Does it give any indication of how flat the various places are? I
have to
laugh when politicians openly wonder why cycling is less popular in
London
than in Amsterdam.

There was a study that found that in Britain terrain is the biggest
influence on amount of cycling. The figures are rather old, but Jon
Parkin, who I quoted in my previous post, was planning to redo the
study. I don't know how he's getting on. Hilly places are rainy
places here, but apparently it seems to be hills, not rain, that
likely makes the difference.

This is consistent with Danish findings, that a 50m elevation gain
halves cycling. It's also consistent with the rule of thumb that
100' elevation gain is equivalent to an extra mile on the flat, given
that the average bike trip is about 2 miles.

There are hilly cities where people ride bikes. Bristol in the UK is
an example, and San fransisco and Seattle in the USA

Jeremy Parker