Average (non-racing) cycling speeds

[Nick Maclaren]

Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?

Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
time trials, and so on.

I am not optimistic :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Patrick Gosling]

In article >,
Nick Maclaren > wrote:
>
>Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
>cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
>Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
>information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
>time trials, and so on.
>
>I am not optimistic :-(

Neither am I. There's some quite specific (London-based) cycle journey
speed summary information for 1993-1995 in
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/articles/cyclingingreatbritain1?version=2>
(around page 21), but that's just a small component of an answer to
your question.

-patrick.

[Nick Maclaren]

In article >,
(Patrick Gosling) writes:
|>
|> Neither am I. There's some quite specific (London-based) cycle journey
|> speed summary information for 1993-1995 in
|> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/articles/cyclingingreatbritain1?version=2>
|> (around page 21), but that's just a small component of an answer to
|> your question.

Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
(compulsory fitting in 1968 and a major campaign for the next 5 years
or so and compulsory wearing in 1981). That implies that the well
known psychological effect may be partially temporary - which is very
plausible.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"Nick Maclaren" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> time trials, and so on.
>
> I am not optimistic :-(
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Goodness knows how "they" amass such information. I find that, at a somewhat
overripe age of 70, the loaded or unloaded average on a days run works out at
a tad under 10 mph.

it used to be a tad over 10 mph but my current Raven Tour is geared down for
towing a camping touring loaded trailer and that means that my top speed, on
my local runs, before my feet spin out is about 22 to 24 mph! Which brings
down my daily "at home" average.

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Duncan Smith]

> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> time trials, and so on.
>
> I am not optimistic :-(
>

Commuting to work (24M), without gears and two panniers I pretty much
get 13.something more often than not. That's slightly dissapointing.
However, on a really good day it only rises to 14.something and on a
truly disasterous day it only falls to 12.something - so on the grand
scheme of things I've decided not to worry too much about how long a
particular day takes...

I would be curious to know what others reckon is average for a lengthy
commute day in day out?

Regards,

Duncan

[burtthebike]

"Nick Maclaren" > wrote in message
...
>
> In article >,
> (Patrick Gosling) writes:
> |>
> |> Neither am I. There's some quite specific (London-based) cycle journey
> |> speed summary information for 1993-1995 in
> |>
> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/articles/cyclingingreatbritain1?version=2>
> |> (around page 21), but that's just a small component of an answer to
> |> your question.
>
> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
> (compulsory fitting in 1968 and a major campaign for the next 5 years
> or so and compulsory wearing in 1981). That implies that the well
> known psychological effect may be partially temporary - which is very
> plausible.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

V interesting. Try looking at
http://john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/seat-belt-legislation-and-the-isles-report/

The government knew that seat belt laws would increase deaths to peds,
cyclists and car passengers, but suppressed the Isles report, which still
hasn't been officially released.

DfT are and have been fundamentally corrupt for a very long time indeed.

[Nick Maclaren]

In article >,
"Trevor A Panther" > writes:
|>
|> Goodness knows how "they" amass such information. I find that, at a somewhat
|> overripe age of 70, the loaded or unloaded average on a days run works out at
|> a tad under 10 mph.

I have been as low as 8 - but that was in north Cornwall :-)

I am not looking for absolute numbers so much as changes over time.

|> it used to be a tad over 10 mph but my current Raven Tour is geared down for
|> towing a camping touring loaded trailer and that means that my top speed, on
|> my local runs, before my feet spin out is about 22 to 24 mph! Which brings
|> down my daily "at home" average.

A top speed of 22 to 24 mph is impressive!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Martin Dann]

Duncan Smith wrote:
>> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
>> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>>
>> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
>> information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
>> time trials, and so on.
>>
>> I am not optimistic :-(
>>
>
> Commuting to work (24M), without gears and two panniers I pretty much
> get 13.something more often than not. That's slightly dissapointing.
> However, on a really good day it only rises to 14.something and on a
> truly disasterous day it only falls to 12.something - so on the grand
> scheme of things I've decided not to worry too much about how long a
> particular day takes...

Is that 24miles each way, or a round trip.

> I would be curious to know what others reckon is average for a lengthy
> commute day in day out?

When I am normally fit and healthy, my commute of 8.5 miles each way
normally takes 29-33 minutes, so an average of about 16-17 mph. (With a
fastest time of 27 min, the traffic lights were good to me that day).

[Martin Dann]

Martin Dann wrote:

> When I am normally fit and healthy, my commute of 8.5 miles each way
> normally takes 29-33 minutes, so an average of about 16-17 mph. (With a
> fastest time of 27 min, the traffic lights were good to me that day).

