Labour peer Lord Winston repeats claim that cycle lanes cause pollution

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.

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

this means less cars

“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.

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.

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/

“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...

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.

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 towns, blocking the sides of the roads cause stop-start traffic jams, they must cause alot more pollution.

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.

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? 

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

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!

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!

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!

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?)

He may be an expert in gynaecology...

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

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.

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.

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.