- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
BBC confuses motorcycle with e-bike (deliberately?)
A video story on BBC this morning purports to show "the moment an e-bike rider collided with a pedestrian before tumbling from his bike."
The BBC are being mischievous by using the term ebike for something which is clearly not a legal EAPC, thereby associating both together.
But also, looking closely at the video, it seems that the innocent pedestrian in fact outstretched his arm to deliberately catch the handlebar of the motorbike, thereby causing the rider to crash heavily. So not exactly how the BBC presents things.
I'll attache two clips below.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 1 hour 34 min ago
Could it be that an industry * with vast wealth and long cultivated influence, which is now seen as providing something both practically and...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 52 min ago
Presumably a) expense b) for something that (mostly) works against your customers' convenience? And the usual "but emergencies - what about when...
- Aluminium can 1 hour 52 min ago
Is there any real world evidence that slightly reducing the weight of your crank arms actually makes your bike faster? Seems like a hell of lot of...
- David9694 2 hours 58 min ago
Remembrance event driving incident sees woman reported (paywall)...
- quiff 6 hours 18 min ago
I was going to suggest the Fairlight Strael too, and went to check if it came in on budget. While there, I finally ordered the frameset I've been...
- quiff 9 hours 14 min ago
"No darling, I said a cactus bike holder, not a bike cactus holder."...
- Andrewbanshee 11 hours 29 min ago
I have visited Guernsey and my wife goes there a few times a year for work. This act of premeditated violence shocks me. There are quite a lot of...
- hawkinspeter 11 hours 55 min ago
You could well be right. Personally, I think Avonvale Rd is just a disaster for having two way traffic. So many drivers think the traffic calming...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 1 min ago
Although Muller Rd isn't great to cycle on (the north end, anyhow), it's certainly not the worst. I'm definitely in the "brave and bold cyclist" at...
Add new comment
49 comments
BBC got the memo - this one tries to distinguish between EAPCs and others: BBC - Delivery Riders getting illegal e-bikes seized:
Definitely an improvement. Although the section on the "Potential law changes" makes no sense given the context. Illegal e-bikes (i.e. electric motorbikes) are motor vehicles in law, and so riders can already be prosecuted for dangerous driving etc. Any cycling-specific law changes would presumably therefore have no effect - they would only be relevant for riders of pedal cycles and (legal) EAPCs.
They've relapsed. "Dangerous e-bike riders putting town under siege": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981d8n7452o
They kindly provide an explainer...
...but then there's a picture of what they are calling an ebike at the head of the article. Not that many people would think this looks "similar to pedal bicycles", would they?
Maybe BBC read road.cc: headline and most references to ebikes and illegal ebikes in the article have now been changed to e-motorbikes.
I just came here to post exactly the same thing! - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981d8n7452o
Hurrah! Any other editorial policy we want to influence?!
If we could use our newfound leverage to educate reporters not to say "it was at 3 am this morning" or "the news broke at 4 pm this afternoon" that would be great.
Niche irritant - their insistence on using "judgement" (2 e's) to describe a legal judgment (1 e).
Definitely, also the use of "historic" (meaning an important moment in history) when they should be using "historical" (meaning happened in the past), as in "He is being investigated for allegations of historic tax fraud".
Oh wow: you learn something new every day
Yeah, I should have pointed that out to be fair to them. But it's very much an afterthought, after having written a whole article which says "e-bikes" while picturing only motorbikes. Would it be so hard to use "e-motorbike"?!
EDIT - looks like they moved the explainer higher up the article at the same time they changed it to e-motorbike.
Its really not bias and we shouldnt be using that word. Like it or not the average person in the street sees them as eBikes.
Uninformed choice of language perhaps.
I think you'll find that depends on their perspective. Those who are sympathetic to cycling and cyclists doubtless draw a distinction between what the law sees as bicycles, and what the law sees as motorbikes.
Whereas those who are antagonistic towards cyclists are only too happy to justify their position by lumping cyclists together with illegal, anti-social or downright dangerous behaviour.
The BBC definitely knows the difference. Draw your own conclusions as to why they choose to throw their lot in with the second group.
Agree - it is a bit triggering.
Especially when they're perfectly happy to (rightly) deliberately and carefully use "migrant" (without "illegal" or "economic" etc.) in all their stories about "immigration" AND (until recently I think) have a footnote explaining their particular choice of language. Whereas for stories of this kind it's somewhere between "but but we were just using the term as people understand it" and "actually, don't give a stuff".
I guess "can get away with it" as cyclists are not protected group / "it hurts nobody - OK, well only a few people - and that's due to the unpreventable actions of violent nutters. And responsibility can in no way be attributed to anything the media transmit..."
Here they go again. For the record, Sur-Ron don't make EAPCs (AKA e-bikes)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2yekll793o
good to see he has been on a dangerous driving charge.
But I was also intrigued with this "he was also handed a 19-month riding ban", Does this mean he is permitted to drive when released? can he be banned from riding a bike?
I think that is just another facet of the BBC bias. It was not a "riding ban", though of course that phrase keeps up with the cyclist narrative. Walesonline reports it thus:
So, nothing to do with cycling or cyclists.
