Everyday usability of speed pedelecs: qualitative findings on modal shift, interactions and regulatory issues in Germany

Speed pedelecs—electric bicycles with pedal support up to 45 km/h—have been identified as promising alternatives to car travel, particularly for commuting. However, their uptake in Germany is limited, potentially hindered by legal restrictions to their use of existing cycling infrastructure. This paper reports on qualitative interviews with 11 participants who tested speed pedelecs for several weeks in Tübingen, the first German city to create a designated speed pedelec network by opening up cycle infrastructure and agricultural roads. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of the speed pedelec testers and their perceptions of the speed pedelec as a potential replacement for more carbon-intense modes of transport. Thematic analysis produced four key themes: (1) Suitability for everyday life, including speed, independence, and commuting utility; (2) Cycling for body and mind, with benefits to physical and mental health; (3) Mixed interactions, reflecting tensions and co-existence with drivers, cyclists and pedestrians, and (4) Questioning the status quo, with critiques of regulatory limitations and infrastructure. While participants successfully used the speed pedelecs to replace car or public transport trips and largely enjoyed using the bikes, barriers such as limited infrastructure, interactions with drivers, limited luggage transport and high costs hindered long-term adoption intentions. From the perspective of the speed pedelec testers, interactions with cyclists and pedestrians were generally positive, challenging the blanket ban of speed pedelecs on cycling paths and instead highlighting the need for attractive and safe infrastructure design for all types of active transport.

1 Introduction

Despite sustained efforts to promote low-emission mobility, motorized individual transport continues to dominate in Germany. Car ownership remains high, and 53% of all distance in the country is still completed by private cars and motorbikes, with only 11% completed via cycling and public transport respectively, and 22% by walking (Follmer, 2025). Reducing car use and ownership is integral to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals of climate action (SDG 13), and creating inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities (SDG 11), for example by freeing up parking space, reducing noise and air pollution and promoting active mobility (Nieuwenhuijsen and Khreis, 2016).

Light electric vehicles, particularly speed pedelecs, could facilitate this transition by providing an alternative to cars. They are bikes with motorized pedal support up to 45 km/h (compared to 25 km/h by pedelecs; EU, 2013), thus enabling longer, faster and more comfortable journeys which previously may have required a car. Theoretically, speed pedelecs could replace 37% of car trips and 19% of car mileage (Gebhardt et al., 2023), and research has already found that speed pedelecs are used on longer trips than pedelecs and bicycles (Hendriks, 2017; Schleinitz et al., 2017; Van Der Salm et al., 2023). Many of these journeys replaced a car, for example for 60%–85% of Dutch participants (Hendriks, 2017; Van Der Salm et al., 2023). Additionally, participants report replacing about 54% of motorized individual transport mileage in Switzerland (Renard, 2019) and 71% in Germany (Lienhop et al., 2015). Speed pedelecs are especially popular for commuting (Schleinitz et al., 2014; Renard, 2019; Ravalet et al., 2023; Van Der Salm et al., 2023), perhaps because commutes are often made alone and prioritize functionality of the mode choice.

Despite these benefits, only about 3% of Germans use speed pedelecs (SINUS-Institut, 2023). This response may be better understood using behavioral frameworks, such as the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003). This model, which has been successfully applied to (speed) pedelecs (Kapousizis et al., 2024) and electric vehicles (Alwadain et al., 2024), suggests four factors which shape behavioral intentions and behavior itself. Of these, performance expectancy (degree to which the bikes achieve the transportation goal of the person) and effort expectancy (expected effort of using the bike) may incentivize speed pedelec usage in favor of bicycles or pedelecs. However, given the low uptake in Germany and lack of integration into the infrastructure system, the two factors of social influence and facilitating conditions may be acting as barriers.

In fact, in Germany, speed pedelecs are categorized as motorized transport and therefore not generally permitted to use cycling infrastructure (Albers et al., 2022). This contrasts with various other countries, where speed pedelecs are allowed on cycling infrastructure with differing amounts of restrictions. For example, in Switzerland, speed pedelecs are required to use cycling infrastructure, whereas in Belgium, users can choose between road and cyle paths in urban areas (for a full comparison between countries, see Zweirad-Industrie-Verband, 2023). Consequently, most research originates from countries where speed pedelecs are more common (e.g., Renard, 2019; Van Den Steen et al., 2019; Twisk et al., 2021). In Germany, first research shows that speed pedelecs are often seen as practical transport solutions, but that current infrastructure limitations and lack of understanding from other infrastructure users can lead to unsafe and unpleasant riding experiences (Lienhop et al., 2015; Schleinitz et al., 2017; Stemmler et al., 2024). In response, two of the 16 federal states of Germany (Baden-Württemberg since 2018 and North Rhine-Westphalia since 2023) have permitted municipalities to open selected cycling infrastructure to speed pedelecs via additional signage, with other municipalities hesitating due to safety concerns arising from speed differences between speed pedelecs and other infrastructure users (e.g., HMWVW, 2024).

