# Distance, Duration, and Velocity in Cycle Commuting: Analyses of Relations and Determinants of Velocity

^{1}

^{2}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Participants

#### 2.2. Questionnaires, Administration, Response Rates, and Inclusion Criteria

#### 2.3. Maps and Route Distance Measurements

#### 2.4. Commuting Durations and Estimations of Cycling Velocity

#### 2.5. Localisation of Trip Origins and Destinations in Relation to Inner Urban and Suburban Areas

#### 2.6. Study Area

#### 2.7. Characteristics of the Participants

#### 2.8. Analytical Approach and Statistical Analyses

^{2}) for the overall models. To indicate significance, a statistical level corresponding to at least p < 0.05 was used.

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. The Relation between Distance and Duration for Commuter Cycling Velocity

#### 3.2. The Distribution of Self-Reported Cycling Durations

#### 3.3. The Relation between the Self-Reported Duration Last Digit Category and the Estimated Cycling Velocities with Gender

#### 3.4. The Relation between Cycling Velocity and Distance, as Well as Other Predictors

^{−1}) = 16.2 + 0.64 × distance (km) + 1.69 × sex (1 = male) − 0.066 × age (years) + 0.036 × weight (kg) − 0.15 × body mass index (kg·m

^{−2}) − 1.66 × last digit in duration report (1 = 0 or 5) − 0.65 × cycling environment (1 = inner urban). For details, see Table 4.

#### 3.5. The Relation between Cycling Velocity and Duration, as Well as Other Predictors

^{−1}) = 18.3 + 0.096 × duration (min) + 2.67 × sex (1 = male) − 0.084 × age (years) + 0.051 × weight (kg) − 0.20 × body mass index (kg·m

^{−2}) − 1.49 × last digit in duration report (1 = 0 or 5) − 1.59 × cycling environment (1 = inner urban). For details, see Table 5.

## 4. Discussion

^{−1}per km of distance, and by about 0.10 km·h

^{−1}per minute increase in duration. One consequence of this is that energy demands per unit of time of cycling, and thereby the metabolic equivalent of task (MET) values, increase with both durations and distances. This is relevant for consideration in, for instance, physiological and epidemiological studies, as well as in health economic assessments. For example, the WHO Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for Cycling [2] makes, at present, use of a fixed MET-value of 6.8 and a cycling velocity of 14 km·h

^{−1}for both males and females independent of distance or duration. The findings in this study lend support to a development in that respect.

^{−1}higher velocities with last digit durations of 1–4 and 6–9, as compared to last digit durations of 0 and 5) is generalised to different distances or durations, ages and sexes, etc. Against the background given above, the relation between speed and distance or duration reported by individuals with last digit duration reports of 1–4 and 6–9 is interpreted to be a more correct representation of the actual values, and it is recommended to be used in such applications as epidemiological studies, traffic modelling and planning, health economic assessments, and cost-benefit analyses.

^{−1}higher speeds being noted for a given distance cycled in the suburban areas as compared to the inner urban areas in a metropolitan setting. In light of the differences in environmental conditions between these areas [23], these results may not, however, be surprising.

^{2}-values of the full model. Adding body weight and BMI as predictors had a very minor influence on those levels, but led to between 16–18% decreases in the size of the unstandardised regression coefficient B for sex. When omitting either BMI or body weight as predictors in the full regression models, the corresponding increases were 23% in regression coefficient for sex. It illustrates that those variables play a role in the overall sex differences noted in cycling speed.

