Amazon urged to ban sale of ‘unsafe' e-bikes
Amazon is being urged to crack down on the sale of modified electric bikes that can travel at 40 miles per hour and run on batteries that are prone to bursting into flames.
MPs have criticised the online retail giant and food delivery firms such as Deliveroo, whose couriers sometimes use the hazardous e-bikes to boost their earnings.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking has written to the head of Amazon in the UK, urging the retailer to immediately halt sales of the bikes and all equipment that is used to convert legitimate electric bikes into so-called 'fake e-bikes', it is understood.
The group, chaired by the Labour MP Fabian Hamilton, is also calling on ministers to implement tighter controls on the sale of ebikes.
Electric bikes can be legitimately bought and ridden on UK roads if they adhere to a strict set of safety regulations. Ebikes cannot exceed 15.5 miles per hour and must have a motor that is limited to 250W to prevent fires.
However, some bikes are being sold that can reach speeds of up to 70 mph, equipped with throttle controls and powerful motors, under the guise that they would be ridden off-road. Despite recent crackdowns by police, these bikes have been terrorising pedestrians in cities and have caused house fires because of substandard batteries.
The authors of the MPs' report found one bike on Amazon that boasted speeds of 40 mph and a 2000W motor described as being for 'city commutes'. The MPs also found an 'unsafe charger with an unfused clover leaf plug, and multiple charging cables supplied, both of which are considered a fire risk', being sold on the site.
Amazon told the MPs that the clover leaf plug 'should not be anywhere near the Amazon store, it's clearly not safe' and promptly removed the charger from sale.
An Amazon spokesman said that safety was a top priority. 'We require all products offered in our store to comply with applicable laws and regulations and we monitor for product safety concerns. We also go further by requiring sellers of e-mobility products to provide documented testing certification carried out by an accredited lab.'
The report also criticised companies in the 'gig economy' such as Deliveroo, JustEat and Uber Eats which typically class their couriers as self-employed rather than staff. Couriers are paid based on their trips and are responsible for their vehicles, which the report claims has led meant that many riders 'turn to illegal or unsafe vehicles that can travel faster than a legal e-bike but are far cheaper than road-legal mopeds or electric vehicles'.
Shaf Hussain, a food courier who also represents the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain, a trade union for gig economy workers, said: 'There are road-legal bikes. Unfortunately, those bikes… it's all the distance factor. Is that going to last me for the entire day? Most bikes only do about 50 miles range, unfortunately. So I need something that can do at least 100-150 miles range just for the day. That's why you see a lot of bikes with, like, three or four battery packs on them.'
The MPs are calling for all noncompliant e-bikes to be withdrawn from sale; for delivery companies to be made to pay couriers across shifts, rather than per delivery; and for a national scrappage scheme for illegal bikes.
A Deliveroo spokesman said that all of its riders have to comply with all safety regulations and defended their working conditions. 'Complying with safety standards is a condition of riders' supplier agreements. If an incident of a rider using an illegally modified e-bike is reported to us, we will investigate and stop working with the rider if they are in breach of their obligations.'
An Uber Eats Spokesman said: 'The safety of our customers, couriers and the general public is a top priority. Couriers must adhere to all applicable laws and regulations, including the Highway Code, and we work closely with a range of partners to provide ongoing safety education and access to discounted legal e-bikes and e-mopeds.'
