- 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
- 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
- The_Ewan 8 min 28 sec ago
And, based on this, that does seem to be very much the point being made by the LCC and others on the 'pro cycling' side of this argument. The...
- RobD 14 min 38 sec ago
Isn't the simple solution to this to make the speed limit on the road 20mph (or less). For any schemes where people object to active travel...
- alvinlwh 20 min 2 sec ago
Surely they are committed by the poor people that wanted to ride but cannot afford to do so?
- NotNigel 17 min 1 sec ago
I've just read it....care to tell us your version of events....after a years worth of stewing?
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 51 sec ago
That kind of driver attitude really snaps my cranks. It's typically a topic that they know almost nothing about as they don't cycle, but for some...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 15 min ago
Yaxley-Lennon has written a book! Admittedly the absence of anything approaching a polysyllable makes it somewhat dull reading, but he's sure it's...
- Cayo 1 hour 34 min ago
Flippin' cars, they're a menace to society! 🙄
- chrisonabike 2 hours 34 min ago
Yes... all this is good. And I agree that the Cycle to Work scheme is ... wonky, and has massive gaps....
- NPlus1Bikelights 3 hours 27 min ago
You just hamster them, one in each cheek.
- FionaJJ 3 hours 43 min ago
Notable that one of the big objections was that the pedestrian crossing would inconvenience drivers, and lead to them (through no fault of their...
Add new comment
32 comments
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
Compare with the frame shown above...
The pedestrian appears to deliberately reach out to catch the handlebar to make the rider come off. I've been tempted to do the same myself a few times. I'm not condoning the rider by any means, but I don't think this video shows what we are being led to believe - that he crashed into the pedestrian and fell off as a result. It seems pretty clear that the pedestrian played a more active and calculated role.
It looks like the pedestrian caused the crash to me. I don't know where that leaves them legally if they had injured themselves, the rider, or the rider had ended up sliding into someone else and injuring them.
Walesonline reports:
That has a "he ran into my fist" sort of ring to it. I can fully empathise with the pedestrian, I've had exactly the same impulse in similar circumstances. But I do believe he deliberately caused the crash.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teenage-biker-hits-pedestr...
I don't think there's compelling evidence to say it was the pedestrian's intention to cause the rider to fall. In that scenario, a momentary gesture, or even the perception of one by the rider travelling towards the pedestrian at pace - a twitch, a look, a drop of the shoulder - could easily have triggered a reflexive reaction. In contrast, the rider's behaviour seems clearly calculated aggression.
So are you saying it was a bit like the Auriol Grey scenario...? That the pedestrian was scared and reflexively lashed out at the person on two wheels but definitely never intended or envisioned that they might fall off...?
Not really, for reasons pointed out in others' comments.
I didn't suggest anything was "definitely never intended or envisioned". The point of my comment was that I don't believe there is compelling evidence as to intent or otherwise (others are asserting there was).
It's like when cars close pass - if you can touch them, then they're too close. I must admit to not having any sympathy for the bike rider and hopefully they've learnt an important lesson.
The rider was too close, no doubt about it. But the BBC says he collided with/crashes into the pedestrian. That part was engineered by the pedestrian.
Blimey, given Wales Online's normal anti-cyclist bias, that is quite impressive. It only refers to the chav's bike as a "motorbike".
I think you're probably correct that the pedestrian caused the chav to fall off his (illegal) bike but, given that said chav seems to be a disgusting POS with an extensive criminal record, I'm not losing much sleep over it.
You prompted me to Google him... POS is generous. Fingers crossed he's deported.
www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wannabe-gangster-poses-group-maske...
It's an interesting one this. I do think there are 'shades of Auriol Grey' to it.
The location looks to be here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dSssfk6dZMtivTfm7
It's a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am. The timestamp on the video is 16:55, so a pedestrian might expect vehicles to be using that street around the time of the incident.
Now, clearly this is an illegal motorbike being driven carelessly (if not dangerously), due to the excessive speed. The risks are orders of magnitude greater than a cyclist riding carefully on a shared pavement (or regular pavement). There is a line where force can be used to prevent a crime from occuring, but it's questionable whether this meets that bar.
If this pedestrian did deliberately knock the rider off their bike and the rider was very seriously injured or killed, then was that use of force proportionate? We would only find out if it had gone to court, but I suspect the pedestrian could have been in a whole heap of trouble.
There's a clear difference between this and Auriol Grey though in that Auriol moved towards her victim in order to remonstrate/assault, whereas this instance doesn't show that kind of deliberate aggression.
Personally, I think that if someone is close enough that merely lifting your hand up causes contact, then they're within your personal space and shouldn't be travelling at speed as that's clearly dangerous (to themselves by the look of things).
Which is the argument used on here a lot, that if your car was close enough for me to touch it then you were driving too close!
It did go to court. And you may be right about the ramifications. I was not trying to establish the legal outcomes, but only what actually happened. Specifically, did the pedestrian reach out to catch the handlebars, or did the rider hit the pedestrian unassisted?
It looks to me as if the pedestrian deliberately knocked the rider off, but it's difficult to say for sure. What we can see from the streetview, is the pedestrian would have been able to see the rider coming from quite some distance, as the road is quite straight.
As pointed out by jh2727, vehicles can be expected on this road from 5pm and loading/disabled vehicles prior to this time, so it's not exclusively pedestrianised. Add to that the wet conditions, with a covered walkway available to the pedestrians left side and I do wonder why this pedestrian was walking in the road - they didn't appear to be crossing the street.
Seeing some footage a few seconds prior would be interesting, to see if the pedestrian moved from the pavement into the road; a deliberate action in order to obstruct the rider perhaps? They could have seen them coming from some way off.
The hand behind the back is perhaps telling too - almost like they were primed to lash out. I guess this wasn't probed too much, as it was the rider being prosecuted, not the pedestrian.
Irrespective of the actions of the pedestrian, it was dangerous driving.
Google streetview for that area is about 13 years old, but if it's still the same restrictions, it isn't "a pedestrianised street that allows motorised vehicles for loading and disabled access, overnight between 5pm and 10:30am"
It is a pedestrianised street between 10:30am and 5pm, Monday to Saturday, where loading and disabled access are permitted at all times. Before 10:30am, after 5pm and all day on Sunday, there are no restrictions.
*edit - the Streetview photos which show the signage are newer - from 2022.
*edit2 - not that this in anyway legitimises riding an unlicensed motorbike there, at anytime.
Pages