Complaint
A viewer complained that the programme was heavily focused on the illegal use of electric motorbikes, giving little attention to the positive aspects of e-bike use; that it included no representative of cycling groups or proponents of e-bikes; that it included opinions which were not distinguished from facts; that it failed to differentiate between legal e-bikes and illegal electric motorcycles; that it exaggerated the risks to pedestrians from e-bikes, compared to the much greater danger posed by motor vehicles; that it included scenes of e-bike collisions which gave the misleading impression that e-bikes were responsible whereas the blame lay with a pedestrian and a car-user; and that it was likely to stir up hostility to cyclists, who were a vulnerable group. The ECU considered the complaint in the light of the ˿’s standards of impartiality and accuracy.
Outcome
In relation to impartiality, the relevant ˿ guidelines provide that programme-makers can “produce content about any subject, at any point on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so”. The ECU considered that there were good editorial reasons for focusing principally on the potentially negative consequences of an increase in e-bike usage, particularly in relation to the use of illegal e-bikes and the riding of such bikes in an antisocial or criminal manner, and that the programme gave due weight to the positive reasons for the growing popularity of e-bikes. In relation to accuracy, the ECU saw no instance where viewers would have been likely to take an expression of opinion as a statement of fact; it considered the programme made the distinction between legal and illegal e-bikes clear, that it was not misleading in comparing the risk from e-bikes to the lesser risk from pedal cycles rather than with the risk from motor vehicles, and that the collision scenes (which were clearly identified as simulations) were not misleading because their point was to illustrate the level of damage arising from collisions involving e-bikes, irrespective of how they occurred. In relation to the final point of complaint, the ECU noted that the guideline which require programme-makers to “offer appropriate protection to vulnerable groups” referred to groups such as children, those who might be considering self-harm or suicide and those susceptible to eating disorders, and did not consider it applicable to cyclists as a group or relevant to the programme.
Not upheld