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.”
























53 thoughts on “Labour peer Lord Winston repeats claim that cycle lanes cause pollution”
He’s an Honourary Fellow of
He’s an Honourary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering ffs…
He is correct when he says an idling engine is less efficient, but to assert that cycle lanes cause pollution is fairly rubbish.
If every one of those cyclist was in a car and the cycle lanes removed, I’m fairly certain the congestion would be at least just as bad and the pollution worse.
wellsprop wrote:
Less *efficient* perhaps, but the consumption indicator on the two vehicles I drive sometimes would suggest that is a less efficient near enough buggerall..
JonD]
When a vehicle is stationary and the engine is idling, it is 100% inefficient. It is using fuel but going nowhere, so all the fuel it is using is completely wasted.
wellsprop wrote:
Let’s complain to the Royal Academy of Engineering. Surely this is abuse of engineering professional standards: making a claim without evidence. However, frankly most road schemes are justified on the basis of claims for which there is no evidence – ‘reducing congestion’ anyone? – so perhaps Prof. Winston is following the professional standards of the road engineering mob!
10/10 for missing the fucking
10/10 for missing the fucking point Winston!
Cockwomble!
Cockwomble!
martib wrote:
My new favourite word!!
salokin wrote:
Cockwomble!
— salokin My new favourite word!!— martib
Hang around here some more. You’ll read it a lot.
No, I’m not!
No, I’m not!
Very disappointing that a
Very disappointing that a labour peer is spouting this rubbish.
He also appears to be a highly qualified scientist, and is on the Science and Technology committee, so this is no idiot, even if he behaves like one occasionally. Has anyone asked him why he keeps repeating this nonsense when there is no evidence to support what he says? What is his motivation for saying things which he knows are not true?
There must be some labour members reading this who are embarrassed by this rubbish, so how about having a word with the PLP and asking them to have a word with the errant lord?
Is it my paranoia coming to the fore again, or is this yet another totally unjustified attack on cyclists by someone who really, really ought to know better.
burtthebike wrote:
Being labour makes almost zero difference, politicians are not human, they are spitting image puppets, whether left, centre or right
The internal combustion
The internal combustion engine is on borrowed time. This will cease to be an issue in the near future, as an electric car sat in a traffic jam emits bugger all. He’d be better off putting his energy behind speeding up the process of adopting cleaner vehicles and encouraging active travel for short journeys in highly populated areas, rather than dragging out the inevitable with this short-sighted view.
HoarseMann wrote:
Even Ford have seen which way the toxic wind is blowing:
“Ford Motor Co will significantly increase its planned investments in electric vehicles to $11bn by 2022” [previously a paltry $4.5bn]
He’s also a scientist, though that doesn’t necessarily qualify him to speak authoritatively on pollution in London.
Gilligan points to data in this tweet, currently pinned on his timeline, that contradicts the likes of Winston, Lord Higgins, climate change denier and former Chancellor Nigel ‘worse than the Blitz’ Lawson, the mad fruitcase rent-a-quote Norman Tebbit and Sir Greg Knight. Last month TfL’s Will Norman felt the need to say publicly that “Bike lanes don’t clog up our roads” (in the Graun).
All the criticism simply demonstrates that it is those that do not want change that are shouting the loudest – the Quentin Willsons, black cab drivers and their more ‘newsworthy’ passengers. Cycling is gaining ground – literally and metaphorically – and they don’t like it.
Regarding the House of Lords, despite (or perhaps because of) the way that the non-hereditary peers are given their place, I’m not sure they are a great deal worse than many of the elected puppets in the other chamber. MPs are lobbied intensively by big businesses (who can be far more per$ua$ive than constituents or NGOs); very few have a set of principles that they stand by; many have additional, well-paid jobs and/or are already multi-millionaires; and plenty will be offered a cushy Directorship or other generously remunerated position when they leave Parliament or turn ‘poacher’ and work as lobbyists with those still on the inside. Democracy in action.
Why does this faqqing idiot
Why does this faqqing idiot exist?
The only thing this
The only thing this “scientist” understand is the amount of cash he gets from the car lobby…
frogg wrote:
how much does he get? Nothing about the car lobby is on the register of interests against his name, as far as I can see.
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords-interests/?letter=W
He is clearly wrong about the cause of pollution, but accusing him of, essentially, corruption does nothing at all to advance the arguments against him, and just makes it look as though you have nothing to offer but unfounded abuse.
