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 r
...
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.
@en
