Missive from the Dept of the Bleeding Obvious: e-scooters are not active transport

[Webbo2]

Cycling uses about a third of the energy of walking, nobody would have seen the point of bikes in the first place if they used more energy than walking.

View attachment 800981
(Ref: ACSM Compendium of Physical Activity)


People get off and walk because they can't balance the bike a slow enough pace, not because it's less efficient (and because there's no point in providing a gear low enough for a speed you can't balance at). The reason cycling is more efficient than walking is that when you walk, you're lifting your entire bodyweight slightly with every step.

So that graph is showing that a walking pace of 3 to 4 miles an hour which is a fairly decent pace is harder than riding 22 plus miles an hour on a bike. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[Bristolian]

Cycling uses about a third of the energy of walking, nobody would have seen the point of bikes in the first place if they used more energy than walking.

Except for the fact that in any given time frame, for the same amount of energy used, a bicycle travels much further than someone walking. Cycling is, therefore, more time efficient than walking. Efficiency is not just about the amount of energy expended.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

If you are using more energy walking than cycling you must be cycling very, very slowly or going downhill all day.

Surely is the distance one needs to compare, not the speed.
Ime a five mile walk (without stopping), even at a sedate pace, takes more energy than a 5 mile cycle.
The parameters assumed are that the terrain is the same, and that general fitness of both walker and cyclist are on the same level too.

So that graph is showing that a walking pace of 3 to 4 miles an hour which is a fairly decent pace is harder than riding 22 plus miles an hour on a bike. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

22mph on the bike?
Are you comparing 3/4 mph walking speed to 22mph cycling speed?
Or do you mean a 22 miles ride compared to what distance?
I have walked my work commute a couple of times, for sure cycling is faster and less energy draining imo.
I'm not a newby walker either.

 

[Webbo2]

Surely is the distance one needs to compare, not the speed.
Ime a five mile walk (without stopping), even at a sedate pace, takes more energy than a 5 mile cycle.
The parameters assumed are that the terrain is the same, and that general fitness of both walker and cyclist are on the same level too.

22mph on the bike?
Are you comparing 3/4 mph walking speed to 22mph cycling speed?
Or do you mean a 22 miles ride compared to what distance?
I have walked my work commute a couple of times, for sure cycling is faster and less energy draining imo.
I'm not a newby walker either.

As far as I could see on the graph posted it was indicating that walking at 3 to 4 miles an hour was harder than riding at 22 mph plus.🤷🏼‍♂️😱

 

[Webbo2]

Surely is the distance one needs to compare, not the speed.
Ime a five mile walk (without stopping), even at a sedate pace, takes more energy than a 5 mile cycle.
The parameters assumed are that the terrain is the same, and that general fitness of both walker and cyclist are on the same level too.

Shirley you need to compare time to complete the task. 5 miles walking would take about 70 minutes on flat terrain. How would that compare with 70 minutes cycling on the same terrain.
70 minutes of flat walking I wouldn’t even be breaking a sweat however 70 minutes cycling and I would be wringing out my base layer and I wouldn’t be anywhere near 22 mph.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Shirley you need to compare time to complete the task. 5 miles walking would take about 70 minutes on flat terrain. How would that compare with 70 minutes cycling on the same terrain.
70 minutes of flat walking I wouldn’t even be breaking a sweat however 70 minutes cycling and I would be wringing out my base layer and I wouldn’t be anywhere near 22 mph.

Jimmy, why is your post that I am quoting different than the one that appears above?
Never mind.
I think you are making a false equivalence here, imo, and I stand by it, it's the distance one needs to compare
Anyway, 5 miles walking make you spend more energy than 5 miles cycling, takes longer too, obviously.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Walking down a narrow back street in Weymouth last week and saw a weird looking vehicle sign written for the local taxi company. Spoke to the driver and it's used to advertise the company as it looks so funky. It was a Renault Twizzy. I think youngsters in France can drive them ( or similar) from the age of 14.

