Forum Topic

Michael - you should reread that first article you posted.https://sustainabilityinfo.com/transportation/what-is-the-average-speed-for-urban-cycling/It is actually a bit misleading, but I think the quote "On average, urban cycling has a speed of 19-26 km/h or 12-16 mph" is referring to the speed at which people travel when they are moving, not the average speed over an average trip in a city.The article then goes on to say that there are many variables that can impact average speed - lights, intersections, traffic etc. - and that it would be interesting to know what the actual average speed is in an urban environment.It goes on (with sourced data from 2012, although I looked at it and wouldn't say it was reliable) that the average cycling speed in Copenhagen is actually 9.6mph - about the same as the 9.3mph for the Google estimate of the trip Will posted.The second article does give an average speed of 11-18mph, presumably including stops although it isn't explicit, but it doesn't give any source and the blog is written by an English ex-pat cycling enthusiast commuting in Budapest, so it appears he's giving a personal estimate.The author links to another post where he discloses his average moving speed was 14.8mph and his average door to door speed was 12.5mph.  That's a single trip in Budapest, again, not much to do with average speeds of either type in London.https://bikecommuterhero.com/how-to-cycle-faster-in-the-city-a-commuters-guide/If it is any solace, I initially misread the first article the same way you did.There is data from Strava available (although those who track their rides via this app may well be more expert than your average commuter on a "shopping bike"!) and they give an average Greater London commuting speed (stripping out personal and fitness rides) in 2014 of 9.43mph.https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cycling-in-london-is-as-fast-as-driving-kcn2g9nc003

Ed Saper ● 1693d

Michael Robinson  exoplained" the Average Speed is calculated using the moving time, not total time"Which is "totally meaningless" as its solely dependent on the physical ability of the rider, the equipment at their disposal and the prevailing weather conditionsat the time. And nothing else. All of which are totally rider or weather dependant.Whereas an average speed based on the total time taken will reflect all the other extraneous factors affecting that speed, the number of crossings, traffic lights, junctions etc on any particular route. Thus offering a valid basis for comparison with other routes, for riders of any particular physical ability.A first law of computing or technology generally for that matter Michael - just because you can *now" do somethingor make some calculation which you couldn't easilydo before doesn't necessarily make it of any real use to anyone. Its the same with superfluous "features" in programs, electrical goods, announcements on trains etc.  He then went on -" The reason that they don’t use total time to calculate average speed is that it becomesmeaningless with time spent stopped."So its impossible to count the number of sets of traffic lights, crossings, junctions etc on a particular route is it ? He then explained - "If someone stops for a chat by the side of the road or nips into the shops,"Full marks there, Michael. You "almost" had me fooled.But not quite. And quite clearly as neither TfL or LbHwaste their time reading all this nonsense* you'resafe on that score as well.And how are *you* with cycling mirrors Michael, BTW ?  michael adams...

Michael Adams ● 1693d

Ed Saper explained" The problem here is the sources for your data - the article and blog post aren't reliable."*Except" that isn't what *you" (and Michael Robinson by implication ) were saying in your last post is it ?Eh Ed ?Then you were claiming that the speeds I was quoting were the speeds urban cyclists were achieveing whileracing between sets of traffic lights. When it was pointed out to the two of you that this was obviously nonsense - the speeds cyclists achieved while racing between traffic lights would be little different to the speeds they achieved elsewhere unless there were traffic lights at regular 100 yd intervals throughout, you have now decided to change your tune.The statistics weren't accurate enough *all of a sudden".You Ed, are just another troll.And like your mates Robinson, Pike, Campbell etc yetanother *troll without a mirror* on your bike.Despite the obvious safety advantages.Yet another topic which, just like yobbos cycling on pavements *none of you want to talk about*.You may succeed in fooling the bozos at TfL and LbH Ed, but you don't fool me for one minute. Any of you.Its noticeable that Pike has sensibly chosen to change the subject. He'd much rather talk about the accident rate and safety rather than speed. But not the extra safety provided by a mirror - oh no.Thus while cyclists won't fit a mirror becausethey feel it would make them look stupid, despite offering obvious safety benefits, non cyclists won't ride bikes not because they feel it would make *them"look stupid, but because they're worried about safety.Pike/Robinson logic at its finest.And where those two "lead" yourself and Campbell* follow on, trailing a good few yards behind. michael adams* This is assuming that Paul Campbell isn't in fact working on behalf of a consortium or local car dealers; to further strengthen motorists resolve to resist the obvious iniquities and injustices to which they're being subjected.  ...       

Michael Adams ● 1693d