Should really say that is for the journey to work, the journey home is
often takes 10 min longer.

[Martin Dann]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article >,
> (Patrick Gosling) writes:
> |>
> |> Neither am I. There's some quite specific (London-based) cycle journey
> |> speed summary information for 1993-1995 in
> |> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/articles/cyclingingreatbritain1?version=2>
> |> (around page 21), but that's just a small component of an answer to
> |> your question.
>
> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
> (compulsory fitting in 1968 and a major campaign for the next 5 years
> or so and compulsory wearing in 1981). That implies that the well
> known psychological effect may be partially temporary - which is very
> plausible.

There is also a noticeable bump in the pedestrian death data at 1981-82.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 21, 4:38 pm, Duncan Smith > wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> > cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
> > Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> > information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> > time trials, and so on.
>
> > I am not optimistic :-(
>
> Commuting to work (24M), without gears and two panniers I pretty much
> get 13.something more often than not. That's slightly dissapointing.
> However, on a really good day it only rises to 14.something and on a
> truly disasterous day it only falls to 12.something - so on the grand
> scheme of things I've decided not to worry too much about how long a
> particular day takes...
>
> I would be curious to know what others reckon is average for a lengthy
> commute day in day out?
>
That's a very long commute (IMO) if it's every day.

I do mine occasionally - 22 miles each way. Typically takes around
1h30 home to desk (not counting getting changed) going and 1h45
returning. (Probably about 10 mins quicker if you exclude getting the
bike in/out of the bike shed at work) It's slower returning because it
takes me longer to get out of the London traffic. When I do do this
commute it's in the summer and I usually have a tail wind on the
Northbound return.

On the Brompton it's a little under 3 miles in London. (Google maps
says 2.6 miles approx 9 minutes) Usually takes between 11mins and
13mins with a best ever of 9m40. The main variable being traffic with
a smaller variability due to traffic lights (I have so many sets of
lights that I always get caught at a few).

In my last job (many years ago now) it was almost exactly 8 miles each
way. Then my average speed over the week was usually a fraction over
20mph on the DF and a fraction under 20mph on the Windcheetah. Baring
extreme weather conditions (e.g. thick snow) I don't think my weekly
average ever went below 20mph on the DF.

Tim.

[Roger Merriman]

Martin Dann > wrote:

> Duncan Smith wrote:
> >> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> >> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
> >>
> >> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> >> information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> >> time trials, and so on.
> >>
> >> I am not optimistic :-(
> >>
> >
> > Commuting to work (24M), without gears and two panniers I pretty much
> > get 13.something more often than not. That's slightly dissapointing.
> > However, on a really good day it only rises to 14.something and on a
> > truly disasterous day it only falls to 12.something - so on the grand
> > scheme of things I've decided not to worry too much about how long a
> > particular day takes...
>
> Is that 24miles each way, or a round trip.
>
> > I would be curious to know what others reckon is average for a lengthy
> > commute day in day out?
>
> When I am normally fit and healthy, my commute of 8.5 miles each way
> normally takes 29-33 minutes, so an average of about 16-17 mph. (With a
> fastest time of 27 min, the traffic lights were good to me that day).

i tend to average 10mph, the time i go has a big effect, ie before the
traffic builds.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Zog The Undeniable]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> time trials, and so on.

Riding to work on generally clear roads but with some traffic lights and
big roundabouts, I average 17-19mph in summer, 16-17mph in winter with
the dynamo running (although the cold weather and general short-day
malaise accounts more for the slowdown). That's "computer speed", not
distance divided by door-to-door time, which could be much slower on
days when I'm sitting around waiting for a gap on the roundabout.

[Duncan Smith]

On Jan 21, 5:38 pm, Martin Dann > wrote:
> Duncan Smith wrote:
> >> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> >> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
> >> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> >> information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> >> time trials, and so on.
>
> >> I am not optimistic :-(
>
> > Commuting to work (24M), without gears and two panniers I pretty much
> > get 13.something more often than not. That's slightly dissapointing.
> > However, on a really good day it only rises to 14.something and on a
> > truly disasterous day it only falls to 12.something - so on the grand
> > scheme of things I've decided not to worry too much about how long a
> > particular day takes...
>
> Is that 24miles each way, or a round trip.

E/W, if it were less I reckon I'd consider pushing a bit more..

>
> > I would be curious to know what others reckon is average for a lengthy
> > commute day in day out?
>
> When I am normally fit and healthy, my commute of 8.5 miles each way
> normally takes 29-33 minutes, so an average of about 16-17 mph. (With a
> fastest time of 27 min, the traffic lights were good to me that day).

