Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Labour peer Lord Winston repeats claim that cycle lanes cause pollution

Campaigners reject assertion made in House of Lords debate on pollution and vehicle emissions

Lord Winston has repeated a claim that cycle lanes lead to increased air pollutio in London, an assertion that once again has been firmly rejected by cycling campaigners in the capital.

The Labour peer made his claim in a House of Lords debate yesterday on pollution and vehicle emissions, saying: “The reduction of lanes which traffic can travel down means that more cars are taking longer journeys than ever before at slower speeds.

“The evidence is of course that the internal combustion engine is less efficient and pollutes more at slow speeds, particularly when it is idling.”

He urged the government to provide “figures on the evidence of pollution being greater before bike lanes are introduced than afterwards,” adding, “this is an important issue in the future planning of our cities.”

However, Simon Munk of the London Cycling Campaign told the Evening Standard that there was no evidence to back up Lord Winston’s claim, and that evidence was that dedicated cycling infrastructure improved air quality.

“As a scientist I expect Lord Winston to back up his claims with evidence, all studies so far show that most cycle schemes in London have decreased pollution,” he said.

“Pollution monitors along the Embankment actually show a marginal decrease in pollution levels since the cycle schemes were brought in.”

The peer did not flag up any specific cycle routes that might in his opinion lead to greater congestion and air pollution, but it is a claim he has made before, including in a 2013 debate in the House of Lords.

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has pledged to increase levels of cycling and walking in the city as well as use of public transport and curb private car use to help combat air pollution.

A spokesman for the mayor said: “Cycle lanes do not cause congestion and pollution.

“With our limited street space it is vital that we encourage more Londoners to cycle, walk and use public transport. These are cleaner and more efficient uses of our roads, with cycle lanes proven to help move people along our streets.

He added: “With London’s population set to expand to 10.8 million over the next 25 years, making our capital one of the best cities in the world for cycling is not only about improving our health, wellbeing and quality of life, it is absolutely fundamental for our future economic prosperity.”

During yesterday’s debate, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, Baroness Sugg, said the government would “publish our plans for the pathway to zero-emission road vehicles and a new clean air strategy later this year.”

Fellow Tory peer Lord Cormack aked her if she would meet some London taxi drivers, adding: “If she does, will she listen very carefully to what they say has been the result of reducing the lanes on our major roads in London, caused very largely by the creation of cycle lanes?

Baroness Sugg replied that she would be hapopy to do so and added: “The construction of bike lanes and bus lanes and the pedestrianisation of many roads has reduced the available space.

“Of course, cycle lanes are welcome in order to protect cyclists and encourage cycling,” she continued.

She added: “I understand that they have increased congestion, but we want to encourage people to cycle.”

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

53 comments

Avatar
kingleo | 6 years ago
0 likes

What are the traffic pollution levels like in the Netherlands? according to the personal theories of Lord Winston, as there are lots of cycle lanes, pollution levels must be high, and the traffic must move along at walking speed.

Avatar
stonechat | 6 years ago
1 like

He is not taking into account that people may switch from car to cycling 

this means less cars

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 6 years ago
1 like

“The evidence is of course that the internal combustion engine is less efficient and pollutes more at slow speeds, particularly when it is idling.”

 

Which is a major reason why it's not well-suited for transport within cities, and why urban roadspace needs to be switched to more suitable types of vehicle.

Avatar
frogg | 6 years ago
5 likes

Don't fool yourself, it's a war for the public space, led by the car lobby and their political minions. 

See    "Destroying the city to save the robocar ; The fight for our public space"  https://www.theregister.co.uk/Archive/2018/01/10/ (link is external)

 A city without cars is perfectly possible, Copenhagen and others are examples. It's a nightmare for the car lobby and politicians. Why ? it's a total disruption of the flow of money (cars , taxes, insurance, gasoline, energy, penalties, parking, tolls  etc etc) . After the pollution disaster they want to save face with electric and driverless cars. But they need public space ... That's where politicians can help.

 

Avatar
frogg | 6 years ago
0 likes

With his failed logic, why doesn't he suggest that the pavement for pedestrians lead to increased pollution ? so that cars could flow easier ? And my guess it is not failed logic but pure calculation and greed.

Don't smile, it's not a joke at all but something that the car lobby (especially the self driving cars) is thinking ; it's all around a city designed around technology or the people.

Actually, pedestrians and riders, due to their random behaviour are just a nuisance for the self driving cars .

Here you can read ..

https://www.theregister.co.uk/Archive/2018/01/10/

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
2 likes

“The evidence is of course that the internal combustion engine is less efficient and pollutes more at slow speeds, particularly when it is idling.”

 

So why not increase all speed limits?

 

Or as a better idea, stop the production of cars that can break the speed limits and put laws in place around engine efficieny at lower speeds...

Avatar
earth | 6 years ago
2 likes

Electric vehicles ans stop-start features for ICE go to solving the idling problem.

