- 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
news
BBC e-bike Panorama - wheelie“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”
Almost two weeks since the BBC aired its controversial, Adrian Chiles-fronted Panorama episode on e-bikes, the complaints keep flooding into the broadcaster, after the owner of an e-bike shop 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”.
A formal complaint lodged to the BBC this week by Ray Wookey, the owner of Energise E-Bikes in the south London town of Coulsdon, claimed the programme offered a “negative portrayal” of electric bikes by showing “very few legitimate e-bikes shown on-screen” – instead focusing on illegally modified or unregistered ‘e-motorbikes’.
Wookey argued that the use of the phrase “illegal e-bikes” is “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”.
He also noted that while focusing on road safety issues – such as the relationship between e-bike riders and pedestrians – is important, it “should not involve the misrepresentation of an important and fast-growing sector” capable of promoting a safe, healthy, and environmentally-friendly form of transport.
Last week, the BBC found itself on the receiving end of a furious backlash from cycling groups after it aired the Panorama episode, ‘E-Bikes: The Battle For Our Streets’, hosted by Adrian Chiles, which saw the former One Show host ask whether electric bikes are “a new menace in need of tighter regulation”.
The episode’s prolonged focus on modified e-bikes – which exceed the maximum 250 watts and 15.5mph cut-off speed for electrically assisted pedal cycles (EAPCs) permitted under UK law to ride on public roads – and the failure to consistently and fully distinguish between these machines proved controversial, however, provoking some strong criticism from cycling campaigners and bike industry groups.
“Panorama confuses legal with illegally modified e-bikes and ignores their benefits compared to the UK’s car use,” the London Cycling Campaign said in response to the episode, which many cyclists criticised for its conflation of the criminality, dangerous riding, and battery fires associated with illegally modified two-wheeled electric vehicles with legal e-bikes.
“If we switched lots of cars for e-bikes in the UK we’d see health, crime, road danger, and climate benefits, not the tabloid, crime-ridden, apocalyptic vision Panorama paints,” the group said.
Referring to the programme’s attempt to discover whether e-bike use is linked to dangerous riding and criminality, Alex Bowden, in his review for road.cc’s sister site e-biketips, said: “Clearly there are specific issues which nebulous questioning and imprecise categorisation won’t do much to resolve.
“Maybe we’re biased but ‘What can we do about e-bikes?’ and ‘What can we do about illegal e-bikes?’ are not to us the same question.”
Meanwhile, the Bicycle Association (BA), the trade organisation representing 140 cycling companies in the UK, and the Association of Cycle Traders both lodged formal complaints with the BBC concerning Panorama’s coverage of e-bikes.
The Bicycle Association’s technical and policy director Peter Eland called on the BBC to “remove ‘E-bikes’ from the episode title and instead reference what the group terms ‘illegal e-motorbikes’,” and in future programming on the subject to “make it fully clear and properly inform the public that e-bikes and illegal e-motorbikes are two entirely separate categories”.
He also urged the broadcaster more generally to “provide proper balance when addressing contentious transport issues, including featuring representation by responsible organisations in the sector”.
According to the association, the Panorama episode “repeatedly conflates the safety and social issues surrounding the use of illegal e-motorbikes with ‘e-bikes’ and fails to make it clear that these issues are overwhelmingly not caused by (road legal) e-bikes.”
This “misrepresentation”, the BA claimed, failed to properly inform the public of the current laws on e-bikes in the UK and has “unjustifiably damaged” the electric bike sector.
Jonathan Harrison, the director of the Association for Cycle Traders, also criticised the “division” the episode “tried to sow” and asked: “Does the hysteria match the actual harm caused?”
And now, independent bike shop owners are adding their voice to the industry’s chorus of disapproval, as Energise founder Ray Wookey lodged his own formal complaint and called on the BBC to “provide a more balance perspective” on the safety issues surrounding e-bikes in the future.
“While the programme intended to raise awareness about safety issues, I found the lack of representation from reputable and legitimate e-bike retailers troubling and potentially misleading,” the Croydon-based retailer, who has sold e-bikes to the Metropolitan Police during his 15 years in business, said in the complaint, titled ‘E-bikes are not illegal’.
“Naturally, the safety of road users is the most important thing, but highlighting danger should not involve the misrepresentation of an important and fast-growing sector.