Currently, only Tübingen, a city in southern Germany with 92,000 inhabitants, has allowed speed pedelecs access to a cohesive network of cycling paths, encompassing about 70 km (Universitätsstadt Tübingen, n.d.). Tübingen has had, especially recently, a strong focus on cycling infrastructure and has taken this initiative to provide its citizens, especially commuters, with an attractive alternative to the car (ibid.). This complements the already existing network of cycle highways, cycle priority routes and complementary routes (INOVAPLAN, 2024). An interactive map of the cycle network can be found on Tübingen’s website (Universitätsstadt Tübingen, n.d.), and the speed pedelec network can be seen in Figure 1. The city may be particularly suitable for speed pedelecs since it has a significant amount of people commuting into the city for work, as well as a hilly topography which may normally pose a barrier to cycling. Bike sharing options are also available (Universitätsstadt Tübingen, n.d.).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Speed pedelec network in Tübingen at the time of the research. Map provided by Universitätsstadt Tübingen for this research project.

The experience of speed pedelec riders using the Tübingen network had not been investigated prior to the present research, and it is thus unclear whether these regulations incentivize travel by speed pedelec in place of more carbon-intensive modes of transport. As part of a research project exploring these developments, we equipped participants from Tübingen and surrounding areas with speed pedelecs to use on their commutes and other everyday journeys for 6 weeks and conducted interviews with a subset of participants. The aim of the interviews was to provide an open-ended exploration of the participants’ experiences on and off the speed pedelec cycling infrastructure, and of their attitudes toward the speed pedelec as a potential replacement for more carbon-intense modes of transport. We used the following questions, focusing on social interactions and the facilitating conditions of speed pedelec infrastructure, to guide our research:

1. How did participants experience using their speed pedelecs on everyday journeys, particularly in regards to the infrastructure and interactions with others?

2. To what extent did participants perceive the speed pedelecs as an viable transport option, particularly regarding the circumstances under which they would use the speed pedelec in the future?

In the following sections, we first detail the interview methodology, before presenting the four themes discussed by participants (Suitability for everyday life, Cycling for body and mind, Mixed interactions, and Questioning the status quo), and following with a discussion of their implications within the UTAUT framework.

2 Method

The interviews were designed and analyzed from a realist standpoint, aiming to report experiences and patterns of meaning across participants. For this purpose, we used semi-structured interviews to allow participants freedom of expression—valuable in an area in which the evidence basis is yet to be built—while retaining comparable lines of enquiry. We then employed thematic analysis to identify salient patterns across participants. While this approach can be limited in terms of interpretative power, we mitigate this by scaffolding our interpretation of themes using the UTAUT model (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

2.1 Procedure

Between November 2023 and July 2024, we invited participants to borrow a speed pedelec for 6 weeks to use for commuting and other everyday journeys, using press releases, flyers and emails to local interest groups. Participants had to be 18, have an appropriate driver’s license (legal requirement for speed pedelecs), and, for safety reasons, be regular cyclists. We encouraged participants who commuted regularly to apply.

Initially, participants were selected on a first-come basis, later prioritizing non-male applicants to correct a male bias. Sixteen speed pedelecs were provided by three manufacturers (myStromer AG, Klever Mobility, and Riese & Müller), differing slightly in size, motor power and style. All research choices and presentation of findings were completely independent from the manufacturers and any other third parties.

The interviews were conducted toward the end of the project’s field phase, between May and August 2024. A subset of participants was invited for 20–30-min video call interviews compensated with €10. The audio was recorded and transcribed. Other parts of the project included quantitative questionnaires and GPS-tracking, which will be reported elsewhere.

2.2 Interview participants

The interviews constituted an exploratory, qualitative component within a larger mixed-methods project. The aim was to obtain in-depth accounts rather than to represent the full sample, so we aimed for a purposively selected subsample of about 10 interviews, which is appropriate and sufficient to reach thematic saturation in a relatively homogenous population of regular cyclists (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022). Participants who had completed their trials were invited, ensuring balance across gender, age, and primary transport mode. In total, 11 people took part (see Table 1). While not all were regular car users, they all viewed the speed pedelec as potentially solving issues in their current transport options (e.g., unreliable trains, cycling effort), offering relevant insights for our research questions.

Table 1

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.

Participants used their speed pedelecs for around 6 weeks, in some cases returning the bike early or late for various reasons (e.g., sickness, repairs, holidays).

