Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Tory peer blames “ludicrous” London Cycle Superhighways for capital’s air pollution

Lord Higgins also questions why cycling infrastructure can’t be used by motor vehicles in off-peak periods

 

A Tory peer has slammed what he terms “ludicrous” cycling infrastructure in London, claiming they lead to increased air pollution, and has questioned why lanes provided for people on bikes cannot be given over to motorists during quieter periods.

He was speaking in a House of Lords debate on air quality on Monday after it emerged that due to the forthcoming general election, the government was seeking an extension to a High Court deadline to publish its national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide, with his contribution spotted by BikeBiz.

He asked Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, whether he agreed “that the problem of air pollution is greatest in London, and that the reality is that Transport for London (TfL) has totally failed to deal with the issue?”

After claiming that TfL “apparently has no authority to limit the number of minicabs. In fact, the extraordinary position emerges that no one has any authority to limit the number of minicabs,” calling for “urgent action” to be taken on the issue.

He then turned to what he described as “the ludicrous way in which Transport for London has been building bicycle lanes,” claiming that “There is enormous congestion as a result of this, not only when they are being constructed but in the longer term.”

“It is an appalling policy,” he added. “I spend much of my time in Holland, where they do not have any problem with bicycle lanes operating properly without being blanked off in a way that prevents them being used in off-peak periods.”

In reply, Lord Gardiner told him that he would ensure that the points he made “are put to officials who meet fortnightly with GLA officials to discuss air quality,” adding, “I think that that would be the best way forward” – hardly a firm expression of agreement with his views.

The claim –  debunked by official data highlighted by campaigners including former London Cycling Commissioner Andrew Gilligan – that Cycle Superhighways lead to increased greater congestion and more air pollution, often used by opponents of the routes, is one that Lord Higgins has made before.

Lord Higgins made the same point in a December 2015 House of Lords debate best known for former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson expressing his opinion that protected infrastructure for cyclists “has done more damage, and is doing more damage, to London than almost anything since the Blitz.“

> Lord Lawson says Cycle Superhighways the most damaging thing to London since the Blitz

Nor is Lord Higgins, aged 89 and MP for Worthing 1964 to 1997 and a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the first peer to demand that such infrastructure be given over to motorists outside peak hours.

In February, former Cabinet Minister Lord Tebbit claimed that the "cause of the excess nitrous oxide in the air in this area of Westminster and along the Embankment is those wretched barricades which have been put up by the former mayor,” Boris Johnson.

The “barricades” he was referring to? Those “which have been put up in order to assist cyclists – who also get in the way on the main road.”

> Fellow peer tells Tebbit "on your bike" as Tory ex-minister rants about cyclists

Similar opinions have also been voiced in the House of Commons.

In March, Conservative MP for East Yorkshire, Sir Greg Knight, asking when the government’s air quality plan would be published, said: “Is there not a case — I say this with respect — for making local authorities take into account the congestion effects of their crusade to remove road space in favour of wider pavements and more cycle lanes?

“Someone said to me the other day that there are fewer cars entering central London but that pollution is going up. Well, obviously it is going up because pavements have got wider and road space is being turned over to cycle lanes. The Mayor of London cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to reduce air pollution, he and others need to take care when they are seeking to remove highway lanes.”

> MP says pollution is going up because “road space is being turned over to cycle lanes"

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

23 comments

Avatar
barbarus | 6 years ago
2 likes

Air pollution is mainly caused by members of the house of lords talking.

Avatar
HV3 | 6 years ago
1 like

Dear God! Reading this article leaves me seriously worried; that these people have the power to influence our lives. Please spare us!

It is proposed by some that the age after which people are allowed to drive on the road (without a retest) be limited. Did those in charge of our nation ought to have their powers of reasoning assessed after a certain age?