“Up and down the UK, there are reputable retailers of electric bikes, many of which are independent, locally owned small businesses. Each of these establishments helps to increase the amount of healthy, eco-friendly travel in their communities through the sale of safe and legal products.
“By not including interviews with credible e-bike retailers or industry experts – and instead speaking to a so-called ‘e-bike collector’ – the programme failed to present balanced information. Such imbalance can unfairly influence public opinion and undermine the efforts of responsible retailers who prioritise safety, respectful riding, and adherence to the law.”
The complaint continued: “The negative portrayal of e-bikes without input from legitimate retailers may harm the industry, potentially affecting small businesses and employees reliant on this growing market.
“You may also like to consider that the majority of two-wheeled vehicles featured in the episode were in fact not e-bikes at all, but ‘unregistered e-motorbikes’ which have been mis-labelled as ‘e-bikes’, firstly by unscrupulous retailers and secondly by the programme itself.
“There were very few legitimate e-bikes shown on-screen, which again is an imbalance that will hurt trustworthy electric bike businesses.
“Repeated use of the phrase ‘illegal e-bikes’ is misleading and damaging. Using this phrasing, or similar, could persuade members of the public that all e-bikes are illegal, when in fact the problem is ‘unregistered e-mopeds’.
“Finding a wolf in sheep’s clothing should not be a reason to attack sheep. Call a wolf, a wolf, and call an unregistered e-motorbikes, an unregistered e-motorbikes.
“I kindly request that you consider these points and take steps to address the imbalance in future reporting. Providing a more balanced perspective, including input from reputable e-bike retailers, and using accurate language, will ensure a fair and informative presentation of the topic.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 3 sec ago
(The Post didn't seem to have all the pics - they are available on the council's news site here)....
- Spangly Shiny 13 min 8 sec ago
Except on the uphill bits; freehubs tend to be a bit quieter then.
- KDee 39 min 24 sec ago
I'm more interested in the Sonder with a "97mm" wheelbase...might have some toe overlap 😂
- chrisonabike 44 min 25 sec ago
Possibly some marketeers for whom "getting attention" is the only good, likely company director(s) who also see "no such thing as bad publicity"?...
- Hirsute 51 min 52 sec ago
We've all seen your speeds on upride.cc You know you need one , you're just in denial!! 😜
- Jaijai 1 hour 3 min ago
You couldn't get an uglier front end,it looks hideous
- ErnieC 1 hour 13 min ago
Agreed. Use Evo Zero and the transition is pretty quick.
- wtjs 1 hour 18 min ago
Obviously a Lancashire Constabulary outstation, where they train the police up for getting all reports into the bin as quickly as possible...
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 34 min ago
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/car-smashes-sports-direct-shop-9873279
- wtjs 1 hour 49 min ago
despite my having pimped the Brommie to some sort of modernity Good! You'll be able to show us a photo of these modernity and pimping mods, then?
Add new comment
34 comments
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz0lldd30xlo
Interestingly, this article is featured on the BBC site. I look forward to a coruscating episode of Panorama in which all EVs are judged on the basis of this incident.
This was just a really poor programme, as so much of the BBC's output across platforms now is. Chiles is a very average journo - his Guardian column usually reads like one of those "what I did in my holidays" essays we used to get forced to write in primary school. Serious factual stuff is totally beyond him.
The headline tells you everything you need to know about BBC bias.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gzppd0ejyo
Language is the tool of journalism and phrasing tells you all you need to know about the attitudes on view.
It doesn't coun't though, because they've put those little disavowal marks on it - the headline writer's equivalent of BOLAs.
They don't need new laws. They just need to enforce the laws they already have. If anything the laws need to be loosened. Why is the speed limited to 25 km per hour but in North America it is 32 km per hour?
If anything the laws need to be loosened
Oh no they don't!
Yeah! Also - I can carry around a machine gun * in much of the USA - what do you mean there are some silly regulations stopping me doing so here?
* Or even this fantastic revolving cannon, which legally is not even a "firearm" at all according to some laws there I am told (historic artefact - as long as you use black powder and don't use the original exploding ammo that is)? Obviously with a few helpers though!