We have those here: I think they have a Mofa plate, which means they can be driven with a scooter licence. This is the same plate as is used on Ebikes which have a maximum speed of 45km/h

 

[Webbo2]

Jimmy, why is your post that I am quoting different than the one that appears above?
Never mind.
I think you are making a false equivalence here, imo, and I stand by it, it's the distance one needs to compare
Anyway, 5 miles walking make you spend more energy than 5 miles cycling, takes longer too, obviously.

Look at the graph that presta has posted higher up the page. I disagree it’s not the distance it’s the time to complete the task or the time given to complete the task.
I know you are 5 mph Pat however if You can walk 5 miles in an hour you clearly don’t press hard enough on the pedals 🤣

 

[Webbo2]

👍

 

[Ajax Bay]

walking will use more energy than cycling if it is on the level and you are not trying to do time trial speeds
using an escooter will probably use more energy than driving a car - and give you more fresh air
but running would use more energy than walking

Typical MET # ranges

• Walking: ~2.8–3.5 MET (easy, 3.0 mph) up to ~5.0–6.0 MET (brisk, 4.0–4.5 mph; incline raises it further).
• Running: ~7.5 MET (jogging) to 9.8+ MET (6.0 mph/9:40 per mile) and higher with speed or hills.
• Cycling: ~4–6 MET (casual 10–12 mph) to 8–10 MET (12–16+ mph).
• Scooter Riding (not 'e-'): ~6-8 MET (casual 7–9 mph) to 9–11 MET (10–14 mph).

People walking 'normally' v cycling 'normally', on the flat, will use less energy, per time unit.
# MET (metabolic equivalent): which translate activity intensity into a multiplier of your resting metabolism. One MET is your resting burn; higher METs mean more oxygen use and more calories.
The paper linked in OP has e-scooter at 2.14 METs, walking at 3.12 METs and driving at 1.42 METs.

 

[Gwylan]

Yesterday in beautiful sunshine I cycled 25km. I asked my bike how much energy I used.
It told me 220kcal.
The E-Bike contributed about the same.

I asked Google, you know you can trust him, how much energy I might have used walking.
He replied 1250 to 1500kcal

Yes I would have used more energy walking, but I wouldn't have done it.
Also you have the time required. 6kph walking competing with 20kph riding gently
As an aside, I would have been found slumped in a hedge if I'd tried to walk 25km.

 

[matticus]

<much of the numbers debate above is absurd - I refuse to get drawn in! But:>

Clearly terrain plays a huge part. The very casual rider may baulk at cycling very steep routes for utility trips - whereas flattish rides mean a cooling breeze that's often a big plus over walking.

 

[winjim]

I don't think walking has the same benefit as cycling when it comes to recovery of potential energy. I still need to expend energy when walking downhill, there's no freewheeling.

 

[Dadam]

It's bleeding obvious that walking uses more energy per mile. Imagine walking a completely flat mile at 4mph, then cycling the same at 4mph.

Typical MET # ranges

• Walking: ~2.8–3.5 MET (easy, 3.0 mph) up to ~5.0–6.0 MET (brisk, 4.0–4.5 mph; incline raises it further).
• Running: ~7.5 MET (jogging) to 9.8+ MET (6.0 mph/9:40 per mile) and higher with speed or hills.
• Cycling: ~4–6 MET (casual 10–12 mph) to 8–10 MET (12–16+ mph).
• Scooter Riding (not 'e-'): ~6-8 MET (casual 7–9 mph) to 9–11 MET (10–14 mph).

People walking 'normally' v cycling 'normally', on the flat, will use less energy, per time unit.
# MET (metabolic equivalent): which translate activity intensity into a multiplier of your resting metabolism. One MET is your resting burn; higher METs mean more oxygen use and more calories.
The paper linked in OP has e-scooter at 2.14 METs, walking at 3.12 METs and driving at 1.42 METs.

MET is a time based metric (metabolic rate) but the graph presta posted is distance based.

 

[Webbo2]

It's bleeding obvious that walking uses more energy per mile. Imagine walking a completely flat mile at 4mph, then cycling the same at 4mph.



MET is a time based metric (metabolic rate) but the graph presta posted is distance based.

Can you cycle at 4mph without toppling over🤔