Just Eat said that on average its couriers earn significantly more than the London minimum wage. 'Safety is taken very seriously at Just Eat. Couriers sign a robust Service Agreement, and we regularly provide guidance on safety and responsible behaviour, including e-bike use. Breaches are met with swift action and zero tolerance for criminal behaviour.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Vicky Pattison uses this CurrentBody LED hair growth helmet to prevent hair loss
Vicky Pattison just shared with fans she's been loving this LED hair growth helmet from CurrentBody that promises to reduce hair thinning and hair loss, for healthier, longer locks Vicky Pattison recently revealed the beauty gadget she's been using in her self-care routine to reduce and prevent hair loss and thinning—and we know where you can shop for your own. Taking to social media, Vicky enjoyed some RNR while wearing this CurrentBody Skin LED Hair Growth Helmet. This red light therapy device promotes hair regrowth, stimulating new hair's strengthening and faster growth while reducing hair loss and thinning with every use. Clinically proven to give up to 126% more growth than topical, laser and supplement treatments alone, this CurrentBody LED helmet uses natural, cellular LED light therapy treatment to encourage thicker hair and new hair growth. This helmet is equipped with 120 LED bulbs that deliver 18 J/cm² of precise red (640nm) wavelengths. It stimulates the blood flow of oxygen and essential nutrients to hair follicles, increasing hair density and faster growth. Boasting a unique shape that ensures full, optimal scalp coverage without any patches missed. Set to provide results after hands-free 10-minute daily treatment at home, this LED helmet has been proven to enhance hair quality significantly and is even more effective when used with complementary hair regrowth treatments. Plus, CurrentBody promises noticeable results after a matter of weeks. Perfect for men and women alike, the helmet comes in two sizes to offer the best coverage for your unique head shape. Both the small/medium and medium/large size options retail for £649.99 on Amazon and directly from CurrentBody. Though the helmet hasn't received any reviews on Amazon yet, plenty of CurrentBody shoppers have been singing its praises. One 5-star reviewer raves: "I have been using this now for about 6 weeks. Not always consistently but my hairdresser and my husband have said things like "Wow your hair has gotten so long" or "Your hair seems thicker." Not sure if this is all from the Hair Growth Helmet but I must admit it seems to have a lot more little hairs growing and I notice it when I am blowing my hair dry. I love the face, neck and hair growth helmet!" Another buyer beams: "I've been suing this device since Dec 15th, 2024 and have already seen sooo much new hair growth. I had ascari g alopecia (Discoid Lupus on my scalp) and all though I know won't get complete hair regrowth on the scared tissue, I'm still seeing lots of new hairs. If you're on the fence, don't wait! I started seeing results in less than 2 weeks." And further songs of praise come from this shopper who says: " This really has been a complete gamechanger for my hairloss and regrowth. I've used this every single day, without a single day off, for 7 months and have seen significant reduction in hairloss and significant increase in hair growth. Now, what I would say is that hairloss reduction could be down to a number of different factors (I upped my iron and vitamin D, for instance, as I was suffering from extremely bad hairloss following some medication I took), but the regrowth speed is categorically down to this device. So while stopping hairloss is not something I can fully vouch for, I will say that the regrowth using this has been speedy and really impressive." If you're looking for a more versatile and discreet way of encouraging hair regrowth, check out this Red Light Infrared Hat Welzo Hair Wellness Growth Cap that retails for a more affordable £99.99, down from £299.99.
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
The state spends £24,000 a year for every adult. Something's got to give
It's amazing how things change. Just a few months ago Rachel Reeves told us the financial situation was so grim she had no choice but to take the winter fuel payment from all but the poorest pensioners. And now, thanks to Labour, it's all going so well she can afford to give it back. That was, of course, a lie. But it wasn't the big lie. No, the big lie was that the spending review bore any relation to what we will actually spend. The traditional recipe for political success is simple: scrimp, then splurge. Get the pain out of the way after the election, so you can splash out before the next one. • Jobs market is flashing a warning sign to Rachel Reeves That's not the approach Reeves took. She wanted to show she was ending austerity (such as it was). But the finances were desperately tight. Her solution, apart from raising taxes, was to frontload her spending increases and hope something turned up. The result is a spending profile that resembles a child playing a violin: sharp, then flat. Between 2025-26 and 2028-29, day-to-day departmental spending is to rise from £518 billion to £568 billion. Factoring in inflation, that means budgets in the last two years of the parliament will grow by just 1 per cent a year — and far less for most departments, since the overall figure includes 3 per cent a year for the NHS (which is getting more than half of all the extra cash). Will Labour really go into the election amid more 'Tory austerity'? Well, no. It'll want to spend more. Or need to: Reeves's ferociously tight numbers leave no room for downturns, pay strikes, trade wars or shooting wars. Her plans also depend on £14 billion in hazily detailed 'efficiency savings'. And the hoped-for bailout via a mid-term growth bonanza is less likely than ever. But here's the paradox. From the perspective of the Labour Party, most of those working in public services and her own electoral prospects, Reeves isn't spending nearly enough. But from another perspective, the chancellor is spending far, far too much. Public spending is running at 44 per cent of GDP, a historic high. Taxes, too, are historically high, and universally expected to go higher. Not only have we been spending like crazy, not least because of the pandemic, but we've been spending money we don't have — resulting in an annual bill of more than £100 billion just to cover the interest on our debts. These numbers can be hard to put into context. So our