2.3 Development of the interview guideline

Following Helfferich (2011), we first collated a list of relevant topics based on the literature reviewed above, rephrased into questions and then sorted into themed categories. Open-ended, overarching questions were formulated based on those categories and checked for plausibility and fit with the experience of the participants. The previously formulated questions were saved for follow-ups to help the flow of the conversation. Multiple team members were involved in each step to make sure a variety of perspectives were considered and blind spots avoided, and the guide was pre-tested with three external volunteers. The final guide covers the topics of route choice, riding experience, interaction with others, fit of the speed pedelec into everyday life and switching from other modes of transport to the speed pedelec. The full guide, an English translation and transcriptions can be found at: https://osf.io/7pexq/overview?view_only=ef40972cf2cb47a19051b2ebbb64b820.

2.4 Coding and analysis

Coding followed collaborative thematic analysis (Richards and Hemphill, 2018), simplified to accommodate the relatively small amount of material and two-person analysis team. First, both researchers read through all transcripts, taking notes on patterns and gaining an overview of the data. Secondly, both inductively coded a first interview and produced a short summary, comparing their codes afterward to discuss questions and differences in interpretation. This process was repeated with two more transcripts. Thirdly, one team member compiled a codebook based on all codes created thus far, organizing them into themes and subthemes, removing duplicates and renaming them for clarity. Then the other team member used the codebook to recode one of the transcripts. These codes were then reviewed together, and minor clarifications made to the codebook. This final notebook was then used to code all transcripts. Throughout this final coding, new codes could still be created and amended as needed.

3 Results

The codes are summarized in four overarching themes, shown in Figure 2: (1) Suitability for everyday life, (2) Cycling for body and mind, (3) Mixed interactions, and (4) Questioning the status quo. Each theme and its subthemes are presented below with illustrative quotes (translated into English and in some cases shortened).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Themes and subthemes describing participants’ responses.

3.1 Suitability for everyday life

3.1.1 Functional benefits and barriers

Many participants emphasized speed and time savings as key motivations for using the speed pedelec. For distances of up to 10 km, some found the speed pedelec to be as fast or even faster than driving a car: “I’d say, for trips up to 10 km, it’s actually quicker than anything else” (FR; see table for initial reference). Some felt that the speed pedelec was often time-efficient in urban travel, due to fewer delays finding parking or dealing with traffic. However, others stated that the speeds achieved in urban environments were more similar to a pedelec, meaning that the disadvantages of the speed pedelec (e.g., weight) outweighed its benefits within the city. Several participants also noted that they could not always realize the expected time advantage, especially on longer or hilly routes where high speeds were hard to maintain. However, in general, topography was seen as inconsequential, and easy to just “ride through it” (IU).

Independence was another commonly cited motivator: participants appreciated the freedom of spontaneous travel and being unaffected by traffic jams or public transport delays: “I can leave whenever I want. I’m not dependent on anyone” (DO). Major barriers included the high purchase price and maintenance costs. Some also mentioned the vehicle’s heavy weight, making it harder to lift or use in multimodal travel, such as taking it on trains.

Participants varied in their sensitivity to weather. Some rode in all conditions, others avoided rain, and commuting journeys were seen as more weather-independent than leisure rides. Dark conditions felt manageable with the speed pedelec’s lights, and the main adaptation was appropriate clothing for wind and cold.

While sustainability was often secondary to practical benefits, participants did enjoy nature-based routes and valued the environmental advantages: “You can get from A to B more or less climate-neutrally” (HT).

3.1.2 Suitability for different use cases

Participants differed in the use cases they perceived as suitable for the speed pedelec. While some felt that the speed pedelec was efficient in urban, shorter distances (see above), others felt that the bike was less suitable in these contexts due to frequent stops, low-speed zones, and interactions with pedestrians. They described it as “bulky” (KW) and “less flexible than a regular bike” (DO). Consequently, some of these participants considered the speed pedelec most suitable for medium-length trips over 10 km with fewer interruptions: “perfect for covering longer distances with little effort” (IU). A noticeable advantage came also from time savings around parking or access: “I’m so much quicker and closer to where I want to be” (DO). However, additional routines like changing clothes or charging the battery were noted as effort-intensive.

In terms of trip purpose, the speed pedelec was primarily used for commuting, as was encouraged during the recruitment. Many (but not all) participants preferred it for its speed and utility, rather than for leisure or sport, for which they often preferred bicycles without pedal support.