Where I live the roads reached capacity long ago and nothing can be done about it unless they knock down a lot of buildings to widen the roads.  The alternative is that people cycle and then the roads can convey more people in the same space with no pollution.

Even if the situation he is talking about is true, it is only a temporary problem until more people cycle.

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to earth | 6 years ago
1 like

earth wrote:

Electric vehicles ans stop-start features for ICE go to solving the idling problem.

Where I live the roads reached capacity long ago and nothing can be done about it unless they knock down a lot of buildings to widen the roads.  The alternative is that people cycle and then the roads can convey more people in the same space with no pollution.

Even if the situation he is talking about is true, it is only a temporary problem until more people cycle.

Haha, I totally didn't think about electric cars solving the issue!

He's totally missing the wider point that one person sitting in their personal vehicle takes up a massive amount of road space and harms peoples health in the process.

And that one person in their own car causing congestion is often myself. Why? Because a lot of the time I have very little over choice because the public transport and active travel infrastructure is wholly inadequate.

Surely, with his expertise in medical fields (he is, without a doubt, very knowledgeable in the medical field) he should be trying to massively promote active transport. One look at any busy street in the UK makes it plainly obvious how many people are fat and overweight. For some reason, it's become the cultural norm to be fat and it's generally very much accepted.

62% of people in the UK are overweight or obese - 25% of people in the UK are clinically obese. How he's not more concerned about that, I have no idea. To think that I am in a minority of being a healthy weight scares the hell out of me.

Avatar
kingleo | 6 years ago
1 like

Parked vehicles in cities and towns, blocking the sides of the roads cause stop-start traffic jams, they must cause alot more pollution.

Avatar
brooksby replied to kingleo | 6 years ago
4 likes

kingleo wrote:

Parked vehicles in cities and towns, blocking the sides of the roads cause stop-start traffic jams, they must cause alot more pollution.

Ah: but that's different because, you know, cars​ 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
4 likes

brooksby wrote:

kingleo wrote:

Parked vehicles in cities and towns, blocking the sides of the roads cause stop-start traffic jams, they must cause alot more pollution.

Ah: but that's different because, you know, cars​ 

I think you're right. Cars are seen by many as a natural, inevitable thing which we should all apire to and do all we can to accommodate. Bus lanes might be tolerable in places but pedestrians and cyclists are just  a nuisance.

Avatar
kingleo | 6 years ago
4 likes

Parked vehicles in cities and towns, blocking the sides of the roads cause stop-start traffic jams, they must cause alot more pollution.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
7 likes

Some (certainly not all) scientifically-minded people I’ve worked with - often the older males - have trouble with uncertainty and complexity. Science is good at isolating and explaining specific phenomena – if X is added to Y (under controlled conditions when nothing else changes) then Z is always the result. Highway engineers tried similar logic in recent decades, with a ‘predict and provide’ approach to roadspace, although this was always pseudo-science.

What 'pure' science is less good at is explaining human behaviour, which is much more complex, diverse, not necessarily rational, and shaped by all sorts of other things we can’t always foresee or understand.

Lord Winston seems to assume that motorised demand for roadspace is fixed and thus reducing supply for those vehicles means more congestion, inefficient engine performance, etc. If there were no other possible responses to the re-allocation (not - as some have pointed out - reduction) of roadspace then that might be true.

But there are many possible responses. People might switch modes (they do – Google “table TSGB0106”), travel at different times, take different routes, make fewer trips, go different places. And there’s lots else going on separately but in the same space, e.g. lots more delivery vans and private hire vehicles in recent years. You’d need to control for all these variables before you could conclude that it’s cyclist wot are the problem.

He also makes the mistake of focusing on vehicles, not people. Because bicycles are more space efficient, there is probably now more capacity for *people* to travel along the Embankment. Shouldn’t humans take priority over empty taxis and deliveries of photocopier paper/Amazon orders/etc.?

He also attaches responsibility for pollution to the non-polluters, which seems akin to blaming women’s clothing for men’s sexual aggression.

Finally, at the risk of being ageist, there’s also the possibility that a chap approaching 80 might be a little set in his ways and reflecting an old way of thinking.

Avatar
davel replied to Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
2 likes

Duncann wrote:

Some (certainly not all) scientifically-minded people I’ve worked with - often the older males - have trouble with uncertainty and complexity.

I've had something similar when I worked with a bunch of senior, older engineers (across multiple disciplines but including chemical processing and civil engineering  - letters after their name twice as long as their actual name and all that). They could usually be pacified with logic and evidence.

But I don't think that applies to Winston. There is evidence out there; he's just not bothering to avail himself of it, which makes him as ignorant in this topic as any other evidence-eschewing gobshite.

Not a great advert for the Lords, this.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
3 likes

Duncann wrote:

He also makes the mistake of focusing on vehicles, not people. 

absolutely this, yes. Well said.

Avatar
iso2000 | 6 years ago
3 likes

Why isn't he complaining about bus lanes as well? Surely they cause slower car journeys. Maybe because he travels around in bus lane using black cabs? 

