Average (non-racing) cycling speeds



10-14mph for me at the moment as I'm unfit, 12-17 when I'm fitter.
 
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.
 
On Jan 22, 12:47 pm, [email protected] (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

--
<><
 
>> 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
 
On Jan 22, 2:10 pm, PhilD <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:47 pm, [email protected] (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.
 
In message <[email protected]>, 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.
>

It depends on the class of road - most of my cycling tends to be on roads
where the traffic levels are lower, so I reckon my average speed has been
constant over the years since I bought the bike (not all in the Cambridge
area). However, it was noticeably slower on the two occasions I tried using
the B1049 through Histon to get to Cambridge Science Park. I put this down
to the fact that there's enough other vehicles and traffic lights that I
can't maintain a constant speed. However, a sample of two isn't really
enough, especially given that I now avoid that route even though it's
shorter distance-wise than the alternative that uses quieter roads.
--
Dave
mail da [email protected] (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time
 
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "vernon" <[email protected]> writes:
> |> "Colin McKenzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> |> news:[email protected]...
> |> >> 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.
 
On Jan 22, 6:47 am, [email protected] (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?
 
Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> 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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
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.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
In article <1ib5qa2.10cjisl15q1weuN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (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
 
On Jan 21, 9:52 pm, [email protected] (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?
 
Jim Harvest wrote:
> On Jan 21, 9:52 pm, [email protected] (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 :-(

>
> Why are you after this data Nick?


To demonstrate that psychle farcilities slow cyclists down rather than
speeding them up perhaps?

--

Brian Morrison

bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk
 
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!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
 
"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> 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
 
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.

--
Robin Stevens <[email protected]>
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----
 
On Jan 21, 11:07 pm, Lynne Fitz <[email protected]> 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
 
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
 
"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.