I think it would make sense to have 32km/h. With so many roads switching to 20mph speed limits it would allow e-bikes to become part of the traffic, rather than still being seen as an obstacle. A large portion of my London commute is now on 20mph roads. If I'm on my normal bike it is fine (albeit with some speeding cars desperate to get past), but as soon as I'm on my electric you can sense the urgency to get past at any cost.
In America the e-bike can do 30mph can't they? Certainly when I was chatting with a policeman at the airport in Las Vegas he said his one did 30. I wouldn't suggest a need for that fast, but definitely 20 makes sense.
Class 1 and 2, 30 km/h (18.6 MPH), class 3 is 45 km/h (28 MPH.) I think class 1 at 30 km/h with pedal assist is fine, pretty comparable to what a fit amateur can do, although most people can't do that for a couple of hours like they can on an e-bike.
Im mostly against faster ebikes just for the sake of it but this in conjunction with a heavy information and enforcement campaign (against both rogue drivers and rogue cyclists) could be revolutionary. Needs some joined up thinking at National and Local level and the appropriate funding.
It should be done with 1 piece of legislation and plently of carrots and sticks for local councils to comply.
Im mostly against faster ebikes just for the sake of it
Whereas I, in contrast, am adamantly against faster ebikes just for the sake of it
We've all seen your speeds on upride.cc
You know you need one , you're just in denial!! 😜
I completely agree, even though I narrowly escaped death ( probably) in new York as there are thousands of lunatics on them. But for Europe and the UK where road bikes especially average over the 25 kph, that small rise to 32 kph might have the effect of attracting a lot of cyclists to assisted bikes, me included!
It might attract a lot of "cyclists" (e.g. the tiny fraction who already cycle for transport, plus maybe a few extra brave young
crimsthings).It will not attract a lot of people who now drive (the major transport mode beyond walking very short distances). Because for years they've been able to have quite capable electrically assisted pedal cycles, power-assisted up to 15.5mph anyway.
It will likely continue to piss off / scare people who are walking or wheeling and possibly some who are cycling without power assist (if little Johnny is going 8mph how will he/his mum feel when someone steams past at 18+?).
The above two are of course not so much to do with the properties of e-bicycles / low powered electric motorbikes. They are a consequence of the domination - by motoring - of public space, bureaucratic planning and regulation, the market and ultimately people's mental lists of "what we can do and with what tools".
Without changing that, all that happens is about the same number of cyclists can get to the next traffic light a bit faster, but are still experiencing fear and indeed casualties from motor traffic (and possibly slightly greater injuries from coming off at higher speeds).
People in the UK commonly report that "safety" is a major concern (e.g. not feeling safe around cars). I'm pretty confident that "now going faster with cars revving behind me" won't fix that. I don't think "going a bit faster with power" fixes "cycling is not convenient" either.
What would help to attract lots of new people to cycling is ... well, a whole range of measures *. Without doing that? Lots of cyclists are going to be avoiding the traffic on our "shared use" spaces - which are often rubbish e.g. where a council has just stuck a sign on an existing narrow footway. (If not just cycling on footways).
* Won't be easy - we need to provide genuine alternatives to driving at the same time as we reduce convenience for drivers. The first would be seriously improving public transport and building cycle parking (home and destinations) and infra (both have to be convenient relative to driving that journey). The latter - limiting permeability of residential areas to drivers (access-only, LTNs etc) and redirecting through-traffic away from town centres.
On infra - we need to address junction design [a] , separate the motor vehicles from cyclists where speeds are above say 20mph and seriously reduce the numbers of motor vehicles in places it's appropriate to have lower speed limits (residential areas) [1] [2] [3].
I have not needed a tv license for 32 years, I'm afraid the quality of BBC journalism is virtually rock bottom.
As for BBC verify ! Ha ha ha
There's a lot of focus on Panorama which is a bit nebulous.
Adrian Chiles is an extremely highly paid journalist so why isn't he being held accountable for seemingly failing to understand very basic legal concepts and presenting them accordingly / with appropriate balance?
Because Chiles is, I imagine, just the face. He wouldn't have had any input on the words he is speaking.
He's a journalist. The journalist presenter always gets input on Panorama - that's the whole point of it.