Avatar
DrJDog | 6 years ago
6 likes

May as well say that traffic lights cause pollution (there is more evidence for this than for saying bikes cause pollution).

Avatar
burtthebike replied to DrJDog | 6 years ago
5 likes

DrJDog wrote:

May as well say that traffic lights cause pollution (there is more evidence for this than for saying bikes cause pollution).

Spot on!  Even more spot on is that it is the cars that cause the pollution.  No cars, no pollution, but I somehow don't think the good lord wants to hear that.

Avatar
Feckthehelmet | 6 years ago
2 likes

1. He is talking shit.
2. Could someone please tell him to stop dying his hair. It is highly unlikely that a 77 year old man will have jet black hair!

Oy Vey!

Avatar
Edgeley replied to Feckthehelmet | 6 years ago
4 likes

Feckthehelmet wrote:

1. He is talking shit. 2. Could someone please tell him to stop dying his hair. It is highly unlikely that a 77 year old man will have jet black hair! Oy Vey!

 

 

Yes, Robert Winston is talking shit.  He is also Jewish.   Do you think the two are connected, and even if they are (which they aren't), what's with the antisemitic comment?

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Edgeley | 6 years ago
3 likes

Edgeley wrote:

Feckthehelmet wrote:

1. He is talking shit. 2. Could someone please tell him to stop dying his hair. It is highly unlikely that a 77 year old man will have jet black hair! Oy Vey!

Yes, Robert Winston is talking shit.  He is also Jewish.   Do you think the two are connected, and even if they are (which they aren't), what's with the antisemitic comment?

Do you know that feckthehelmet doesn't use Yiddish expressions in their daily life?  Do you know that they're actually being antisemitic? 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
4 likes

The hypocrisy is fucking monumental, sorry where is your peer reviewed research that upholds your lies, sorry I mean claims? Yeah thought not, captain cretin!

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
8 likes

Also missing the comments by the hag that basically backed up his claim again without one fucking fact actually used, god this crap makes me so angry. Bunch of lying twats that propagte the lies and fantasy BS!

Baroness Sugg: “The construction of bike lanes and bus lanes and the pedestrianisation of many roads has reduced the available space.

No it hasn't, it's actually increased it because more people can use the SAME availabe space because they are on bikes, there is actual hard evidence to prove this silly moo!

“Of course, cycle lanes are welcome in order to protect cyclists and encourage cycling,” she continued.

No, they aren't welcome, they are absolutely essential because you and your ilk won't do a fucking thing to protect vulnerable road users from morons in motorvehicles Eletric or not!

She added: “I understand that they have increased congestion, but we want to encourage people to cycle.”

Again, backing up the far from honourable Winston fuckwit who instead of backing up his claim spouted lies and did not bother to look up the evidence for himself since the last time he lied about it. In fact he ignores every single country that has put in cycle lanes and reduced deaths, reduced pollution and increased the health of the population.

not just cretinous but lying and knowing your lying in the HoL should see your title and privilges stripped and you be publicly shamed for being anti health!

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
0 likes

Which telly show was it that had a recurring sketch with Professor Robert Winston scurrying around like Groucho Marx? (They both had silly soup strainer moustaches, geddit?)

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 6 years ago
5 likes

He may be an expert in gynaecology...

It takes a c**t to know a c**t.

Avatar
ktache | 6 years ago
9 likes

Robert WInston is an intelligent chap.  He is a qualified medical doctor, and has conducted a lot of research into medical sciences.  He's occupied several chairs at research institutions and appears to have run a few.  His expertise seems to be in the fields of gynacology, embrinology and reproduction.

None of his scientific and research interests seems to be about congestion, pollution, traffic management or road design.  Perhaps he should stick to what he knows best.

Avatar
maviczap | 6 years ago
3 likes

Shame he's blaming cycle lanes, I thought he was a bit brighter than that from what I've seen of him on the TV.

Obviously not, maybe he's caught fuckwititus by working with all the other Lords.

Clever yes, common sense none.

Avatar
StewartM | 6 years ago
2 likes

You Brits must struggle to be critical of the Yanks and their president with this silly system of hereditary peerage and non-elected politicians! You'd like to think in a fair democracy, a cockwomble (thanks martib for the perfectly cromulent word) like this would be voted out of parliament in due course. I'm sure a scientific study would show an increase in air polution somewhere around the House of Lords.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to StewartM | 6 years ago
16 likes

StewartM wrote:

You Brits must struggle to be critical of the Yanks and their president 

nope. Not at all.

Avatar
andyp replied to StewartM | 6 years ago
10 likes

StewartM wrote:

You Brits must struggle to be critical of the Yanks and their president with this silly system of hereditary peerage and non-elected politicians! You'd like to think in a fair democracy, a cockwomble (thanks martib for the perfectly cromulent word) like this would be voted out of parliament in due course. I'm sure a scientific study would show an increase in air polution somewhere around the House of Lords.

 

As particularly stupid and non-democratic as our system is, it's still very, very easy to be critical of that fuckwit.

Pages

Latest Comments