Summary of complaint
We received complaints about the accuracy and tone of this programme.
Our response
This programme explored the growing use of e-bikes on Britain鈥檚 roads and whether towns and cities have adapted sufficiently. Throughout the programme, contributors outlined both positive and negative aspects of e-bikes. We showed that e-bikes (in their various forms) are beneficial for the environment, convenient for users and often fun to ride.
We felt it was important to look at illegal e-bikes in the episode due to a growing concern from councils, police forces and citizens about "e-bikes" of every form, not only those known as Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPCs). Some viewers thought we conflated different types of e-bikes, modified bikes, e-mopeds, and e-motorcycles, by using the terms 鈥渆-bike鈥 or 鈥渋llegal e-bike鈥 throughout the film. Our commentary made clear that there are various forms of e-bike which are available to buy across the UK 鈥 including with a tax break on the cycle-to-work scheme.
To the public and to all intents and purposes, e-bikes and those bikes which do not conform to EAPC regulations are indistinguishable: two-wheeled vehicles with an electric battery-powered motor and having the same or similar physical appearance to a bicycle. The former is governed by restrictions which are dealt with in the programme.
The term e-bike is used for a wide range of products, not all adhering to UK law. The government states: "There are many products known as 鈥榚-bikes鈥 or 鈥榚-cycles鈥 available on the market. However, not all of these are classified as EAPCs." Moreover, the police use the term "e-bike" to describe both legal e-bikes and illegal e-bikes. Forces across the UK rarely use the descriptor "e-moped" or "e-motorcycle" but instead prefer to use the term "illegal e-bike" when discussing non-EAPC regulation e-bikes. In order to accurately reflect the information given to us by these forces, we felt it was appropriate to take a similar approach, and felt it was justified to use a range of footage of different road legal e-bikes and illegal e-bikes throughout the film.
Concerning the law about the power of an e-bike motor, the government guidelines state that EAPCs "must have a maximum power output of 250 watts鈥 and bikes should be labelled as such. This means that the continuous rated power should be no more than 250 watts. While there are circumstances when an e-bike鈥檚 power output might briefly exceed the 250 watt rate in a surge, that鈥檚 not what the law is designed to stop. Therefore we feel the commentary in the programme was accurate.
This is also the case regarding the throttles on e-bikes, where we stated that the "motor should only work while you鈥檙e pedalling, not by pressing a button.鈥 The UK law allows for "walk assistance" for up to 6 km/h but it is possible to get an e-bike reclassified via the DVSA as an e-moped and then use a throttle when not pedalling. This presents difficulty for police and councils who have to work out which e-bikes have been reclassified as e-mopeds.
Some viewers felt the programme was too negative about e-bikes. However we believe it was fair and impartial and from the outset was clearly not an attack on the e-bike industry but an examination of how the huge rise in their use has impacted our towns and cities. The programme featured a range of views, many of them positive about e-bikes. For example, a Londoner talking about how he loved to use them to get around the city; Sushila Dhall referred to their positive impact on the environment; and Dr Alex Nurse explained their convenience. Adrian Chiles as the reporter was open-minded about e-bikes and showed viewers how easily you can use an e-bike as he rode across London. He later tried some other types of e-bikes and found it a positive experience. He was curious about their impact on his home city of Birmingham, but ultimately concluded in the programme that e-bikes are a 鈥済ood thing鈥 and he can 鈥渟ee their value.鈥