Avatar
srchar | 6 years ago
3 likes

This is the sort of f*ckwittery we're up against:

"We don't want ambulances delayed so 10 cyclists/day can pootle up and down at a cost of £3m/mile" (https://twitter.com/SaveGreenLanes/status/857982734169513984)

"We support parallel routes. If only @TfL had done the same in #Enfield to prevent chaos" (https://twitter.com/SaveGreenLanes/status/855318800677224448)

"Almost no cyclists in evening, which is when central businesses take deliveries etc. Underused cycle lanes cause congestion" (https://twitter.com/SaveGreenLanes/status/852908526255132673)

"Cycle lanes should be given up to majority in their off peak" (https://twitter.com/SaveGreenLanes/status/852806062159781889)

I really wish those were parodies, but they're the actual thoughts of an actual adult.

Avatar
BobbyTT | 6 years ago
0 likes

Correction:

Ludicrous Tory peer blames London Cycle Superhighways for capital’s air pollution.

Avatar
thereverent | 6 years ago
3 likes

 

Quote:

He then turned to what he described as “the ludicrous way in which Transport for London has been building bicycle lanes,” claiming that “There is enormous congestion as a result of this, not only when they are being constructed but in the longer term.” 

Always worth mentioning that on the Embankment where the current cycle super is use to be Coach parking, which reduced the westbound to one lane (the same as it is now). On Blackfriars bridge the cycle superhighway was previously a extra-wide bus lane.

 

 

Quote:

“It is an appalling policy,” he added. “I spend much of my time in Holland, where they do not have any problem with bicycle lanes operating properly without being blanked off in a way that prevents them being used in off-peak periods.” 

Very strange as almost all the Dutch cycle lanes are segreagted and can't be used by cars.

Avatar
CygnusX1 replied to thereverent | 6 years ago
2 likes
thereverent wrote:

 

Quote:

“It is an appalling policy,” he added. “I spend much of my time in Holland, where they do not have any problem with bicycle lanes operating properly without being blanked off in a way that prevents them being used in off-peak periods.” 

Very strange as almost all the Dutch cycle lanes are segreagted and can't be used by cars.

I was thinking this too, now admittedly my personal experience of bike lanes in the Netherlands has been mainly in and around Amsterdam (in the province of Noord Holland) and Den Haag (in Zuid Holland) but I suspect they are typical of the the infrastructure throughout those provinces, and indeed of the other 10 provinces that make up the country.

I suspect when the honourable lord spends much of his time in Holland (North, South or both?) he has been partaking in recreational smoking in one of the coffee shops that you occasionally find there.

Avatar
cyclisto | 6 years ago
2 likes

It isn't such a problem what this guy says. The real problem is that there are many out there who believe this guy. Should you ever meet one of these, try to explain him nicely with argunuments that such things are BS.

Avatar
srchar replied to cyclisto | 6 years ago
3 likes
cyclisto wrote:

It isn't such a problem what this guy says. The real problem is that there are many out there who believe this guy. Should you ever meet one of these, try to explain him nicely with argunuments that such things are BS.

This. You should see the bullshit published by my local anti-cycling dickheads, same nonsense about cycle lanes not being used much during off peak periods. Which is the very definition of "off peak". Always worth trolling them on Twitter, @SaveGreenLanes

Avatar
fenix | 6 years ago
4 likes

Cars are the problem. Jesus Christ you old fossil.

I despair.

Avatar
Ush | 6 years ago
4 likes

Is being a complete mentalist a requirement for being a Tory peer?  

Avatar
brooksby replied to Ush | 6 years ago
3 likes
Ush wrote:

Is being a complete mentalist a requirement for being a Tory peer?  

Wow - you mean they get to hypnotise people too??

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
8 likes

These people are retards.

If only he and the rest of the cronies had forced the old bill sitting government to make the naughty motorists act in a way that meant people on bikes felt safe then there would be no need for seperated infra, it then wouldn't have needed building at X cost and the net effect would have being far better, for people on bikes and everyone including him.

As it is, they didn't and now we have war, so he and other nobbers can sit in their tossermobiles and put up with the shit sandwich the motorist brought upon themselves, that is until they are forced off the road either through financial penalty or via pollution limit of vehicle.

