You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
razorrazoo
Full Member
Will they ever learn?Is it that hard to not call a Suron an e-bike?
Does me head in too but the media in general are pretty tardy with pointing out the real distinctions here. It's one of the many areas where the public would be better served by being educated as to the differences but it's not really happening yet.
Ironic - they rail about e-bikes, post pictures of e-motorcycles, then explain the difference between e-bikes and e-motorcycles.
Just sent this over - tired of the inaccurate demonisation of "e-bikes" by the BBC.
Dear BBC News,
I am emailing to report a factual error in this online article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981d8n7452o
The headline and article mentions e-bikes, but the vehicles shown in the video and photos are not classified as e-bikes under UK law. The vehicles shown in the article are motorbikes or mopeds since they are not electrically-assisted pedal cycles ( https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules). Sur-ron dirt bikes are illegal to ride on public roads unless the bike has a license plate, lights, mirrors, and a horn, and the rider has a CBT license and insurance.
I feel this is important to clarify, because the terminology in the article does not match the images that are shown. This could lead a reader to coming away with a false conclusion about legal e-bikes, which I see as a positive invention for health and confronting the climate crisis. I agree that electric motorcycles which are being illegally and recklessly ridden on public roads are a menace and I wish the article was clearer at describing this accurately.
Halfway down the article, I see some attempt to clarify the use of the term "electric powered bike" but I don't think these sentences are sufficient to clear up the confusion created in the rest of the article.
I note that a correction was made recently on the following video, which originally mentioned an e-bike rider, but which has been correctly edited to "electric motorcycle rider": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/crlry1rd9w3o
Kind regards,
Hate to say I told you so (clearly a smug lie), but some of us 'anti' types did try to warn everyone with a Lob-on for motors on bicycles, that the muggles would conflate e-bikes and e-motos several years ago.
TBH the sort of nuance you want from the press when writing about these things just ain't there, and there's no appetite for it either.
Like it or not the great unwashed will pretty soon see no difference between scrotes wheelying their Surrons into toddlers faces, Gig economy slaves risking life and limb on a modified BSO and Tubby IT managers on their £10k E-go chariots (plus us hold outs on unassisted bicycles too probably).
The lazily written narrative has been established now, good luck correcting the record with every national and regional rag/website/broadcaster...
I wonder whether it's an ignorance or malice thing, is it just a journalist on a deadline who doesn't understand the difference? Or do they deliberately muddy the waters as they know it will create engagement? Really poor from the BBC, last time other media outlets including local news and the DM got the terminology correct.
Like it or not the great unwashed will pretty soon see no difference between scrotes wheelying their Surrons into toddlers faces, Gig economy slaves risking life and limb on a modified BSO and Tubby IT managers on their £10k E-go chariots (plus us hold outs on unassisted bicycles too probably).
Must be nice to be so perfect and in the only demographic that doesn’t warrant name calling, stereotyping or being sneered at in some way or another. Well done you. You must be so pleased with yourself.
is it just a journalist on a deadline who doesn’t understand the difference?
Probably. Most people don't really care sabot the difference. It is a bike related vehicle so bad and the users are bad and shouldn't be on the road. Pretty sure the average person who is not remotely interested in bikes wouldn't know or spot the difference between a hybrid, an MTB, an eMTB etc,.
Must be nice to be so perfect and in the only demographic that doesn’t warrant name calling, stereotyping or being sneered at in some way or another. Well done you. You must be so pleased with yourself.
I think that post may have been tongue in cheek?
Although there is a perception by a segment of our population that actually thinks those things. I never witness, both IRL and online, any other "group" that illicits hostility quite so frequently as cyclists.
The weird part for me, is its more common to see "Scotes on Surrons riding illegally" excused as kids having fun, and cyclists not excused, particularly if the cyclist is choosing not to use a glass infested pavement with a hastily scrawled image of a cyclist on it.
