- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Telegraph front page/ cyclists in Richmond Park (Simon MacMichael/Telegraph)Telegraph journalists told "check your research" after front page claims cyclists hit 52mph chasing London Strava segments... despite that being faster than Olympic track cyclists
"52mph in a 20 zone... Lycra lout cyclists are creating death traps all over Britain."
That is the news sat proudly atop The Telegraph newspaper's front page this morning, the promo for an in-depth analysis of Strava segments across London and the respective speeds reached to achieve their fastest times. However, as many people have since pointed out online, the speeds cited in lots of the paper's examples appear not to be the feat of unsuspecting cycle commuters who should really be ditching the suit and tie for a summer challenging Mark Cavendish at the Tour de France, but rather just the result of dodgy GPS data.
The feature centres around a segment on Chelsea Embankment, Tite St to Chelsea Bridge, where the Telegraph claims a cyclist (who probably "felt that was a commute well spent") had covered the 630-metre segment at 52mph (84km/h), evidence "cyclists are turning UK roads into death traps".
What the feature does not appear to question or fact check is why a London cyclist on their way to work would be faster even than what six-time Olympic champion Sir Chris Hoy says was his fastest ever speed, 80km/h achieved on an optimal indoor velodrome in the keirin, a track cycling event where riders slipstream behind a derny to achieve faster speeds.
The front page of tomorrow's Daily Telegraph:
'Labour tax rises as sure as night follows day, says Hunt'#TomorrowsPapersToday
Sign up for the Front Page newsletterhttps://t.co/x8AV4Oomry pic.twitter.com/r1PdVjjZlx
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) May 16, 2024
On another cited segment the newspaper alleges a cyclist smashed past Lambeth Bridge at 46mph (73km/h), hitting a max speed of 52mph, despite the average speed for their ride being 16mph (25km/h). A third claims a rider, whose power meter (a calibrated device giving an accurate measure of how much power a rider is putting through the pedals) reports he averaged 204w, but had taken the fastest time at a speed of 42mph (67km/h).
According to Bike Calculator, an 80kg cyclist riding a bike weighing eight kilogrammes (on a perfect summer's day with no wind) would have to hold 2,500w to ride the earlier Tite St to Chelsea Bridge segment at 52mph.
As one cyclist on social media responded to the article, "If you can ride through London at 52mph, please contact your local professional bicycling team. They may be interested in your skills."
Others pointed out the "GPS glitches" apparent in the segments used, Chas Pope telling the newspaper: "You might want to check your research on the cycling article you've splashed on your front page. Virtually all of the fast times on the Strava
segments you chose have GPS glitches".
Political reporter at The Guardian, Peter Walker, called the story "my absolute favourite anti-cycling news story of all time".
"But congrats, I suppose, to the Telegraph for opening a new (if entirely fictitious) front against cyclists: being able to travel at 52mph on the flat," he wrote on social media.
The story raises concerns about cyclists racing Strava segments putting pedestrians and other road users in danger, the story coming days after the ride-sharing app reminded the public that it already has a feature to flag segments as "hazardous", removing the leaderboard.
Strava was commenting to road.cc in light of calls from the Royal Parks to remove a segment in Regent's Park following the death of a pedestrian in a collision with a cyclist back in 2022. The rider involved will not face prosecution as the Metropolitan Police deemed there was "insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction".
The case, thrust into the spotlight since a recent coroner's inquest, reignited the discussion about cycling, the government now moving forward with introducing tougher legislation to prosecute cyclists who kill or injure through dangerous or careless cycling.
Commenting on the discussion around segments, Strava told us: "We are aware of the tragic cycling incident which occurred in London's Regent's Park in June 2022 and our condolences go to the victim's family.
"At Strava, safety of our active community and those around them is a priority, and we have community standards that note that 'sports happen in dynamic environments that we share with motorists, pedestrians, other people, equestrians, pets and wildlife'. Strava expects those in our community to 'prioritise everyone's safety and enjoyment of our shared resources and respect the law'. The behaviours related to this incident violate Strava's 'community standards'.
"At the end of last week, we received a request from Royal Parks to discuss the cycling route segment where the incident occurred. The ability to flag a cycling route segment as hazardous already exists in Strava. Anyone can report a segment that they would deem as hazardous. If segments are flagged as hazardous, achievements are not awarded for that segment and leaderboards are disabled. Any Strava community member who cycles on that same route segment will receive a warning of the hazards on that segment."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- AidanR 5 hours 8 min ago
Looking at the pictures in the linked article, the bikes aren't actually inconsiderately parked. The only issue is that they're on private property...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 10 min ago
Hope you don't mind some small corrections? Unless it's got much worse since I was last travelling there (over a decade ago now)....