And the scare quotes around the word scientist are equally stupid, although less likely to land you with a law suit, as he is very obviously a highly qualified and experienced scientist. Just wrong on this issue.
Bit pedantic but – Robert
Bit pedantic but – Robert Winston is a medical doctor, not a scientist. Scientists perform experiments, analyse data & seek to understand the general principles underlying observable events in the real world. IME medical doctors see people who are suffering some sort of illness, make a wild guess at the possible causes & prescribe a course of treatment they hope will work or at least not make things worse. Not much crossover as far as I can see.
At best, medicine could, if it was a more organised & better guided activity, be a form of engineering. It isn’t a science, won’t ever be a science & I really, really wish everyone would stop describing medical doctors as scientists. Most of them aren’t even Doctors, FFS!
oceandweller wrote:
I agree with you entirely that practicing medcine is not doing science. It’s a pet-peeve of mine, even, that medical doctors are not scientists and don’t even think very scientifically in many cases. Many of them just seem to follow scripts.
However, is Robert Winston not also a medical resercher? Not sure about it, but I had the vague idea that he was? That activity does qualify as ‘science’ surely?
Also he’s been challenged before to produce evidence for this claim of his and he just went silent. I thought that meant he realised he didn’t have any and was embarrassed and was just hoping everyone would forget he said it. But as he’s repeated it, I guess it just shows that even ‘scientists’ can talk crap outside of peer-reviewed papers in their own discipline.
oceandweller wrote:
As Voltaire said, medicine is the art of amusing the patient while nature cures them.
oceandweller wrote:
According to his own website (https://www.robertwinston.org.uk/about-robert-winston/):
“Lord Winston is Professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College London”.
For my response, see
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/letters/es-views-letter-of-the-day-no-evidence-that-cycle-lanes-pollute-a3743796.html
Roger Geffen, Cycling UK
I cycle into central London
I cycle into central London every morning. The route I use has NO cycle lanes of any sort or kind. But for virtually the whole way the route is clogged with traffic (hooting, effing and blinding, texting etc) So how the hell is that the fault of cycle lanes? Please Lord Winston, if you care, ride with me and I’ll show you. And then you can explain how cycle lanes cause pollution and congestion..
I’m guessing he is refering
I’m guessing he is refering to the Embankment where one lane has been removed in a lot of places to allow for cycle lanes meaning the remaining lane is slower and more congested.
Although the article says the monitors show slightly reduced pollution (ah ha but it would be even less without the cycle lanes!).
Those black cabs would cause
Those black cabs would cause a lot less pollution if they managed to turn off the engine while waiting in ranks, they will of course come up with “But we don’t want to freeze” which of course doesn’t apply in summer.
You Brits must struggle to be
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.
StewartM wrote:
nope. Not at all.
StewartM wrote:
As particularly stupid and non-democratic as our system is, it’s still very, very easy to be critical of that fuckwit.
Shame he’s blaming cycle
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.
Robert WInston is an
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.
He may be an expert in
He may be an expert in gynaecology…
It takes a c**t to know a c**t.
Which telly show was it that
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?)
Also missing the comments by
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!
The hypocrisy is fucking
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!
1. He is talking shit.
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!
Feckthehelmet wrote:
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?
Edgeley wrote:
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?— Feckthehelmet
Do you know that feckthehelmet doesn’t use Yiddish expressions in their daily life? Do you know that they’re actually being antisemitic?
May as well say that traffic
May as well say that traffic lights cause pollution (there is more evidence for this than for saying bikes cause pollution).
DrJDog wrote:
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.
Why isn’t he complaining
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?
Some (certainly not all)
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.
Duncann wrote:
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.
Duncann wrote:
absolutely this, yes. Well said.
Parked vehicles in cities and
Parked vehicles in cities and towns, blocking the sides of the roads cause stop-start traffic jams, they must cause alot more pollution.
Parked vehicles in cities and
Parked vehicles in cities and towns, blocking the sides of the roads cause stop-start traffic jams, they must cause alot more pollution.
kingleo wrote:
Ah: but that’s different because, you know, cars
brooksby wrote:
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.
Electric vehicles ans stop
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.
earth wrote:
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.
“The evidence is of course
“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…
With his failed logic, why
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/
Don’t fool yourself, it’s a
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.
“The evidence is of course
“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.
He is not taking into account
He is not taking into account that people may switch from car to cycling
this means less cars
What are the traffic
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.