Really poor from the BBC
I would be unsurprised if content like that described was bot-written content with limited journalistic supervision. The BBC are not alone in having a low bar for accuracy.
Dear BBC, I’m sorry I referred to ‘license plates’ in my recent email, but I forgot that we’re not yet part of the USA. (smiley tongue in cheek emoji).
The problem is that there is no difference between the scrotes on "Surons" , exploited delivery workers on lashed up death traps and middle class professionals who think they are special and alter their ebikes to go faster. Legally, I can see no difference they should all be registered, taxed and insured and the rider should have an appropriate license.
Neither 'e-bikes' or 'e-motorbikes' are sentient. (yet)
The article is about the behaviour of the people riding the bikes which would he the same issue if they were on penny farthings or hoverboards.
Middle-aged men riding in circles from forest carparks aren't going to get confused or conflated with the people and actions discussed in the article
Or middle aged men commuting on chipped ebikes on cyclepaths and tow paths?
What's the difference?
You know that as Cyclists/MTBers we're hated anyway by Joe Public, this won't make things any better or worse, we're all viewed with the same levels of derision anyway.
Have they changed it? Headlone now says e-motorbikes, whereas under the photo of an “e-motorbike”, it says “e-bikes”. Journalism ain’t what it used to be.
Yes, it's been changed now, an editor has got their hands on the 'find and replace' function.
We've been through this before. We still refer to particular kinds of motorbikes as mopeds, despite them not having had pedals for probably more than half a century. Something tells me the term will stick.
Is also part of the reason you fear for life in Amsterdam cycle lanes when 'mopeds' come flying past at 40mph.
I think the e-bike thing is out of the bag now basically because just the word "bike" is conflated between both motorcycle & bicycle anyway.
If I tell someone that I got there by "bike" they'd have no clue if that was by pedal or motor, unless I was suitably attired or expanded to bicycle or motorbike.
I'm with you on the smugness of anticipating this issue about 8 years ago....
You know that as Cyclists/MTBers we’re hated anyway by Joe Public,
A bloke I work with literally blanks me when I'm on my bike, he's walking,
There again by his own admittance he's a special case, with which nobody disagrees.
If you read further down the article, they're getting it wrong the opposite way round!
Road Traffic Wales has said riders must understand that an e-motorbike motor should have a maximum power output of 250 watts with a top speed of 15.5mph (25km/h). It said that if an e-motorbike goes faster than this, it could not be legally ridden on roads.
Middle-aged men riding in circles from forest carparks aren’t going to get confused or conflated with the people and actions discussed in the article
This. While I see the issues with lumping all the fire risk junk and tested stuff together, the BBC and public use of the term, while not good, isn't a big problem imo.
The public and media can't tell the difference between an e-motox and an e-bike like they can't tell the difference between an e-bike commuter and a non-e commuter as it passes them. What they all tell the difference between are dicks and not-dicks. That counts for anything on 2 wheels or 4.
Also worth knowing the Bicycle Association of the UK are doing a lot of work behind the scenes to challenge the accuracy of these reports and keep the rep of quality/safe e-bikes (that in legal terms and use are just bikes after all)
Obsessing about terminology like this is pointless imo. The term already conflates Surons etc. and genuine e-bikes in the public imagination. It's part of the language now, for better or worse. It might be lazy and inaccurate terminology, but it's too late to change it. You are well into "old man shouts at cloud" territory if you think it is. No one who isn't a fairly keen cyclist cares.
If you look at any press reporting about any hobby or activity you know something about, be it software design or beekeeping, you will find similar inaccuracies. These will grate on fellow initiates but no one else gives a shit. Life improves a tiny smidge if you let it go and don't lose any sleep over it.
You know that as Cyclists/MTBers we’re hated anyway by Joe Public, this won’t make things any better or worse, we’re all viewed with the same levels of derision anyway.
We really aren't, the majority of the public are fine, we focus on the bellends and give ourselves a huge persecution complex.