[landotter]

On Jan 21, 7:52 am, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>

This is anecdotal, but when I used to commute on either a Raleigh DL1
or on a Nexus hub equipped bike with similar width tires, the times
were just about identical. I have a feeling that the Raleigh probably
was better rolling due to the much more simple hub, despite having
gumwall tires.

[Lynne Fitz]

This is fun. My commute is 3.6 miles. With a hill in the middle
(yes, uphill both ways!)

I average (moving average) between 11 and 12 mph. Takes about a
minute longer to get home (longer hill climb side).

For my weekend 200km brevet, our average was just under 10 mph. Our
moving average was just over 12mph. Usually we are faster than that;
finishing in 11:30-12 hours, rather than the 13 hours yesterday.

I've just started using a dynamo hub; it may have some effect on my
speed.

On Jan 21, 1:30*pm, Duncan Smith > wrote:
> On Jan 21, 5:38 pm, Martin Dann > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Duncan Smith wrote:
> > >> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> > >> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
> > >> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> > >> information would be useful. *I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> > >> time trials, and so on.
>
> > >> I am not optimistic :-(
>
> > > Commuting to work (24M), without gears and two panniers I pretty much
> > > get 13.something more often than not. *That's slightly dissapointing..
> > > However, on a really good day it only rises to 14.something and on a
> > > truly disasterous day it only falls to 12.something - so on the grand
> > > scheme of things I've decided not to worry too much about how long a
> > > particular day takes...
>
> > Is that 24miles each way, or a round trip.
>
> E/W, if it were less I reckon I'd consider pushing a bit more..
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I would be curious to know what others reckon is average for a lengthy
> > > commute day in day out?
>
> > When I am normally fit and healthy, my commute of 8.5 miles each way
> > normally takes 29-33 minutes, so an average of about 16-17 mph. (With a
> > fastest time of 27 min, the traffic lights were good to me that day).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Colin McKenzie]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article >,
> (Patrick Gosling) writes:
> |> Neither am I. There's some quite specific (London-based) cycle journey
> |> speed summary information for 1993-1995 in
> |> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/articles/cyclingingreatbritain1?version=2>
> |> (around page 21), but that's just a small component of an answer to
> |> your question.
>
> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
> (compulsory fitting in 1968 ...

Except that it wasn't 1968. My 1965 car had the cheapest possible
belts fitted because it was compulsory. I think compulsory fitting was
63 or 64. 63 is more likely to be misprinted as 68.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[vernon[_2_]]

"Colin McKenzie" > wrote in message
...
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Patrick Gosling) writes:
>> |> Neither am I. There's some quite specific (London-based) cycle
>> journey
>> |> speed summary information for 1993-1995 in
>> |>
>> <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/articles/cyclingingreatbritain1?version=2>
>> |> (around page 21), but that's just a small component of an answer to
>> |> your question.
>>
>> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
>> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
>> (compulsory fitting in 1968 ...
>
> Except that it wasn't 1968. My 1965 car had the cheapest possible belts
> fitted because it was compulsory. I think compulsory fitting was 63 or 64.
> 63 is more likely to be misprinted as 68.
>
Wikipedia suggests '67

[Nick Maclaren]

In article >,
"vernon" > writes:
|> "Colin McKenzie" > wrote in message
|> ...
|>
|> >> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
|> >> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
|> >> (compulsory fitting in 1968 ...
|> >
|> > Except that it wasn't 1968. My 1965 car had the cheapest possible belts
|> > fitted because it was compulsory. I think compulsory fitting was 63 or 64.
|> > 63 is more likely to be misprinted as 68.
|> >
|> Wikipedia suggests '67

Actually, it wasn't that simple, but I got the date of 1968 off the
Web and it related to the mandatory retrofitting - both 1967 and 1968
could have been correct (e.g. an Act being passed and coming into
force - which is the date?)

The requirements for the fitting of belts came in gradually over a
period of decades, and the period to which I refer was one when there
was a major, if gradual, change. All newish cars were required to have
them (retrofitted if needed) and there was the "klunk-klick" advertisement
campaign. In the first phase, only new cars needed them, and they only
needed lap belts.

But, even if the dates match, such synchronicity is always a bit iffy
as an indicator of association. I was merely remarking that there was
SOME evidence that risk homeostasis may be partly a transient effect.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[suer]

10-14mph for me at the moment as I'm unfit, 12-17 when I'm fitter.

