Average (non-racing) cycling speeds

[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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-D8608C.07571723012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-D8608C.07571723012...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,Doc O'Leary <[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In cam.transport Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> 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 news:[email protected],
Robin Stevens <[email protected]> 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]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

> In article
> <droleary.usenet-D8608C.07571723012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <[email protected]> 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]]

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]

On 23 Jan, 14:08, [email protected] (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.