See how you like them apples twat features.

Avatar
lushmiester | 6 years ago
2 likes

I might accept the proposal but not the underlying arguements reguarding polution. Provided  the law is change to assume motorist guilt it any accident involving a cyclist. A simple trade off that should do much to improve the safety of cyclists and deture motorists from taking risks were they share the highway with cyclists.

Avatar
Chris Hayes | 6 years ago
8 likes

It's an easy trap to fall into, being stuck on Embankment in a 3 mile long queue adjacent to an empty cycle lane and thinking that you'd be going faster if you could either drive on it, or better still, get rid of it.  

I cycle this route every day and have done for over a decade: there's always been congestion.  If it reverted to a dual carriageway it would just attract more traffic immediately - and the said Lord would be looking wistfully at the river wishing he had a boat... 

But the real issue here is pollution and it's great to see that the focus has finally come on the damage caused by diesel engines: so, come on TfL and Government - a prohibitive congestion charge would limit cars;  legislation should target taxis that do 18mpg trawling the streets; and commerical deliveries should be limited to a 10pm - 6am time window.  

Avatar
StraelGuy | 6 years ago
6 likes

Lord Higgins: You're a pompous, irrelevant arse. Shut up please.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
9 likes

Silly old c*nt.

Avatar
Grahamd replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
5 likes
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Silly old c*nt.

The politically correct term is now mugwump.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
35 likes

To be fair, it must be chuffing annoying being held up in traffic in the back of your chauffer driven Daimler on the way to your daycare centre.

Just imagine: It's almost 10am and the subsidised bar is about to open at the House of Lords. There's a delicious taxpayer funded lunch to look forward to and you need to make arrangements about who you are going to sit with. You also have the hassle of signing in just to get your £350 day allowance. Would you not also be agrieved that some oik on a bicycle with one of those squalid job things is going faster than you in a special road space?

Avatar
Zebulebu replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
10 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

To be fair, it must be chuffing annoying being held up in traffic in the back of your chauffer driven Daimler on the way to your daycare centre. Just imagine: It's almost 10am and the subsidised bar is about to open at the House of Lords. There's a delicious taxpayer funded lunch to look forward to and you need to make arrangements about who you are going to sit with. You also have the hassle of signing in just to get your £350 day allowance. Would you not also be agrieved that some oik on a bicycle with one of those squalid job things is going faster than you in a special road space?

Hat

Best rant of the year thus far

Avatar
Valbrona | 6 years ago
2 likes

I think what he was doing was questioning the logic of the highly segregated type of cyle lane that by design prevents use by other types of vehicle, perhaps suggesting that there are better ways to use the available space.

Cycle superhighways are not some type of Holy Grail. In part they exist because the authorities have failed to make roads safe enough for cyclists.

Avatar
Eugene-Stryker replied to Valbrona | 6 years ago
4 likes
Valbrona wrote:

I think what he was doing was questioning the logic of the highly segregated type of cyle lane that by design prevents use by other types of vehicle, perhaps suggesting that there are better ways to use the available space.

Cycle superhighways are not some type of Holy Grail. In part they exist because the authorities have failed to make roads safe enough for cyclists.

Doesn't all of the evidence point to there not being a better use of space than a highly segregated cycle lane? If he took the time to read that evidence he wouldn't be so ill informed.

Avatar
Al__S | 6 years ago
16 likes

What effing benefit would it be to allow cars to use cycleways (and buslanes for that matter) "off peak" when there's less effing cars around? hell, cycleways are needed MORE then as congestion means the cars are moving faster. Motists really hate the idea of there being tarmac they're not allowed to use don't they?

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
13 likes
Quote:

lanes provided for people on bikes cannot be given over to motorists during quieter periods.

If his noble lordship can find a motor vehicle which fits in any of the 90cm painted cycle lanes near where I live, then good luck to him!

Latest Comments