[Nick Maclaren]

On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
and, if so, when and by how much.

A few people have anecdotal and observational evidence, but I know
of little of the latter, and I know of no measured evidence.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[PhilD]

On Jan 22, 12:47*pm, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
> commuting ones. *Specifically, has there been a general decrease
> and, if so, when and by how much.
>
> A few people have anecdotal and observational evidence, but I know
> of little of the latter, and I know of no measured evidence.


I don't know about official/measured speeds over time, but *my*
cycling speed has gone up over the last few years, for the same
commute (oh how i wish I could get a different job, but that's a
different issue).

A couple of years ago I generally got to and from work at about
15mph. Now anything below 16mph is a really slow day.

Does that help at all?

PhilD

--
<><

[Alex Colvin]

>> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
>> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?

I'd have to say that mine has improved considerably over the past 50
years. Although most of that improvement came in the first 10.

--
mac the naïf

[[email protected]]

On Jan 22, 2:10 pm, PhilD > wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:47 pm, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>
> I don't know about official/measured speeds over time, but *my*
> cycling speed has gone up over the last few years, for the same
> commute (oh how i wish I could get a different job, but that's a
> different issue).
>
> A couple of years ago I generally got to and from work at about
> 15mph. Now anything below 16mph is a really slow day.
>
And a change from 15mph to 16mph is a fairly large increase in power
output (21%) if we assume that 15mph is fast enough for the main drag
to be wind resistance.

Tim.

[Colin McKenzie]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article >,
> "vernon" > writes:
> |> "Colin McKenzie" > wrote in message
> |> ...
> |> >> Chart 5 is interesting, in that the two main 'bumps' in cyclist death
> |> >> and injury were immediately following changes to the seatbelt laws
> |> >> (compulsory fitting in 1968 ...
> |> >
> |> > Except that it wasn't 1968. My 1965 car had the cheapest possible belts
> |> > fitted because it was compulsory. I think compulsory fitting was 63 or 64.
> |> > 63 is more likely to be misprinted as 68.
> |> >
> |> Wikipedia suggests '67
>
> Actually, it wasn't that simple, but I got the date of 1968 off the
> Web and it related to the mandatory retrofitting - both 1967 and 1968
> could have been correct (e.g. an Act being passed and coming into
> force - which is the date?)

That's feasible - we didn't get the car till March 68, and it's
possible belts could have been retrofitted before we got it. If that's
right, cars made from about 64 on would have had to have belts fitted
by 67 or so. Weird.

Compulsory use would have been a bigger effect anyway, because
optional users would be more safety-conscious to start with.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[DennisTheBald]

On Jan 22, 6:47 am, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> Specifically, has there been a general decrease

It depends, every individual I've talked to that that is over 50 and
has been commuting for a while (ok, if they were under 50 how long
could they have been commuting anyway?-) has observed a gradual
decline in their speeds. I don't think the same observation applies
to the population as a whole as young people do seem to go faster now
than they did when I was a kid... of course gears kinda help that.
Every time I've gotten a new bike I notice a blip on my average speed
that is like taking a year or two off my age. Granted, monitoring my
speed has become a lot easier in the past 20 years or so and I didn't
really care too much prior to GPSs. I don't think I was aware of this
slowing prior to 40 or 45 tho.

A decade ago I was averaging 15-16 mph with a good day being 17-18,
now I'm doing more like 12. My moms has held pretty steady tho, of
course she's holding steady at about 10. Hmm, moms' weight has held
pretty steady too and mine has steadily increased, in spite of cycling
5k or more miles per year, I wonder if maybe it's not age related at
all?

[Roger Merriman]

Nick Maclaren > wrote:

> On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
> commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
> and, if so, when and by how much.
>
> A few people have anecdotal and observational evidence, but I know
> of little of the latter, and I know of no measured evidence.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

i dought there is much more than that.

i suspect that it will have fallen than risen, due to the increased
traffic and timings of lights.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Nick Maclaren]

In article >,
Colin McKenzie > writes:
|>
|> That's feasible - we didn't get the car till March 68, and it's
|> possible belts could have been retrofitted before we got it. If that's
|> right, cars made from about 64 on would have had to have belts fitted
|> by 67 or so. Weird.
|>
|> Compulsory use would have been a bigger effect anyway, because
|> optional users would be more safety-conscious to start with.

Nope. That wasn't so. By the time they were made compulsory, most
people were using them. The effect during the optional stage was
gradual, of course - with most of the change during, say, 5 years.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Nick Maclaren]

In article >,
(Roger Merriman) writes:
|>
|> > On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
|> > commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
|> > and, if so, when and by how much.
|> >
|> > A few people have anecdotal and observational evidence, but I know
|> > of little of the latter, and I know of no measured evidence.
|>
|> i dought there is much more than that.