team at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank has come up with a different way of looking at it. We estimate that we are now spending £23,757 for every adult in this country: roughly two thirds of the average full-time salary of £37,500. That includes £3,807 on health, £5,817 on welfare and pensions and a shocking £1,955 for that debt bill. Restrict the calculation to those of working age, and spending is north of £30,000 a head. Factor in economic inactivity, and the state is almost certainly spending more than every worker aged 18 to 65 is earning. This is very obviously not sustainable. So how to square the circle? Given the position we're in, shaving departmental budgets just won't cut it, especially when the chancellor claims to have already ruthlessly reviewed every pound they spend (yet somehow set them all the same target for efficiency savings). We need to accept instead that government cannot actually do all the things it tries to. But we already know how hard that will be. If ministers are going to U-turn on the winter fuel payment and wobble on a set of welfare reforms that barely slow, let alone halt, the rise in disability and incapacity spending, how can they possibly tackle issues like the triple lock, social care or special educational needs and disability (Send) costs for councils? That's before even mentioning the NHS. So here are a couple of heretical thoughts. The first is that rather than guaranteeing the level of any individual benefit, we should think in terms of total spend. Let's say we decide that we can only afford to devote 1.5 per cent of GDP to a particular benefit. If more people claim, the totals go down. If people want more cash, they either have to dob in the fraudsters or accept the kinds of policy likely to swell GDP. A gentler version would be to keep benefits from falling, but ensure that they increase only when we can actually afford it. Revolutionary, I know. The second idea is more fundamental: to accept that government cannot actually move the economic needle. If you were listening to the spending review, you would have heard pledge after pledge: billions spent on this, billions on that. But that is not how you get the economy growing. You do that by creating the conditions for individuals and businesses to boost it for you. This may sound like Thatcherite dogma. But it's simple maths. Investment in the UK is roughly 18 per cent of GDP. But the state is responsible for perhaps a sixth of that. Hence Reeves's talk of 'co-investment': using small amounts of state funding to leverage much larger private sums. Or let's look at affordable housing, one of the few areas that did get some cash at the spending review. The government is promising an extra £39 billion over ten years. That's useful. But housebuilders knocked up £46 billion in private sector housing in just the past year — a pretty slow year, at point is that even small increases, or falls, in private sector activity have a far larger impact on the economy, and balance sheet, than the endless initiatives that pour forth from government. Which is precisely why Reeves's jobs tax was so damaging. Generating those increases, or falls, often isn't about money, but common sense. On housebuilding, for example, our system is based on local plans set out by councils. But loads of councils don't have plans in place. And Labour has embarked on a massive local government reorganisation that will delay their publication still further, dooming any hope of hitting its housing targets. It may be anathema to many on the Labour benches, but if the government is to have any hope of avoiding tax rises not just this autumn but for years to come, it needs to do what it finds hardest: clear the obstacles and let the private sector get on with it. The temptation, instead, will be to hammer work, wealth and business one more time. Which will of course make the task facing the chancellor even harder.
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Brits urged to make one urgent toilet roll change to save £428 a year
The purchase of this household essential is costing UK households hundreds unnecessarily - and experts say there is a way to help cut the costs when doing your weekly shop Experts say you may literally be flushing money down the drain - as Brits are urged to make one change to their toilet roll to help save money. Research shows that the average family forks out a whacking £428 annually on toilet paper, but it's possible to slash this cost dramatically. A study by Victorian Plumbing, which looked deeper into the habits of 1,000 Brits, found that people typically use eight sheets per trip to the toilet. This adds up to a whopping 56 sheets daily and the research put own-brand toilet rolls from major supermarkets head-to-head against the nation's favourite brand. On average, these store brand sheets rack up a cost of 21p each. In stark contrast, the most beloved brand in the UK could set you back more than 150 per cent per sheet compared to the average supermarket's own brands - that's an astonishing annual saving of £184.32 per household, as reported by Bristol Live. And for those bargain hunters amongst us, Amazon's cracking out some top deals on bog roll - like 72 rolls for only £23.99 (price correct at time of going to press). Bathroom specialist at Victorian Plumbing, Alex Woods explained: "With inflation, supply chain pressures, and raw material shortages all pushing prices up, the humble toilet roll is starting to no longer be the minor household expense it once was. "While costs may be rising, there are still simple, practical steps we can take to reduce usage and the costly impact. When one small habit costs the UK nearly £3 billion a year, every sheet really does count." Cheeky Wipes, a reusable toilet wipe brand suggested: "Instead of adding a 9 pack to your weekly shopping (average household of 4 usage), buy in bulk if you've got the storage space. Comparing on Ocado, buying a 9 pack of Cheeky Panda works out at 88p per roll. By comparison, a 24 pack of their loo roll will work out at 83p per roll. "Shopping at wholesale type spaces such as Costco etc can obviously save even more," and further advised: "Another cost effective way to save money on toilet roll is to use less of it. If the 'average' person uses 8 to 9 sheets of toilet paper, reducing it by 2 sheets per visit will save 25% off your annual spend. "Of course let's be honest. Most men will only use loo roll for a poo. And women shouldn't need to use anywhere near that amount for a pee. So are some people really using 20 sheets per poo?".