Obsessing about terminology like this is pointless imo.
While I agree that it will be very difficult to change at this point, I disagree that it is pointless.
There will undoubtedly be a ripple effect that works its way through our culture and laws for decades to come. It's quite important to have a hard line between what we define as a bicycle and what we define as a motor vehicle, and it's important to establish these definitions early.
When will we see a pedestrian killed by an unregistered e-motorcycle (i.e., adapted e-bike)? Look what happened last time a pedestrian was killed when a bike that fell foul of the law was involved. Riding in London yesterday was a bit of an eye opener. It is only a matter of time.
There’s a big of the Detectorists battling everyday parlance about this, isn’t there? Perhaps those involved with EAPCs in the UK would do well to choose a different term: in common usage e-bikes apparently includes Surrons, Harley Davidsons, and Frankenstein bicycle firebombs.
Road Traffic Wales has said riders must understand that an e-motorbike motor should have a maximum power output of 250 watts with a top speed of 15.5mph (25km/
Again we get the joke that pedelecs are limited to 250W. I wonder if with the ever increasing power of legal pedelecs the legislation will be changed so it's actually true? A lot of emtbers would be in for a rude shock at the massive drop in performance.
I must admit I can see why the BBC gets confused.
You would think that a motor bike would cost £1,000s more than an e-bike, but the really weird thing is you can buy an e-motorbike for £1000s less than an e-bike.
Doesnt make logical sense that a pedal bike would cost more than a motorbike.
Legally, I can see no difference they should all be registered, taxed and insured and the rider should have an appropriate license.
Knee-jerk reactions aside (because those most in need of regulation will just ignore it) there's probably an argument for requiring all road users to have some form of insurance. Whether you're on an electric motorbike, a scooter, a BMX or a horse, you have the capacity to hurt someone.
The article is about the behaviour of the people riding the bikes which would he the same issue if they were on penny farthings or hoverboards.
"Guns don't kill people"?
The term already conflates Surons etc. and genuine e-bikes
I'd imagine that outside of this forum, most people think that's the bad guy in Lord of the Rings. Literally the only time I've ever come across the brand name is on here, I had to google what you were all talking about.
Jeez, it'd be a change if cyclists could stop being so judgy and damning of other cyclists and leave it to the anti -cycling brigade.
I agree that it's bloody annoying that pedalelecs are conflated with electric motorbikes, but as someone who uses a legal 'Frankenstein firebomb' (old hardtail with a 250w tongsheng kit) due to disability, and can't afford thousands for one that's deemed acceptable , it wears a bit thin to feel slated by those who were fellow 'proper' cyclists not so long ago.
I think as usual the actual issue is people riding about like dicks, which is seen on all types of bike from the original single speeders couriers up to those trying to make a living on currently illegal powered bikes. I've never had an issue using mine, even when passing police on the pavement due to traffic levels, because I ride appropriately.
But the current legal situation with electric bikes/scooters/motorbikes definitely needs addressing in a realistic way.
Must be nice to be so perfect and in the only demographic that doesn’t warrant name calling, stereotyping or being sneered at in some way or another. Well done you. You must be so pleased with yourself.
It is honestly Fantastic being me, feel free to bask in the glow of my interweb witterings 😉
If I tell someone that I got there by “bike” they’d have no clue if that was by pedal or motor, unless I was suitably attired or expanded to bicycle or motorbike.
^this^ it's not uncommon for people to need to clarify what I mean by "bike" when just chatting. A 'bike' is a form of transport with two wheels, all the subsets and power sources are just trivia to the majority of people who generally get about in cars or maybe by bus or foot sometimes...
The point I was making before (lost in the perceived snark I think) was that the 'terminological battle' is already lost (as evidenced by the repeated mis-labelling of E-motos in various news sources), meaning public opinion has also now turned against anything described as an "E-bike" and their users.
Perhaps we should just start calling them 'Bicycles' again and not mention the leccy assistance bit unless specifically asked?
