The authors regret that a mistake was made in Table 3 of the article. This table should read: [Table presented] The figures in bold, italic and red differ from the figures in the published article. As a result of these different values, the sixth sentence of the abstract should read: “S-pedelecs were much faster than conventional bicycles, amounting to a speed difference with conventional bicycles of 9.6 km/h in urban areas (M = 26.9 km/h vs. 17.3 km/h) and of 13.1 km/h in rural areas (M = 31.4 km/h vs. 18.3 km/h).” and the seventh sentence of the abstract should read: “The speed differences between pedelecs and conventional bicycles were much smaller: 2.8 km/h in urban areas (20.1 km/h vs 17.3 km/h) and 3.9 km/h in rural areas (22.2 km/h vs. 18.3 km/h). In the Discussion, Section 4.1. Comparison with previous studies on cycling speed characteristics, the second sentence of the second section should read: “Our study found similar patterns among Dutch riders. S-pedelecs were much faster than conventional bicycles, amounting to a speed difference in mean speeds in urban areas of 9.6 km/h (M = 26.9 km/h vs. 17.3 km/h) and in rural areas of 13.1 km/h (M = 31.4 km/h vs. 18.3 km/h). Values different from those in the published text are in bold, italic, and red. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

To assess the potential impact of the higher speeds of pedal-assisted bicycles on safety, this study compared conventional bicycles, pedelecs and speed pedelecs (hereafter called s-pedelecs) on mean speeds, speed variability, harsh braking events (decelerations > 2 m/s), and mean speeds above the speed limit (MSAL) in rural and urban areas in the Netherlands Data were collected in daily traffic, while the legal maximum speed for speed-pedelecs was 25 km/h, and pedelecs and s-pedelecs shared the infrastructure with conventional bicycles. Data were collected, using two-wheelers equipped with accelerometers and GPS. Personality factors – sensation seeking and risk taking - were measured with surveys. Regular commuters used one of the three bicycle types for two weeks. Participant bias was intentionally included by allowing participants to select a bicycle type of their preference, resulting in 12 conventional bicycle riders (71 % women), 14 pedelec riders (67 % women) and 20 s-pedelec riders (25 % women). S-pedelecs were much faster than conventional bicycles, amounting to a speed difference with conventional bicycles of 10.4 km/h in urban areas (M =28.2 km/h vs. 17.8 km/h) and of 13.2 km/h in rural areas (M = 31.4 km/h vs. 18.2 km/h). The speed differences between pedelecs and conventional bicycles were much smaller: 2.3 km/h in urban areas (20.1 km/h vs 17.8 km/h) and 4 km/h in rural areas (22.2 km/h vs. 18.2 km/h). Compared to conventional bicycles, s-pedelecs varied their speed to a greater extent and also braked harshly more frequently, showing a greater need for speed adjustment. These adjustments were larger at higher speeds. In contrast, pedelecs did not differ from conventional bicycles on speed variation. MSAL for s-pedelec riders differed by gender. For men the MSAL was 87 % on urban sections and 91 % on rural sections. For women, the MSAL was lower, respectively 23 and 69 %. None of the personality factors were associated with speed variability, harsh braking or MSAL. However, sensation seeking was associated with higher mean speeds on all three bicycle types. To conclude, pedelecs and conventional bicycles are similar in speed patterns, whereas the speed patterns of s-pedelecs differ significantly from the former two. The safety implications are discussed.