So do I - and the only usable observational evidence I know of is
mine :-(

|> i suspect that it will have fallen than risen, due to the increased
|> traffic and timings of lights.

Yes. But I suspect that the increased use of psychle farcilities has
had a bigger effect. On the road in from my house to Cambridge, the
median cycling speed (even in locations where lights and traffic are
not a constraint) dropped by something like 25% in 5 years (that's a
HELL of a lot in energy expenditure terms).

Unfortunately, I have observations on ONE road, and that could be
partly because the faster cyclists gave up in disgust and used a
longer but better route, combined by some slow cyclists being
attracted to it by the psychle farcilities.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Doc O'Leary[_5_]]

In article >,
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

> On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
> commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
> and, if so, when and by how much.
>
> A few people have anecdotal and observational evidence, but I know
> of little of the latter, and I know of no measured evidence.

With so many variables in play that affect average speeds, you're going
to have to be really specific on what you're measuring as a contributing
factor. I can think of any number of mechanisms that could lead to
significant differences, but good luck isolating them in commuters *now*
let alone having to dig in historical data to find a net positive or
negative.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

[Jim Harvest]

On Jan 21, 9:52 pm, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> Does anyone know of any reliable references as to how the average
> cycling speeds have changed over the past 50-60 years?
>
> Ideally, it would be for UK commuting cyclists, but any reliable
> information would be useful. I am NOT interested in racing speeds,
> time trials, and so on.
>
> I am not optimistic :-(
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Why are you after this data Nick?

[Nick Maclaren]

In article >,
Doc O'Leary > writes:
|>
|> > On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
|> > commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
|> > and, if so, when and by how much.
|>
|> With so many variables in play that affect average speeds, you're going
|> to have to be really specific on what you're measuring as a contributing
|> factor. I can think of any number of mechanisms that could lead to
|> significant differences, but good luck isolating them in commuters *now*
|> let alone having to dig in historical data to find a net positive or
|> negative.

No, that's not so. It depends on what I want to use that data for.
At least one of the uses needs merely the 'average' commuting speeds,
and does not need the reasons.

Specifically, the traditional rule is that cycling was 4 times as
fast as walking, meaning that realistic distances were about 4 times
larger. More recently, the DfT has started to use a ratio of 2.5
(i.e. 5 km versus 2 km). Some people have claimed that is merely
an indication of the idiocy of the DfT, but without providing a
scrap of evidence to justify their claim. Of course, the DfT hasn't
either ....

But my observations around Cambridge indicate that the DfT rule is
actually rather closer to modern reality than the old 4x rule, and
my guesstimate is that the median commuting speed is probably only
3x the median commuting speed of walkers. Give or take a hell of an
unestimated error!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[[email protected]]

> But my observations around Cambridge indicate that the DfT rule is
> actually rather closer to modern reality than the old 4x rule, and
> my guesstimate is that the median commuting speed is probably only
> 3x the median commuting speed of walkers. Give or take a hell of an
> unestimated error!
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

Nick - I know you are looking for average speeds across an extended
period and not specific accounts - so call me a knumpty if you must,
but my experience might be relevant to your enquiry because it uses
almost entirely non-road psychleroots.

I cover 22km each way about 3 times a week for about 9 months of the
year on a flat bar hybrid bike set up as a light(ish) commuter - i.e
thin high pressure tyres etc. This is on dedicated cyclepaths, canal
towpath, through a country park and about 3kms of country back road. I
don't race but I do regard it as an opportunity for fitness so I do
try to push along and I also have a speedo with a pace arrow.

I do the trip fairly consistently in 53-56 minutes making it around
24km/hr or 15mph. The 2.5x rule would mean a pedestrian speed of
6mph, 4x is about 3.75. I have one traffic light (across a narrow
bridge) and one road junction in the entire length, so traffic and
vehicle effects are minimal. The biggest issue that causes me to
break rhythm can be oblivious joggers plugged into their walkmans, but
as I am riding fairly remote and rural paths this only tends to happen
on fine summer days.