Obsessing about terminology like this is pointless...
I kind of is now yeah, the narrative is pretty much established. Those with "Domain knowledge" can (and do) get wound up, but to most normal people it's irrelevant, a two wheeled vehicle with a leccy motor is an "E-bike" and those are all used to kill baby robins, mow down Grannies and transport smack around deprived housing estates FACT!
Just get used to being the bad guys 🙂
I agree that it’s bloody annoying that pedalelecs are conflated with electric motorbikes, but as someone who uses a legal ‘Frankenstein firebomb’ (old hardtail with a 250w tongsheng kit) due to disability, and can’t afford thousands for one that’s deemed acceptable , it wears a bit thin to feel slated by those who were fellow ‘proper’ cyclists not so long ago.
I think the complaint is that the BBC is not making that distinction, a distinction that people on here DO make. Not one of the pictures in the article looks like your bike.
the narrative is pretty much established.
I don't think it is. Ask most people and they don't really know what an ebike is or how it works. If it comes up in conversation they start asking questions out of curiosity. Ultimately I think it's this lack of awareness that leads to articles like this, and it's not because there's an established narrative, but because we lack one. Each of these articles do play a part in establishing the narrative though, which is why it's important to call it out.
Obsessing about terminology like this is pointless imo.
Its important since otherwise people start demanding a crackdown on cyclists. A good example is Iain Duncan Smith who is demanding new laws for dangerous cyclists whilst talking about e-motorbike users.
We dont need new laws for them. We just need the existing ones enforcing.
Neither ‘e-bikes’ or ‘e-motorbikes’ are sentient.
Oh dear the curse of pointing out grammar mistakes strikes again! Neither. . . nor . .
I expect that I have also made an error of grammar too but that's normal for this forum and user!
We dont need new laws for them. We just need the existing ones enforcing.
Very much ^^this^^. more laws/rules will change nothing, the tools to address the current issues already exist, they are simply not being used...
A gift to the all bikes are evil lot, I've had dogs abuse for motorcycling when on a Galaxy. There are some dim lights out there. Anyway off topic, my day was enlivened by a fully masked up ned swearing at his non responding Suron outside Linksview House (big tower block) in Leith today. More serious was the sheer numbers of obviously not pedal assisted bikes being used by delivery drivers but the star of the show was an old fashioned ICE motorbike being driven up Leith Walk - on the pavement.
Take care out there.
I’ve never had an issue using mine, even when passing police on the pavement due to traffic levels, because I ride appropriately.
The word you're looking for at the end there is "illegally."
But the current legal situation with electric bikes/scooters/motorbikes definitely needs addressing in a realistic way.
IMHO the only issue is that the current laws aren’t being enforced.
The situation with scooters is an odd one but the law is pretty clear you can rent and ride but not own and ride.
Plenty of people go thru the hassle to get cbts/training/tests,licences,insurance,mots and tax for the right to ride two wheels without peddling at a speed higher than that for a legal ebike that requires non of these things.
The word you’re looking for at the end there is “illegally.”
But then that doesn't make any sense does it? "I've never had a issue even passing police because I ride illegally".
I'm also a fan of riding on the pavement and pedestrianized areas at appropriate speed, slowing for pedestrians, giving them space, holding back or waiting patiently if necessary. It massively reduces the amount of stress I have to deal with at the end of my commute into town and the start of my commute out of town, I can relax cooling down or warming up. I'm out of the way of impatient car drivers. I don't have to sit at the traffic lights for two minutes after getting on my bike in the freezing pissing rain in winter.
However it only reduces my stress if the 'illegal' riding on the pavement/pedestrianized area is not busy, too many people I'd rather ride in the road with the cars.
Sorry bit off topic, I don't even ride an e-bike or electric motorbike.
TBH riding on the pavement is a little bit more nuanced than people seem to think (and seems to have got more draconian as times moved on.)
