Nick Maclaren <nmm1> 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

In article <13pctck8rbba48f>,
Colin McKenzie <news> 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%NEWS>,
NEWS (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 <fn4ok5$cqn$1>,
nmm1 (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.

On Jan 21, 9:52 pm, 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?
>
> 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, 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?
>>
>> 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?

In article <droleary.usenet-D8608C.07571723012008>,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet> 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.

> 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.

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1> 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 <nmm1> wrote:
> Colin McKenzie <news> 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.

On Jan 21, 11:07 pm, Lynne Fitz <fitzb> 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" <nmm1> wrote in message
news:cef1
[..]
> 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.

On Jan 23, 11:08 pm, n...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
[..]
> (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

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

>In cam.transport Nick Maclaren <nmm1> wrote:
>>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.