#### Strengths and Limitations

## 5. Conclusions

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Statens vegvesen Vegdirektoratet. Veiledning. Konsekvensanalyser. Håndbok V712; Statens vegvesen: Oslo, Norway, 2014; p. 85. ISBN 978-82-7207-674-9. (In Norwegian) [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for Walking and Cycling; Kahlmeier, S., Kelly, P., Foster, C., Götschi, T., Cavill, N., Dinsdale, H., Woodcock, J., Schweizer, C., Rutter, H., Lieb, C., et al., Eds.; WHO Regional Office for Europe and United Nations Economic Council for Europe (UNECE): Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ainsworth, B.E.; Haskell, W.L.; Whitt, M.C.; Irwin, M.L.; Swartz, A.; Strath, S.J.; O’Brien, W.L.; Bassett, D.R., Jr.; Schmitz, K.H.; Emplaincourt, P.O. Compendium of Physical Activities: An update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
**2000**, 32, S498–S516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Allen, D.; Rouphail, N.; Hummer, J.; Milazzo, J., II. Operational Analysis of Uninterrupted Bicycle Facilities. Transp. Res. Rec.
**1998**, 1638, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El-Geneidy, A.M.; Krizek, K.J.; Iacono, M. Predicting bicycle travel speeds along different facilities using GPS data: A proof of concept model. In Proceedings of the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA, 21–25 January 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Coluccia, E.; Louse, G. Gender differences in spatial orientation: A review. J. Environ. Psychol.
**2004**, 24, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Crompton, A.; Brown, F. Distance estimation in a small-scale environment. Environ. Behav.
**2006**, 38, 656–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gärling, T.; Loukopoulos, P. Choice of driving versus walking related to cognitive distance. In Applied Spatial Cognition: From Research to Cognitive Technology; Allen, G.L.E., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 3–23. ISBN 9780805852998. [Google Scholar]
- Stigell, E.; Schantz, P. Methods for Determining Route Distances in Active Commuting—Their Validity and Reproducibility. J. Transp. Geogr.
**2011**, 19, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schantz, P.; Stigell, E. A criterion method for measuring route distance in physically active commuting. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
**2009**, 41, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Rietveld, P. Rounding of Arrival and Departure Times in Travel Surveys; Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2001–110/3; Vrije Universiteit: Amsterdam, The Netherland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, P.; Krenn, P.; Titze, S.; Stopher, P.; Foster, C. Quantifying the difference between self-reported and global positioning systems-measured journey durations: A systematic review. Transp. Rev. Trans. Transdiscipl. J.
**2013**, 33, 443–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kelly, P. Assessing the Utility of Wearable Cameras in the Measurement of Walking and Cycling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Stigell, E.; Schantz, P. Active commuting behaviours in a nordic metropolitan setting in relation to modality, gender, and health recommendations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health.
**2015**, 12, 15626–15648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Åstrand, P.-O.; Ryhming, I. A nomogram for calculation of aerobic capacity (physical fitness) from pulse rate during sub-maximal work. J. Appl. Physiol.
**1954**, 7, 218–221. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] - Atkinson, G.; Davison, R.; Jeukendrup, A.; Passfield, L. Science and cycling: Current knowledge and future directions for research. J. Sports Sci.
**2003**, 21, 767–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Faria, E.W.; Parker, D.L.; Faria, I.E. The science of cycling: Physiology and training—Part 1. Sports Med.
**2005**, 35, 285–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Åstrand, I. Aerobic work capacity in men and women with special reference to age. Acta Physiol. Scand.
**1960**, 49, 1–92. [Google Scholar] - Åstrand, P.-O.; Rodahl, K. Textbook of Work Physiology. Physiological Bases of Exercise, 1st ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1970; p. 306. ISBN 07-002405-7. [Google Scholar]
- Swain, D.P. The influence of body mass in endurance bicycling. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
**1994**, 26, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Åstrand, I.; Åstrand, P.-O.; Stunkard, A. Oxygen intake of obese individuals during work on a bicycle ergometer. Acta Physiol. Scand.
**1960**, 50, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Berry, M.J.; Storsteen, J.A.; Woodard, C.M. Effects of body mass on exercise efficiency and VO2 during steady-state cycling. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
**1993**, 25, 1031–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wahlgren, L.; Schantz, P. Bikeability and methodological issues using the active commuting route environment scale (ACRES) in a metropolitan setting. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.
**2011**, 11, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - The Swedish School for Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, Stockholm, Sweden: The Research Project Physically Active Commuting in Greater Stockholm (PACS). Available online: http://www.gih.se/pacs (accessed on 15 July 2017).
- Johansson, C.; Lövenheim, B.; Schantz, P.; Wahlgren, L.; Almström, P.; Markstedt, A.; Strömgren, M.; Forsberg, B.; Sommar, J.N. Impacts on air pollution and health by changing commuting from car to bicycle. Sci. Total Environ.
**2017**, 584–585, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Wahlgren, L.; Stigell, E.; Schantz, P. The active commuting route environment scale (ACRES): Development and evaluation. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.
**2010**, 7, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Stockholm Office of Research and Statistics. Statistical Year-Book of Stockholm 2006. Area and Population Density by City District; (Statistisk Årsbok för Stockholm 2006. Areal och Befolkningstäthet i Stadsdelsområden, SDN-Delar och Stadsdelar); Utrednings-och Statistikkontoret i Stockholms Stad: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006; Available online: http://statistik.stockholm.se/attachments/article/38/arsbok_2006.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2017). (In Swedish)
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed.; SAGE: London, UK, 2005; p. 175. [Google Scholar]
- Åstrand, P.-O. Experimental Studies of Physical Working Capacity in Relation to Sex and Age; Ejnar Munksgaard: Copenhagen, Denmark, 1952; p. 106. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**The relation between criterion-measured route distances and estimated velocities for commuter cyclists (n = 1661, 34% males). The line fits 85% of the individual values.

