This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Cycling organisations have condemned members of the House of Lords, including Prof Robert Winston, for propagating the “myth” that separated bike lanes cause congestion and worsen pollution, saying there is no evidence it happens.

Accusing the peers of making arguments based on “anecdote experienced through a taxi window,” the groups said that Winston, in particular, as a prominent scientist, should know better than to spread such misconceptions.

It follows a Lords debate on vehicle emissions earlier in January in which several peers, Winston among them, called on ministers to examine whether short stretches of protected cycle lanes installed in London had slowed traffic speeds and thus increased emissions.

When the Guardian contacted the peers to ask if they had evidence for the claim, none provided it. Winston, a doctor and popular TV scientist who has been a Labour peer since 1995, said the fact bike lanes slowed traffic was “not deniable”.

Pressed again for evidence, Winston thanked the Guardian reporter for her “entertaining comments” and said the “law-breaking, aggression and dishonesty” of cyclists had turned him against them.

Another peer contacted, former Tory MP Lord Patrick Cormack, said his evidence was that his cab journey from King’s Cross station to the House of Lords now took longer, adding that all the peers he spoke to believed bike lanes were to blame.

Other peers had complained about cycle lanes during a debate last year on air quality in London, among them the Conservative former junior ministers the Earl of Caithness and Lord Blencathra.

Asked by the Guardian to further outline his view, Caithness replied to argue that the separated bike lanes hampered the journeys of emergency service vehicles “at time resulting in loss of life”, again providing no evidence.

London currently has about 12 miles of bike lanes where riders are protected from motor vehicles by kerbs and dedicated traffic lights, with more planned.



Other cities are planning similar networks, most notably Manchester where the mayor, Andy Burnham, has recruited former Olympic cyclist-turned campaigner Chris Boardman to make its streets more bike-friendly.

These have faced opposition from some groups, particularly the black cab industry in London, which first made the argument that the lanes were responsible for slower road journey times in London and thus increased pollution.

This began as a fringe idea, not least because roadside pollution monitors found no increase in pollution levels where the lanes had been built. However, it has gained prominence, with some newspapers, notably the Daily Mail, reporting it as fact.

Andrew Grieve, a senior analyst at King’s College London’s Air Quality Network said the issue was “a bit of a case of an anecdote being halfway round the internet before the data analysis has got its shoes on”.

Experts also contest the idea that bike lanes contribute to slower motor traffic speeds. While they generally remove a lane for motor traffic, the reallocated space carries more people.

While Transport for London (TfL) data shows some journeys on routes which have separated bike lanes have slowed, the same is true of many roads without cycle infrastructure.

A major TfL report into congestion published in December identified a series of likely factors, including roadworks and the growth in numbers of private hire vehicles and delivery vans. It recommended solutions including prioritising walking and cycling, and an extended congestion charge.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Commuters Cycling Home During Evening Rush Hour - Chelsea Embankment - London Photograph: Robert Stainforth/Alamy

Paul Tuohy, chief executive of Cycling UK, said the role of members of the Lords was “to provide expert advice, not air their personal frustrations based on anecdote experienced through a taxi window”.

He said: “These are respected figures and opinion formers who should know the risk of making ill-informed off-the-cuff comments in the public eye. The danger is that these remarks are taken as fact and do more harm than good.”

Fran Graham, campaigns coordinator at the London Cycling Campaign, said she was “appalled” that peers felt able to repeat such myths without seeking any evidence for their views.

She said: “As a scientist, Lord Winston should know better. In fact, evidence and monitoring undertaken by TfL has shown that air pollution is lower along most cycle superhighways, and that motor traffic journey times have not been significantly impacted.



“The real cause of London’s congestion is unnecessary car journeys – over one third of all the car trips made by London residents are less than 2km. To ensure that our roads don’t crawl into gridlock, we have to enable more people to choose to walk and cycle, and one proven way to do that is to build more physically protected cycle lanes.”