[Jeremy Parker]

"Nick Maclaren" > wrote

[snip]

> Specifically, the traditional rule is that cycling was 4 times as
> fast as walking, meaning that realistic distances were about 4
> times
> larger. More recently, the DfT has started to use a ratio of 2.5
> (i.e. 5 km versus 2 km). Some people have claimed that is merely
> an indication of the idiocy of the DfT, but without providing a
> scrap of evidence to justify their claim. Of course, the DfT
> hasn't
> either ....
>
> But my observations around Cambridge indicate that the DfT rule is
> actually rather closer to modern reality than the old 4x rule, and
> my guesstimate is that the median commuting speed is probably only
> 3x the median commuting speed of walkers. Give or take a hell of
> an
> unestimated error!

[snip]

Goodness gracious. Even the Dutch only use 3x [ref "The Dutch
Bicycle Master Plan", the Dutch Directorate General for passenger
transport, p107]. The Dutch also estimate that their bike network
unnecessarily raises their travel time by at least 25% [ref CTC
"More Bikes -Policy into Best Practice" p 49]

Jeremy Parker

[Robin Stevens]

In cam.transport Nick Maclaren > wrote:
> Colin McKenzie > writes:
> |>
> |> That's feasible - we didn't get the car till March 68, and it's
> |> possible belts could have been retrofitted before we got it. If that's
> |> right, cars made from about 64 on would have had to have belts fitted
> |> by 67 or so. Weird.
> |>
> |> Compulsory use would have been a bigger effect anyway, because
> |> optional users would be more safety-conscious to start with.

> Nope. That wasn't so. By the time they were made compulsory, most
> people were using them. The effect during the optional stage was
> gradual, of course - with most of the change during, say, 5 years.

Wearing was made compulsory within my lifetime - I am guessing early
eighties, given I clearly remember it.

The number of pre-1964 vehicles on the road by that stage would have
been pretty insignificant.

--
Robin Stevens >
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----

[Simon[_4_]]

On Jan 21, 11:07 pm, Lynne Fitz > wrote:
> This is fun. My commute is 3.6 miles. With a hill in the middle
> (yes, uphill both ways!)
>
> I average (moving average) between 11 and 12 mph. Takes about a
> minute longer to get home (longer hill climb side).

I did surprisingly well this morning - above 15mph moving average over
5 miles. No hills. :) I've stopped using the cycle route which is
longer
and slower, and stick to more direct (mostly) road route.

> For my weekend 200km brevet, our average was just under 10 mph. Our
> moving average was just over 12mph. Usually we are faster than that;
> finishing in 11:30-12 hours, rather than the 13 hours yesterday.

My slowest average on a Brevet Randonneur was just under 14kph
but that was quite a long one. :) I've managed between 9h50 on a
calendar 200 and in the worst case over 14h on a DIY over-distance
200!

> I've just started using a dynamo hub; it may have some effect on my
> speed.

I have been using one for years now (I own three now). There must
be an effect, but it's beneath my ability to detect it from my riding
speed when the light is on :) JOOI, which light are you using with
it?
I've just bought a new B&M IQ Fly and am really impressed by it.

Simon

[smn]

Dennis wrote
Hmm, moms' weight has held
pretty steady too and mine has steadily increased, in spite of cycling
5k or more miles per year, I wonder if maybe it's not age related at
all?

do not want any rants over this but muscle weighs more so if you did not
gain I would be surprised. the pinch test is the best. 14 points,
different for man and woman. one inch to the left and up from the belly
button should be an inch thick if you are healthy. more than that and you
are probably on the high side of your bmi. 14 points have to be done with
calipers so this is the layman's technique.
If I am more than an inch it means I am constipated to boot. do not feel
well or in shape so I take that as a sign to stop stuffing my mug.
do those weigh scales with fat percentage really work?
feel good/ look good /don't worry so much ciao

[smn]

"Nick Maclaren" > wrote in message
...
>
> In article
> >,
> Doc O'Leary > writes:
> |>
> |> > On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
> |> > commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
> |> > and, if so, when and by how much.
> |>
> |> With so many variables in play that affect average speeds, you're going
> |> to have to be really specific on what you're measuring as a
> contributing
> |> factor. I can think of any number of mechanisms that could lead to
> |> significant differences, but good luck isolating them in commuters
> *now*
> |> let alone having to dig in historical data to find a net positive or
> |> negative.
>
> No, that's not so. It depends on what I want to use that data for.
> At least one of the uses needs merely the 'average' commuting speeds,
> and does not need the reasons.
>
> Specifically, the traditional rule is that cycling was 4 times as
> fast as walking, meaning that realistic distances were about 4 times
> larger. More recently, the DfT has started to use a ratio of 2.5
> (i.e. 5 km versus 2 km). Some people have claimed that is merely
> an indication of the idiocy of the DfT, but without providing a
> scrap of evidence to justify their claim. Of course, the DfT hasn't
> either ....
>
> But my observations around Cambridge indicate that the DfT rule is
> actually rather closer to modern reality than the old 4x rule, and
> my guesstimate is that the median commuting speed is probably only
> 3x the median commuting speed of walkers. Give or take a hell of an
> unestimated error!
>

Or the walkers got healthier faster and the commuters are dogging it now.

> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 23, 11:08 pm, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> In article >,Doc O'Leary > writes:
>
> |>
> |> > On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
> |> > commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
> |> > and, if so, when and by how much.
> |>
> |> With so many variables in play that affect average speeds, you're going
> |> to have to be really specific on what you're measuring as a contributing
> |> factor. I can think of any number of mechanisms that could lead to
> |> significant differences, but good luck isolating them in commuters *now*
> |> let alone having to dig in historical data to find a net positive or
> |> negative.
>
> No, that's not so. It depends on what I want to use that data for.
> At least one of the uses needs merely the 'average' commuting speeds,
> and does not need the reasons.
>
> Specifically, the traditional rule is that cycling was 4 times as
> fast as walking, meaning that realistic distances were about 4 times
> larger. More recently, the DfT has started to use a ratio of 2.5
> (i.e. 5 km versus 2 km). Some people have claimed that is merely
> an indication of the idiocy of the DfT, but without providing a
> scrap of evidence to justify their claim. Of course, the DfT hasn't
> either ....
>
> But my observations around Cambridge indicate that the DfT rule is
> actually rather closer to modern reality than the old 4x rule, and
> my guesstimate is that the median commuting speed is probably only
> 3x the median commuting speed of walkers. Give or take a hell of an
> unestimated error!

Well IMO 3mph is a pretty brisk walk and 7.5mph is barely fast enough
to balance on a bicycle (4mph walking is definitely brisk but 10mph
cycling is still a dawdle over non-hilly routes) so 2.5x is stretching
things.

James

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:53:25 +0000 (UTC), Robin Stevens
> wrote:

>In cam.transport Nick Maclaren > wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie > writes:
>> |>
>> |> That's feasible - we didn't get the car till March 68, and it's
>> |> possible belts could have been retrofitted before we got it. If that's
>> |> right, cars made from about 64 on would have had to have belts fitted
>> |> by 67 or so. Weird.
>> |>
>> |> Compulsory use would have been a bigger effect anyway, because
>> |> optional users would be more safety-conscious to start with.
>
>> Nope. That wasn't so. By the time they were made compulsory, most
>> people were using them. The effect during the optional stage was
>> gradual, of course - with most of the change during, say, 5 years.
>
>Wearing was made compulsory within my lifetime - I am guessing early
>eighties, given I clearly remember it.
>
>The number of pre-1964 vehicles on the road by that stage would have
>been pretty insignificant.

The new Pontiac sedan used for "Drivers Education" in 1966 had seat
belts. So did my mother's '64 Thunderbird. They were optional extras
at the time.

My first albatross had had aviation type lap belts installed for the
front bucket seats when I bought it in 1969. It was a Jaguar MK VII.

My next albatross was 1959 Volvo PV544 that came stock with a
shoulder belt and locking front seats unseen on American cars until
much later.

The new '75 coffin I bought had shoulder belts as standard equipment.

I've used seat belts since I started driving and resented the
mandatory seat-belt law when it was enacted here in 1978. Same with
regulating headgear for bicyclists in '97. I'd been wearing a pot for
twenty years already when that came to pass.

Nobody told me I had to wear seat belts or a helmet. It just seemed
like a good idea since the professionals wore them.
--
zk

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Robin Stevens > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> Wearing was made compulsory within my lifetime - I am guessing early
> eighties, given I clearly remember it.

1982[1] for front seat belts; 1991 for rears.

A bit of searching suggests 1965 as the year in which fitting front seat
belts into motorcars became compulsory.

1 - or 1983, depending on whether one believes the Department of Transport,
or the Bedfordshire and Luton[2] Casualty Reduction Partnership

2 - last time I looked, Luton was in Bedfordshire. Has the Luton Popular
Front succeeded in gaining independence or something?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Frozen gorillas can be used to control the temperature of a warm
and stuffy room.