In 1999, the government made cycling on the pavement a fixed penalty offence. At the time, the government said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
“Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road. Sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
Cyclists on the pavement can face fines of up to £500. But this rule doesn’t tend to be enforced by many police forces. In the majority of cases when a fine is actually issued, cyclists will have to pay around £50.
In 2014, cycling minister Robert Goodwill said that police officers should use their discretion when it comes to prosecuting cyclists on the pavement. If a cyclist is seen to be considerate of other road users while on the pavement, police officers will typically avoid fining them in most cases, instead choosing to point out the dangers of cycling on the pavement – to them and pedestrians.
But then that doesn’t make any sense does it? “I’ve never had a issue even passing police because I ride illegally”.
I mean, Shrug Emoji. Whether it makes sense or not, or whether it's being enforced or not, doesn't change the law. I know that the vast majority of police forces don't enforce 20mph zones, is that fair game for me to drive through at 30 so long as I'm watching out for pedestrians?
I’m also a fan of riding on the pavement and pedestrianized areas at appropriate speed, slowing for pedestrians, giving them space, holding back or waiting patiently if necessary. It massively reduces the amount of stress I have to deal with
Well, that's alright then, as long as your stress is reduced. Meanwhile, over on Pistonheads, Mumsnet and [insert non-cycling forum du jour here] everyone is wailing about how cyclists ride on pavements, run red lights, pile across pedestrian crossings without looking, etc etc etc... You might well be courteous but it does us no favours.
I'm playing devil's advocate of course. If I had a child with me - a likely premise in my semi-near future - I'd have them riding on the pavement as well. But I wouldn't be boasting about it, I'd want them road-aware as soon as was practical.
Think I'll pass on living my life in accordance to what people on pistonheads and mumsnet think ffs!
I wasn't boasting about it, I just dislike the 'it's illegal' black & white thinking, trying to show that we're not all assholes, that it's - the law - is nuanced just as dudeofdoom points out.
Well, that’s alright then, as long as your stress is reduced. Meanwhile, over on Pistonheads, Mumsnet and [insert non-cycling forum du jour here] everyone is wailing about how cyclists ride on pavements, run red lights, pile across pedestrian crossings without looking, etc etc etc… You might well be courteous but it does us no favours.
It’s always a funny one, perceived vs actual risk.
They will wail against something that in reality cause 4’ish deaths a year versus something that’s causing roughly the same every day.
Although I bang on about the law in reality I’m not that bothered about e-bikes/scooters and people riding on the pavement , the problem is that people can’t help themselves being dicks you just can’t rely on people being ‘sensible’ so have to enforce stuff over all of us.
Cyclists are just the target of so much hate because people can’t moan anymore about peoples/colour/sex/nationality or sexual orientation and some people seem unhappy when they can’t complain/hate about someone in a conversation.
Nothing you do can do is going to do us any favours and in reality we are not an ‘us’ and that is part of the problem.
We have to be perceived as ‘them’ but on a bike that day 🙂
I'm with sirromj on this one. Living in a semi-rural area, pavements were the only thing that enabled me to travel between towns growing up. I still use them occasionally now, and almost exclusively with child in tow (I don't care how much road awareness they have, it's the awareness from other road users that worries me).
The important thing is that we all get to live another day, and in my experience the vast majority of people understand that and have no issues with people riding responsibly on pavements. In fact I think they often see those on the pavements as more human, somebody like themselves.
I will keep parroting this, but I firmly believe pandering to these arguments, and categorising ourselves into groups, or more specifically, a group that includes vehicles weighing several tonnes and capable of speeds well in excess of 100mph, is more damaging than not. It's already pretty well understood by all that we don't have the infrastructure to support cycling, so a little compromise and common sense is often seen as perfectly acceptable. Let's not change that. At the end of the day, we're WAY closer to pedestrians on the scale, yet we seem intent on dangerously placing ourselves on the other far side next to most motor vehicles, abiding by all the same rules, when in actual fact we have virtually nothing in common and present none of the dangers those rules were designed to alleviate. Rules that put us in danger. It makes no sense to keep reaffirming that position.