- IanGlasgow 5 hours 22 min ago
"Anything made from an old bike part"...
- IanGlasgow 5 hours 28 min ago
As an urban commuter cyclist I really want a set of indicators that actually work....
- Simon E 5 hours 43 min ago
Ah yes, those are hopefully not the 'master craftsmen' that has constructed a wide range of shoddy Italian cars and motorbikes over the years with...
- Simon E 6 hours 6 min ago
A SuperSix is definitely not an all-rounder....
- JLasTSR 6 hours 12 min ago
Since most of.my clothes come.from.charity shops.or the eBay nearly for.nothing clothing section I don't tend.to.worry if they wear out, I am also...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 58 min ago
Just get them to walk a treadmill - or better, ride exercise bikes to power path lighting.
- AidanR 7 hours 34 min ago
So his advisers were trying to move funds around to cover losses, but in a way that needlessly created additional liabilities? It would have been...
Add new comment
112 comments
The Telegraph has now issued a correction:
"CORRECTION: This article and its headline have been amended to remove speeds recorded on Strava which Strava has now deleted and which appear to have been erroneous. Data is uploaded to Strava by users, either automatically or manually, and cannot be checked or independently verified; the data is accepted on trust. We are happy to clarify this point and correct the record."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/16/competitive-strava-cyclists-...
" New record - 5.4km in 28 seconds, giving me an average speed of...... 694 km/h. Should I call the daily mail?! " - CykelTony
The Telegraph may be wrong in detail and malign in spirit but this article and the comments below ignore their essential point. There are far too many segments that encourage unsafe cycling. Strava should surely develop an algorithm to exclude built up areas, major road crossings and perhaps also steep descents (at least on minor roads).
And they should make it easier to flag hazardous segments. I've never seen any evidence of a segment actually being flagged and I can see why. The instructions on how to do so are hard to find and obscurely worded. I've finally found and understood them and flagged two dangerous segments. I'll see if any flag appears or if Strava behaves like Facebook.
I must admit to feeling a little sorry for Telegraph reporters Eleanor Steafel and Ben Butcher in this case. It's almost certain they had no idea of how hard it is to reach speeds above 40 mph on a bike except on long downhills, or how few recreational cyclists can even get to 30 mph on the road.
They, no doubt, come from car world where such speeds are considered "slow" with 52 mph more like moderate. The business of journalism today is plagued by a dearth of people with no real-world experience with anything, and most of the smart kids have left the game.
Steafel is a feature writer focused on "food and dining" - https://muckrack.com/eleanor-steafel/articles - and Butcher is a "data editor'' focused on what might best be described as taking the garbage in and putting the garbage out - https://muckrack.com/ben-butcher.
There's nothing to suggest either of them would have had a clue as to how absurd the claim they were reporting.
Or
"CORRECTION: Sorry, people - we totally failed to fact check on this one but don't worry, we'll make sure they don't get away with it next time! We are happy to clarify this point and correct the record."
Dont be. Ben was literally employed as a fact checker by the BBC prior to moving to the Torygraph. Its 100% on him.
"It's not our fault; it's theirs."
If only they had a Sports section as part of their paper, then they could have spoken to one of the writers there. But alas...
The article still contains at least one reference to the now infamous 52mph. And loads of other questionable speeds still in the article.
I'm afraid the once respectable Daily Telegraph has now become one of the most reactionary rags in the UK. Pretty well all of its contributors are desperate hard-right agitators. A rogue's gallery of talentless grifters with an axe to grind.
It's not really my thing to talk politics on cycling forums, but in this case, we can now see the political dimension to recent attacks on our community.
What worries me the most is that anything which encourages drivers to further dislike or disrespect cyclists clearly endangers our safety.
This might shock some people, but Strava can be used by anyone, not just cyclists. You can even drive a motor vehicle and record the segment, not necessarily being truthful. 52mph on a bike you say? I wonder what the actual mode of transport was.
Could it be on someone's phone and they "forgot" to turn the app off?
Happened to glance at my Strava this evening - Battersea Bridge to Lots Road, leader 178 km/h! Stop the madness!
