On Jan 21, 5:38 pm, Martin Dann <martind> wrote:
> Duncan Smith wrote:
>>
>
> Is that 24miles each way, or a round trip.

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

On Jan 21, 7:52 am, n...@cus.cam.ac.uk (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.

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 <DSmith1> wrote:
[..]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <fn29oe$2ia$1>,
> jpmg (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

"Colin McKenzie" <news> wrote in message
news:8t7e
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> 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

In article <o5OdnUm4FLT_oQjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d>,
"vernon" <publicity_shy> writes:
|> "Colin McKenzie" <news> wrote in message
|> news:8t7e
|>
|> >> 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.

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, n...@cus.cam.ac.uk (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.

On Jan 22, 2:10 pm, PhilD <phildea> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:47 pm, n...@cus.cam.ac.uk (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.

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 would imagine that any change in average speed wouldn't tell us much.
Purely conjecture, but my guess is that as there seems to be a growing
division into (for want of better terms) 'cyclists' and 'POBs' that
there will also be a group traveling faster than in the past, and
another traveling slower. A simple average won't show this.

>
> I am not optimistic :-(
>
No - and if data on average speeds is unlikely to be available, there's
not much hope of more complex data.

In message <fn4ok5$cqn$1>, 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.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
> In article <o5OdnUm4FLT_oQjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d>,
> "vernon" <publicity_shy> writes:
> |> "Colin McKenzie" <news> wrote in message
> |> news:8t7e
> |> >> 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

On Jan 22, 6:47 am, n...@cus.cam.ac.uk (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?