[Doc O'Leary[_5_]]

In article >,
(Nick Maclaren) wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Doc O'Leary > writes:
> |>
> |> > On this topic, I am not looking for personal speeds, but average
> |> > commuting ones. Specifically, has there been a general decrease
> |> > and, if so, when and by how much.
> |>
> |> With so many variables in play that affect average speeds, you're going
> |> to have to be really specific on what you're measuring as a contributing
> |> factor. I can think of any number of mechanisms that could lead to
> |> significant differences, but good luck isolating them in commuters *now*
> |> let alone having to dig in historical data to find a net positive or
> |> negative.
>
> No, that's not so. It depends on what I want to use that data for.
> At least one of the uses needs merely the 'average' commuting speeds,
> and does not need the reasons.

Then your motives are biased and you're better off simply faking the
"science" to show the results you want.

> Specifically, the traditional rule is that cycling was 4 times as
> fast as walking, meaning that realistic distances were about 4 times
> larger. More recently, the DfT has started to use a ratio of 2.5
> (i.e. 5 km versus 2 km). Some people have claimed that is merely
> an indication of the idiocy of the DfT, but without providing a
> scrap of evidence to justify their claim. Of course, the DfT hasn't
> either ....

Don't pretend like you're looking for actual evidence either. Also
realize you're posting to an international forum where many/most people
have no idea what "DfT" refers to or why we should care about their use
of a 2.5 multiplier instead of 4 for some unknown purpose.

> But my observations around Cambridge indicate that the DfT rule is
> actually rather closer to modern reality than the old 4x rule, and
> my guesstimate is that the median commuting speed is probably only
> 3x the median commuting speed of walkers. Give or take a hell of an
> unestimated error!

Observation bias seems to be your best friend. Do a real study if you
want to be taken seriously and, even then, I have outlined the
difficulty in isolating the factors that contribute to a significant
difference.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

[[email protected]]

James Annan wrote:
> 7.5mph [12 km/h] is barely fast enough to balance on a bicycle

If that's true, how on earth do you get started?

(I find no difficulty in balancing down to about 1 km/h.
According to my speedometer, that is -- obviously measurement
gets less accurate the slower I go. Below that I need rather
larger steering motions but can still stay upright.)

--
Gareth Rees

[[email protected]]

Looking for multipliers is an error-prone game. How fast do
pedestrian's walk? Which pedestrians, commuters? I'd expect you can
find some published papers with estimates. Not so hard to do with time
the right software and time lapse photography. Sampling the people in
one location is not much of a problem. Just photograph them in numbers
from overhead. Sampling time of day and locations is a greater
challenge. But, protocols and measurement challenges are all in the
traffic engineering literature.

Harry Travis
USA

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> 2 - last time I looked, Luton was in Bedfordshire. Has the Luton Popular
> Front succeeded in gaining independence or something?

It us a Unitary Authority.

[CJ[_2_]]

On 23 Jan, 14:08, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
>
> Specifically, the traditional rule is that cycling was 4 times as
> fast as walking, meaning that realistic distances were about 4 times
> larger. *More recently, the DfT has started to use a ratio of 2.5
> (i.e. 5 km versus 2 km). *Some people have claimed that is merely
> an indication of the idiocy of the DfT, but without providing a
> scrap of evidence to justify their claim. *Of course, the DfT hasn't
> either ....
>
> But my observations around Cambridge indicate that the DfT rule is
> actually rather closer to modern reality than the old 4x rule, and
> my guesstimate is that the median commuting speed is probably only
> 3x the median commuting speed of walkers. *Give or take a hell of an
> unestimated error!
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

For the same expenditure of energy, cycling certainly is four times
faster, of that there is great deal of sound scientific evidence. But
when cycling, a person does not necessarily choose to expend the same
amount of energy. It is entirely reasonable to take advantage of the
greater efficiency provided by the bicycle, to get to one's
destination with less effort as well as somewhat more rapidly.

Only those who enjoy cycling for its own sake, or feel they have
something to prove, have the motivation to work as hard as they
reasonbly can on a bicycle. For the average man or woman in the street
it is very much an energy saving device. So whilst the contributors of
this forum may well ride four times as fast and as far as any
pedestrian, it is perhaps not unreasonable to expect something less
from the average commuter.

Cambridge and Holland are similar in providing an environment in which
people are happy to just hop on a bike, simply for convenience,
instead of walking. Elsewhere in Britain, cycling is so unusual that
people would generally rather walk. So a lot of the cycling journeys
in Cambridge and Holland are very short, without much incentive to go
particularly fast since they'll only take a few minutes and be
somewhat quicker than walking anyway.

On the other hand, a lot of the commuting done by keen cyclists is
over long distances, instead of using a car or public transport, so
there is a strong incentive to go as fast as reasonably possible. It
is not reasonable to expect that more than a few other people would do
likewise, even if there were to be a general increase cycling in this
country.