**Figure 2.**The relation between self-reported durations and estimated velocities for commuter cyclists (n = 1661, 34% males). The line fits 85% of the individual values.

**Figure 3.**The frequency distribution of individual self-reported cycle commuting durations (n = 1661).

**Figure 4.**The relative proportions of data from male participants in clusters of self-reported cycling durations (n = 1516). The range of clusters (3–20) represents durations from 6–9 min to 50 min. The even-numbered clusters represent durations with the last digits being 0 or 5 (red symbols connected with continuous lines). The uneven-numbered clusters represent durations with the last digits being 1–4 or 6–9 (blue symbols connected with dashed lines). Cluster 4 = 10 min; 8 = 20 min; 12 = 30 min; 16 = 40 min; and 20 = 50 min. For further explanations, see Methods.

**Figure 5.**The relation between consecutive clusters of self-reported cycling durations and the estimated cycling velocities for males (mean value and 80% confidence interval) (n = 498). The even-numbered clusters represent durations with the last digits being 0 or 5 (red symbols connected with continuous lines). The uneven-numbered clusters represent durations with the last digits being 1–4 or 6–9 (blue symbols connected with dashed lines). For further explanations, see legend to Figure 4 and Methods.

**Figure 6.**The relation between consecutive clusters of self-reported cycling durations and the estimated cycling velocities in females (mean value and 80% confidence interval) (n = 1018). The even-numbered clusters represent durations with the last digits being 0 or 5 (red symbols connected with continuous lines). The uneven-numbered clusters represent durations with the last digits being 1–4 or 6–9 (blue symbols connected with dashed lines). For further explanations, see legend to Figure 4 and Methods.

Sex | Age Years | Height cm | Weight kg | BMI kg·m^{−1} | Distance m | Duration min | Velocity km·h^{−1} | Cycling Environment * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Male (n = 562) | 47 38–57 | 180 176–185 | 78 72–84 | 23.9 22.4–25.4 | 7794 4594–12,790 | 25 19–40 | 17.9 14.7–21.3 | I = 94 |

I–S = 277 | ||||||||

S = 191 | ||||||||

Female (n = 1099) | 47 39–55 | 168 164–172 | 64 59–70 | 22.6 21.0–24.4 | 4900 3000–8050 | 20 15–33 | 14.0 11.6–16.5 | I = 242 |

I–S = 388 | ||||||||

S = 469 |

**Table 2.**Expected and detected distributions of last digit categories in male and female commuter cyclists (n = 1661). The absolute number in each group is also indicated.