And here are the culprits
There was once a time when The Daily Telegraph was a respected newspaper to the right of the po;litical agenda.
Indeed, my grandfather used to read it even though his political opinions were towards the left, he said he found it the most objective and best written of the broadsheets. I very much doubt he would read it nowadays.
Astonishing that the Telegraph would allow such an obvious and basic error to make it to their front page. Then again, these Strava speeds look like fact if you aren't thinking too hard and want it to fit your agenda. It's chilling stuff - puts cyclists up and down the country in danger.
That's nothing - I did a 10,000 mile ride once in only a few hours
Started just SOuth of teh Bering Straits and rode as fast as I could to teh banks of a canal near Warrington - across part of teh Pacific, right across the USA and across the Altantic, Ireland and the Irish Sea
Then rode back home a bit slower
I should have applied for a World Record but I though using the Eco assist level on my Legal ebike might disqualify me
Must have been true as STrava said so!
That's nothing, I once rode from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in 11 hours on my Raleigh 20 folder I'd shipped in my hold luggae from the UK. That was in the old days though so no Strava and my camera broke so I've not got photos either. I had to ride a bit faster through Central America because there were several wars on at the time, otherwise it would've been 12 hours.
I dug out the Strava Sement "Tile St to Chelsea Bridge", and the KOM speed shows as 68.7kmh (42.9mph) which was set in March 2012. Not sure where the journalist got 52mph from. Looking at the speed for the ride analysis doesn't show any odd speed spikes either, so, did they make the 52mph up ?
https://www.strava.com/segments/13106975
Agreed - but still no sign of the mystery 52mph!
Rendel found this
"This is the current Strava leaderboard for Albert Bridge to Battersea Bridge along the (flat) Chelsea Embankment, from whence they presumably drew this data, with the leader at 86 kmh. If they weren't so eager to grasp at anything to demonise cyclists they might have noted that her alleged power output to achieve this feat was 92W; by my reckoning, even for a 60kg rider on a 7kg bike, it should require over 3000W!"
It'll not show on that leader board because apparently it was a Tacx virtual ride
Bikes can do unbelievable speeds special along the embarkment, there are a new breed of cyclists that think the road belongs to them, there also very good cyclists a balance must be fund not to punish those that ride responsible, 10 years ago all cyclists would stop at red lights there are people that are vision impaired that is a dead trap to them
Absolute bollocks.
Do you write headlines for the Torygraph or is this a ChatGPT-generated comment?
Yup. There are no fast cyclists (especially not on e-bikes), and all cyclists behave like saints all the time. Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying or a bot. Welcome to the world of road cc comments.
What kind of e-bikes? Are they legal EAPCs - only powered up to 15.5mph, most have limits on "power without pedalling"? Or do you mean "illegal electric motorbikes"?
I think we already have laws for those? (And indeed "cycling in the footway.
").
We could have clearer laws or perhaps greater punishments - but wouldn't it be better to perhaps sort out how they might be actually caught (police resources, public video reporting) or do something to discourage the motorbikes in the first place?
So do more to mildly discourage *actual high street stores selling e- things that are totally illegal to operate most places* Currys, never mind the interweb. Or maybe have a look into the very grey area of food delivery companies and their management of (and duties towards) their "definitely not employees, we've established that in law".
In the recent IDS article in the Telegraph concerning the proposed new death by dangerous cycling laws, he did mention the problem of modified e-bikes speeding around on the pavements, and he isn't wrong. However, an EAPC modified to 'go faster' is no longer an EAPC and is a motor vehicle instead and already covered by existing death by dangerous driving laws, I believe.
Whilst IDC may be confused about e-bikes, his mistake does underscore a lack of clarity and enforcement surrounding the category. There is a tendency, I think, to lump everything on two wheels with an electric motor into this catch-all category of 'e-bike' and make an 'e-bike' problem a cycling problem.
I see a lot of heavy pedlec-style bikes zipping around the city near me and they undoubtedly should not be on the pavement, and I'm sure almost none are properly licensed and insured as mopeds (which they should be). Similarly, on the TPT near me, I sometimes see masked youths on true electric motorbikes, something going at high-speed potentially in proximity to horses and small kids.
The public just sees 'e-bikes' and consequently blames cyclists.
Even the EAPC category can get confusing because a small number of twist-and-go models have been approved under its rubric.
Is HE back?
Pages