Panaroma is supposed to the the number one flagship programme for investigative journalism of the BBC, one of the biggest media organisations in the world. It is supposed to be doing fearless, challenging, important yet rigourously researched investigative journalism, which helps us as a democracy and as a society.
The fact that they cannot get basic facts right, things that can be discovered in a 30 second internet search, is simply shameful. Panorama needs a reboot. Zero clickbait, more journalism.
They also failed to address the inconsistancy amost Police forces in dealing with the problem. In Leeds for example they are never challenged, I have complained to Police and our Deputy Mayor to ask why with no response, so we have lots of these modified vehicles running red lights, speeding, without lights at night, probably no insurance, ignoring all traffic signs, all mainly in the name of delivering food, but also in the Ward where I live they are also known to be used to deliver drug. I often see on Social Media other forces showing these vehicles on transporters after being taken off the road, they also then find other offences like no business insurance, no licence, imigration offences so why the incinsistancy? no one seems to want to answer.
In Leeds for example they are never challenged
I can't exactly say that, but there are loads about in Preston and Blackpool where they could be easily picked up were it not for Lancashire's proud 'No Traffic Policing here!' boast. Noticeably different in Lancaster, but I saw one there a couple of days ago. Note obligatory hood and mask uniform.
Great that yet another interested party has complained about the travesty of a programme. This could be the most complained about prog for years!
"....the programme offered a “negative portrayal” of electric bikes...."
The BBC has a firm, but unwritten policy: no other mode of transport will be promoted except cars: every other mode of transport apart from cars will be endlessly criticised, especially cycling, no matter that the benefits are gigantic and obvious.
When the BBC cant do basic fact checking for its documentaries you know it is not fit for purpose.
Has the BBC actually responded to any of these complaints yet?
I submitted mine on 9/1/2025. In their reply they said that their "normal aim at this stage is to reply within 10 working days (two weeks)." and that "sometimes it may take us longer. If we think that will be the case here, we'll try to let you know in advance.".
I haven't heard back yet but then I'm not expecting anything until the 23rd, and even then I'm only expecting them to say that there was nothing wrong with the programme and it adhered to all the BBC's editorial guidelines and standards.
They have had a reply, you can read it further down in the article.
https://bicycleassociation.org.uk/news/press-release/60/60-BA-complains-...
So the BBC's main argument is essentially other people aren't always clear, and it's not the BBC's job to do better.
The point regarding Lime bikes is valid to some extent (i.e. they are lawful EAPCs) but (as I understand it) the problem with Lime bikes is they can be easily "hacked" and then ridden by anyone, completely free and with none of the accountability that comes with being a registered user hiring the bike through the app. I haven't actually seen the programme (don't have a TV licence) but I presume that wasn't made clear either?
An extraordinary point to make in an investigative journalism programme - imagine if they did that for a Panorama programme on, say, massive banking fraud. "Well, we spoke to the bloke in the bank who said it was all totally legit, so that's fine then".
Thanks - that's interesting. A totally rubbish reply from the BBC, but interesting.
From the response:
"Throughout the programme, contributors outlined both positive and negative aspects of e-bikes." Probably over 90% negative.
"Viewers will have heard that e-bikes (in their various forms) are beneficial for the environment, convenient for users and often fun to ride." Not from the BBC they wouldn't.
"This is not misrepresentation or inaccuracy, and we therefore felt it was justified to use a range of footage of different e-bikes both road legal and illegal throughout the film." Oh yes it was misrepresentation, especially when the BBC has never (AFAIK) had any programmes about how great ebikes are. The illegal bikes predominated by a large margin.
"We believe that all of our interviewees were appropriate and sufficiently well informed." You've got to be kidding me! Nobody from CUK or BA.
"This programme was not an attack on the e-bike industry or e-biking in general and we were not obliged to interview someone from the industry in order to achieve “fair balance.”" It most certainly was an attack on ebikes, and it could only be described as not an attack if the BBC had had lots of other programmes promoting ebikes. No? Case proven. The "fair balance" thing is just hilarious.
"We think the programme featured lots of positive comments about e-bikes." I didn't count them, but I don't think I'd have needed all the fingers on one hand.
"There is widespread confusion about e-bikes." Which that programme made worse.
And finally:
"Thank you for taking the time to write to us and we hope that this addresses the issues you have raised."
Pages