- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Big Ben © Simon MacMichaelLabour peer Lord Winston repeats claim that cycle lanes cause pollution
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.
Latest Comments
- ubercurmudgeon 1 min 7 sec ago
I can well imagine......
- chrisonabike 2 min 8 sec ago
Not sure that so much of the network delivered by Sustrans is the network we need for "mass cycling" * . The one we need for that goes where all...
- Cyclespeed Tours 19 min 46 sec ago
Congrats to Scott for building an Aethos....
- OnYerBike 25 min 10 sec ago
Where did you read the minimum tariff is 5 years? Sentencing Guidelines says it's 2 years (minimum disqualification is 5 years)....
- chrisonabike 30 min 49 sec ago
Won't you think of the residents rodents?...
- chrisonabike 56 min 5 sec ago
That is some rustic sashimi there...
- wtjs 1 hour 9 min ago
I bought the excellent Edge 1040 last year with a good, but not sensational, reduction, and this year I have bought a couple of expensive academic...
- anotherflat 2 hours 56 sec ago
Having been through redundancy due to an employer going bankrupt, it's good to read that the employees should get their redundancy and pension...
- andystow 2 hours 22 min ago
Well, my aluminium mudguards are looking a little beat up. Might as well make my wallet match them.
Add new comment
53 comments
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.
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!).
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..
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!
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.
As Voltaire said, medicine is the art of amusing the patient while nature cures them.
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...
Roger Geffen, Cycling UK
The only thing this "scientist" understand is the amount of cash he gets from the car lobby...
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/...
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.
Why does this faqqing idiot exist?
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.
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.
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.
Being labour makes almost zero difference, politicians are not human, they are spitting image puppets, whether left, centre or right
No, I'm not!
Cockwomble!
My new favourite word!!
Hang around here some more. You'll read it a lot.
10/10 for missing the fucking point Winston!
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.
Less *efficient* perhaps, but the consumption indicator on the two vehicles I drive sometimes would suggest that is a less efficient near enough buggerall..
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.
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!
Pages