And it does all come back to this whole issue of ebikes and electric motorbikes, because that's where the boundaries easily get blurred, making these arguments all the more difficult.
TBH I don’t see an issue with ebikes and electric motorbikes they are all regulated and the laws are in place.
I do see an issue with the media’s click bait approach to it,lazy reporting and pandering to peoples fears and serving up what they want to hear.
You do have a good point on where we are betwixt pedestrians and cars thou and forcing us to play alongside vehicles that totally outclass us in weight/speed and risk to pedestrians is bad.
Ironically surrons are may possibly more risky to the riders, (who aren’t into helmets and prefer the stylish wearing of balaclava).
(It’s a guess as I’m not currently sure if the details would be recorded and I can only go by scrotes bouncing off buses)
Work colleague's grandson in West Yorkshire took out his dad's Sur-ron a couple of weeks ago (wearing a balaclava, obvs) and managed to put his head through a lady's car side window. Insurance, what insurance? Rather than expressing concern I said I hoped he'd managed to get rid of his drugs stash before the police arrived, but it turned out that was superceded by events - while he was sitting on the pavement holding his face together, two Asian lads nicked the E-motorbike and razzed off on it....
Most people don’t really care sabot the difference
Would you, if the shoe was on the other foot.
TBH riding on the pavement is a little bit more nuanced than people seem to think (and seems to have got more draconian as times moved on.)
Hmmm, I think people cycle on pavements as much as they ever did, the difference now is perhaps that we have electrically powered personal vehicles operating well outside of the rules that exist to regulate them.
I have actually been stopped by the police for riding a bicycle on the pavement, as a teenager, it would have been circa 1996/97ish, waiting at a crossing on a stretch of tree lined 'pavement' (the same width as a road) in the not very busy town I grew up in. It was clearly a slow day, and the cops parked their car across the crossing/junction to bollocks me and demand a name and address (that they didn't actually write down). It's always stuck with me as an event because even to teenage dickhead me, they were so clearly off the deep end stopping a kid who was doing no harm, and using a crossing/pavement rather than just darting across the road.
Fast forward to now though and I would kind of like some judgement exercised in that same location, bicycles IMO still OK, surron or privately owned e-scooter, I think I would want them to stop. You might consider that a double standard (perhaps it is) but the potential for harm from various types of twist 'n' go 'personal E-Transport' to pedestrians is greater (IMO)...
To me the police have demonstrated that they can be zealous (often over) in their application of all kinds of laws they already have, when it suits them. But right now, I get the feeling that they either don't care or are so bewildered by recent changes in available technologies and products that they aren't even bothering...
To me the police have demonstrated that they can be zealous (often over) in their application of all kinds of laws they already have, when it suits them. But right now, I get the feeling that they either don’t care or are so bewildered by recent changes in available technologies and products that they aren’t even bothering
Or at present there isn't a political will to push the under resourced services into yet another focus. No longer forces but services no longer proactive but reactive. You know who to blame for this situation and it wears a suit not a uniform.
Is the ethnicity of the thieves pertinent here? What about your colleague’s grandson’s skin colour? You forgot to mention it.
Is the gender of the thieves pertinent here? In your haste to accuse someone of implied racism you forgot to mention the implied sexism in highlighting that they were lads.
Hmmm, I think people cycle on pavements as much as they ever did, the difference now is perhaps that we have electrically powered personal vehicles operating well outside of the rules that exist to regulate them.
The rules exist, they're just misunderstood or ignored and largely unenforced.
the police .... either don’t care or are so bewildered by recent changes in available technologies and products that they aren’t even bothering…
At work the other day I discovered one of the versions of trading standards in partnership with the county council had ended and the associated logos, now outdated, had become criminal to use, and it mentioned something vague about police enforcement. Tickled me to imagine police out on the beat looking making sure logos on the sides of trader's vans were kosher. Possibly a factor!