The walesonline version has the ring of truth about it, since we know what "disqualified from driving" is, whereas I don't think "riding ban" is a thing in law.
But of course "driving" ban and loss of his licence - that speaks of a motoring offence, which conflicts with the BBC lens.
Looks like they've already corrected it to "electric motorcycle rider". However, they've still got the browser page title as "Watch as e-bike rider crashes into pedestrian in Port Talbot"
That's good - I did email them, maybe they took note? Originally it said:
"This was the moment an e-bike rider collided with a pedestrian before tumbling from his bike."
Edit: looking closely, it seems the rider did not collide with the pedestrian; the pedestrian reached out his arm to catch the handlebar, throwing the rider from the bike. Understandable, but not how it is being presented. See frame shots below.
And now changed to "Watch as biker crashes into pedestrian."
I'd love to know the sequence of events behind the original and the changes. Is it simply a case of starting with the BBC's own anti-cyclist agenda position and seeing if they get away with it, if no one complains, and then backing down bit by bit to see how much of the agenda they can maintain? Seems that way - they still report he had a "riding ban", whereas the truth is he was disqualified from driving and must take an extended retest to regain his driving licence. This story comes on the back of a recent story (with HYS comments to follow) about the menace of ebike/scooter hire trials.
It tends to be disinterested ignorance followed by denial and evasion when the complaints come in.
That the BBC changed the description is almost surprising. Typically they suggest that it's just a title and the website user is capable of using the article to correct the headline so what's the problem?
You beat me to it - I was just about to post about the exact same thing!
Not much to add other than it frustrates me too.
Stories like this fuel the anti-cycling hate mob, despite the fact that as an electric motorbike, this rider/vehicle is already treated exactly the same in law as other motor vehicles (i.e. already required to have registration plate, driving license, insurance etc.).
By using the term "ebike" rather than "electric motorbike", the BBC is complicit in perpetuating the myth that electric motorbikes and lawful EPACs are the same thing, when they are not. Much like escooters, it is easy to buy electric motorbikes online, and (whilst some people certainly know they are illegal to use in public), I suspect many people buy them thinking "it's just an ebike, of course its legal".
some people certainly know they are illegal to use in public
Unfortunately, 'some people' does not appear to include the police- at least in Lancashire
Yup - this is where the government's (the last one, this one...) "intense relaxation" on the subject of regulating these * is unhelpful in multiple ways.
The silver lining is that it turns out that the majority of people just aren't comfortable riding bikes - motorbikes (electric or not), EAPCs or just pedal cycles - around our current roads and car-filled streets.
The flip side of that is exactly those who are less likely to ride responsibly are now getting much heavier and faster two-wheeled vehicles.
* Regulating either that yes - these are allowed but the following restrictions apply (a new class, effectively) or (my preference) no - we're not going to create a new class for these things. We don't need or want one so we will make it really clear they're not legal to ride almost anywhere, discourage businesses from supplying them and encourage and further empower police to stop their use.
Why shouldn't we have nice new toys? Because our infra and rules are not set up for their safe use, other road users aren't expecting them etc. Most people aren't calling for these (motorbikes are a minority interest, even motor scooters) - but (as we've seen in lots of other places) LOTS of people will use proper cycle routes and infra if that's made safe and attractive. Having to share it with electric motorbikes going twice your speed (or more)? Not safe or attractive.
Who is calling for this? Companies who want a bite of the less regulated micro-mobility market and want a greater sale than a bicycle or an ordinary EAPC (electrically assisted pedal cycle), online marketplaces etc.
LMFTFY: By using the term "ebike" rather than "unlicensed motorbike"
* the type of motor is wholly irrelevant.
That's a very good point which hadn't really occurred to me before, I'm sure the BBC never say someone was hit by a petrol car/electric car, they are just hit by a car, so in this case they should just say someone was riding a motorbike on the pavement and leave any suggestion that they were in any way related to pedal cyclists, electric or not, out of the equation.
To play devil's advocate - I suspect that the type of motor is relevant in one limited sense - that it is perceived as "a new menace" and therefore considered newsworthy. Compare e.g. prevalence of news items on car battery fires vs engine fires, or XL Bully incidents versus Yorkshire Terrier bites.
The easy availability of electrically propelled bikes (and scooters) and conversion kits and their near silence perhaps means that there is a wider group of people who will unthinkingly ride them around pedestrianised areas than would choose do so on an unlicensed loud 2 stroke scrambler (though when I was growing up, there were plenty of them menacing people in local parks). I know that legally it's no different, but I think in the general public consciousness (to the extent that is a thing) it makes it a "new technology" issue rather than an "every era has wrong-uns" issue.
Take your point, well made - like you I remember certain areas being made very unpleasant by kids on scramblers back in the day. The thing is I don't remember anybody conflating the activities of the youths using those with the activities of legal motorcyclists and using them as an excuse to ban motorcyles from areas where one would reasonably expect it to be acceptable for them to be used in the way illegal electric motorcycles are currently being cited as an excuse to ban all ebikes, and in some cases all bikes of any sort, from various locales.
Before
Oh, and the link to BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/crlry1rd9w3o
Pages