Last Digits in Self-Reported Cycle Trip Durations | Males | Females | ||
---|---|---|---|---|

Expected Distribution % (Number) | Detected Distribution % (Number) | Expected Distribution % (Number) | Detected Distribution % (Number) | |

0 or 5 | 20% (112) | 69% (387) | 20% (220) | 75% (819) |

1–4 or 6–9 | 80% (450) | 31% (175) | 80% (879) | 25% (280) |

Variable | Velocity | Distance | Duration | Age | Weight | BMI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Velocity | - | |||||

Distance | 0.67 *** | - | ||||

Duration | 0.32 *** | 0.89 *** | - | |||

Age | −0.21 *** | −0.07 ** | 0.03 n.s. | - | ||

Weight | 0.24 *** | 0.19 *** | 0.09 *** | 0.07 ** | - | |

BMI | 0.02 n.s. | 0.06 * | 0.06 * | 0.16 *** | 0.76 *** | - |

**Table 4.**Multiple regression analyses of the relation between cycle commuting speed and distance, as well as other predictors. All calculations are based on data coupled to self-reported durations of ≤50 min (n = 1558).

Model 1 R^{2} = 0.56 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Outcome Variable | Predictor Variables | |||||||||

Cycling Velocity (km·h^{−1}) | Distance (km) | Sex (0 = Female; 1 = Male) | Age (years) | Weight (kg) | BMI (kg·m^{−2}) | Last Digit in Duration Self-Reports (0 = 1–4 or 6–9; 1 = 0 or 5) | Cycling Environment (0 = Suburban; 1 = Suburban–Inner Urban) | Cycling Environment (0 = Suburban; 1 = Inner Urban) | ||

y-intercept | 16.2 | unstandardized regression coefficient B | 0.64 | 1.69 | −0.066 | 0.036 | −0.15 | −1.66 | −0.35 | −0.65 |

95% CI | 14.8–17.6 | 95% confidence interval | 0.60–0.68 | 1.26–2.13 | −0.079–−0.053 | 0.008–0.064 | −0.25–−0.06 | −1.98–−1.34 | −0.69–−0.02 | −1.03–−0.26 |

p-value | 0.000 | p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.038 | 0.001 |

partial correlation | 0.62 | 0.19 | −0.24 | 0.06 | 0.08 | −0.25 | −0.05 | −0.08 |

**Table 5.**Multiple regression analyses of the relation between cycle commuting speed and duration as well as other predictors. All calculations are based on self-reported durations of ≤50 min (n = 1558).

Model 2 R^{2} = 0.34 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Outcome Variable | Predictor Variables | |||||||||

Cycling Velocity (km·h^{−1}) | Duration (min) | Sex (0 = Female; 1 = Male) | Age (years) | Weight (kg) | BMI (kg·m^{−2}) | Last Digit in Duration Self-Reports (0 = 1–4 or 6–9; 1 = 0 or 5) | Cycling Environment (0 = Suburban; 1 = Suburban–Inner Urban) | Cycling Environment (0 = Suburban; 1 = Inner Urban) | ||

y-intercept | 18.3 | unstandardized regression coefficient B | 0.096 | 2.67 | −0.084 | 0.051 | −0.20 | −1.49 | 0.33 | −1.59 |

95% CI | 16.6–20.0 | 95% confidence interval | 0.079–0.113 | 2.14–3.19 | −0.100–−0.068 | 0.017–0.086 | −0.31–−0.08 | −1.89–−1.09 | −0.08–0.75 | −2.06–−1.12 |

p-value | 0.000 | p-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.114 | 0.000 |

partial correlation | 0.27 | 0.24 | −0.25 | 0.08 | −0.09 | −0.18 | 0.04 | −0.17 |

© 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Schantz, P.
Distance, Duration, and Velocity in Cycle Commuting: Analyses of Relations and Determinants of Velocity. *Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health* **2017**, *14*, 1166.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101166

**AMA Style**

Schantz P.
Distance, Duration, and Velocity in Cycle Commuting: Analyses of Relations and Determinants of Velocity. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*. 2017; 14(10):1166.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101166

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Schantz, Peter.
2017. "Distance, Duration, and Velocity in Cycle Commuting: Analyses of Relations and Determinants of Velocity" *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health* 14, no. 10: 1166.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101166