It’s pretty easy to police. Riding without a helmet, but wearing a face covering? Not pedalling but the “bike” is moving at a rate of knots. Illegal. Crush it. Find me one example where the above two phenotypic descriptors do not hold. The correlation I have seen is remarkable.
And I’ve seen people riding electric bikes without helmets, and they pedal, not normally feeling the need to cover their faces. But I’ve seldom seen non-pedalling riders wearing helmets as the converse. Makes you think.
It’s pretty easy to police.
Well, you've got to catch the bastards first. It sounds easy sure, but the first whiff of hot fuzz and they'll be off down a ginnel like a ferret up a Northerner's pants.
Illegal. Crush it.
Presumably the same approach will apply to our proud pavement riders on here, and to me when I get a 3-year old on a balance bike?
You know who to blame for this situation and it wears a suit not a uniform.
I reckon it's more like a bit from column 'A' a bit from column 'B' really. Politicians and police are as fallible as any other Humans and as prone to taking their queues from "public opinions" which in turn are generally influenced by whatever is published in the media. Which of course gets us back to the beginning of the thread. Media narratives, leading public perceptions and lazy journalism, lacking in detail and nuance.
My trust of the Police's ability to correctly and proportionately act in a given situation is about on par with my estimation of a politician's capacity to put the public good ahead of their own advancement... You can't assume the worst of them all, but the bad apples aren't as rare as they should be.
Agreed that police resources are as lacking as many other public services, and choices have to be made, but it feels like road safety has been on the back burner for a solid couple of decades now...
@Cougar. I reckon that you know that I was making the point that there was no (apparent to me) reason to state the ethnicity of the thieves in this situation (a comment on a mostly MTB-based website). It is surely entirely irrelevant but maybe I'm wrong.
I was in Southampton the other day going across a toll bridge. A person was riding one of those very fat bike looking e motorbikes and flying along up hill without pedalling while a police car drove right by them. I would say that is just blatantly ignoring the crime in that case.
A person was riding one of those very fat bike looking e motorbikes and flying along up hill without pedalling while a police car drove right by them. I would say that is just blatantly ignoring the crime in that case.
It's hardly surprising that it's ignored. The officers decide to try and stop them, the scrote speeds off and injures/kills themselves or someone else, and the officer is then suspended and dragged through the courts by people looking to blame them.
18 months later and still stopped from doing their jobs and under the threat of prosecution.
Presumably the same approach will apply to our proud pavement riders on here
No. The law and the reasonableness about safety are appropriate for pavement cycling. The police rightly will not prosecute for appropriate cycling on a pavement where a cyclist (or their parent) has a rightful fear for their safety. This has been stated multiple times, including to my son when he was younger and cycling to school along a very busy road. But riding an unlicensed motorcycle on a public highway without a helmet or insurance is a much more serious offence.
And my children always rode with appropriate insurance thanks to the CTC/CUK family membership policy /halo
@Cougar. I reckon that you know that I was making the point that there was no (apparent to me) reason to state the ethnicity of the thieves in this situation (a comment on a mostly MTB-based website). It is surely entirely irrelevant but maybe I’m wrong.
There was no reason to state their gender either. It's flavour text. Did you ever read a book which started "Harry Potter was a person. He was friends with Ron and Hermione, both of whom were also people." Me neither, I know what colour Ron's hair was despite it having absolutely no bearing on the plot.
I take your point, and you're correct in that it's not directly relevant, but I think you're looking for a problem where none exists. If the poster had said that the bike was stolen by two blonde girls, would you have reacted?
No. The law and the reasonableness about safety are appropriate for pavement cycling.
Then why not lobby to have that written into statue rather than relying on a policeman being "reasonable"? Walking down the high street waving a machete about is a more serious offence than me having an Opinel in the bottom of my rucksack, but they're both still illegal.