fowl - not a motorbike (they'd be a risk on motorways) but almost as far from being a bike.  There are now a few of this kind of weight / speed of thing being used (illegally) on Edinburgh cycle paths, and they definitely make it less pleasant.

Almost every country (probably even NL) would get far more public benefit by focussing on well-known, existing alternatives to driving, and improving active travel.

But we all know that "old, existing" solutions rarely get advanced if they haven't taken over already - the money is in new shiny things...

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. 

When I worked in West London for 3.5 years and C2W daily, there was a competition between the local corporations, and the consistent winner was BBC since so many employees C2W daily. So it's very puzzling that BBC output suggests anti-cycling while BBC inputs are pro-cycling and not ignorant of the realities of C2W.
Perhaps the relocation northerly had some unintended consequences but I'm not going to suggest any stereotypes.

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.

Aren't all the bike / scooter share companies funded by advertising, essentially funded by the municipality or "venture capital" (don't fully understand how that works but often seems to some kind of market gambling)?