3.1.3 Replacing other modes of transport

Many participants reported substituting the speed pedelec for car trips, especially for commuting. “Whenever I can, I’ll leave the car and take the bike,” said AL, “even if it’s a bit longer.” Several noted that the speed pedelec lowered the threshold for cycling instead of driving a car. However, full car replacement was not always realistic, especially in rural areas where participants said they remained “more or less dependent on the car” (JV), as well as for the transportation of luggage and difficult weather conditions (during wintertime). Some participants replaced public transport with the speed pedelec during the trial and considered continuing to do so, while fewer replaced conventional bikes or pedelecs.

3.1.4 From novelty to habit

Many participants reported using the speed pedelec consistently, often by default: “While I had the speed pedelec, it was clear - I took it every day” (BM). Some explored and optimized routes, while others quickly settled into habitual patterns. Several of the participants used the speed pedelec on routes adapted from ones they had already established using other types of bicycles, showing a strong habitualization of cycling in this sample even before the trials.

Participants adapted to the high speed quickly, and found that it increased their joy in cycling. Some reported riding at 40–45 km/h regularly and becoming desensitized to their own speed: “You lose your sense of speed… There are places where you just have to be careful - like with pedestrians or kids” (IU). However, initial reactions to the motor support were mixed: some were surprised by the power and speed; others were underwhelmed, especially uphill. Positive feedback included the indicator system and mirrors, while negatives included the need for frequent charging and the battery’s bulk.

3.1.5 Route choice and infrastructure

Route planning was often exploratory. While apps like Google Maps or Komoot were occasionally used, most relied on trial and error. Desired routes were direct, quiet, and nature-adjacent, and participants often appreciated being able to choose between the cycle path and the road. Weather had little impact on route choice, though some riders avoided streets in poor condition due to the speed pedelec’s speed sensitivity to potholes and uneven surfaces.

Participants preferred routes with separated bike paths, wide lanes, or low traffic, and avoided mixed traffic where possible: “If there’s a choice, you always pick the safer bike lane” (KW). Many criticized patchy and inconsistent infrastructure, forcing frequent decisions and detours. Some openly admitted to using bike paths not opened to speed pedelecs illegally because riding on roads felt unsafe: “The nice routes that I like to use, outside of Tübingen, make up about 70%–80% that I technically wasn’t allowed to use” (FR). However, others commented appreciatively on the network of cycling paths inside and outside of Tübingen that were accessible to them.

3.2 Cycling for body and mind

3.2.1 Physical and mental health

Participants appreciated the physical activity integrated into commuting. For many, it replaced sedentary car or public transport travel: “a healthier way to get to work quickly” (AL). However, a few felt that the speed pedelec offered too little physical challenge: “I actually got a bit less fit during the test” (IU).

Mental health benefits were widely reported. Riders felt more awake and relaxed compared to using public transport. Using the speed pedelec for commuting resulted reportedly in easier concentration during work and a calmer mind after: “You start the day differently and come home more relaxed, your head already cleared” (JV).

3.2.2 Joy and enjoyment

All participants mentioned the riding experience as positive, describing it as “stimulating” (AL), “flowing” (HT), “relaxed” (FR), “safe and quiet” (KW). Many even described great excitement and joy in using the speed pedelec, finding it “insanely fun” (BM) and as “always making you feel like using the bike” (AL).

However, this enjoyment was conditional. In mixed traffic or on busy roads, riders felt stressed or unsafe. Others noted that their goal was not fun but efficiency: “If I want to ride for fun, I’ll take my road bike” (HP). For some, the constant emphasis on speed became a burden: “It was just about speed… that started to really annoy me” (EP).

3.3 Mixed interactions

3.3.1 Encounters with other infrastructure users

Many participants described largely positive interactions from their perspective as speed pedelec drivers, especially with pedestrians and cyclists. Equally, riding with motorized traffic at similar speeds led to confidence and perceived safety: “I thought a very positive aspect was my sense of safety on the road […] especially when I was over 30 km/h” (CN), since the “speed allows you to take up your space and right [to be on the road] (CN). However, many still faced frustration and hostility from car drivers, especially when riding on roads despite adjacent non-accessible bike lanes. Participants often attributed this behavior to being misidentified as ordinary bikes or pedelecs and their speed being underestimated. This led to dangerous situations, especially at intersections or during overtaking. “They’ve got a reflex, when they see a bicycle […] they need to overtake and then they just about manage to overtake me” (FR). This often led to illegal path use: “It was less stressful than being overtaken closely and yelled at” (KW) by car drivers.

Several participants reported near misses or minor accidents, mostly involving cars. In one case, a rider fell after being cut off and pushed to the curb. In another, a slippery surface caused a solo fall. The situations perceived as most dangerous occurred at intersections or in roundabouts and were attributed to underestimated speed and visibility issues.

3.3.2 Strategies for respectful coexistence

Participants emphasized mutual respect and adherence to traffic laws. A key insight was the perceived hierarchy between different modes of transportation: “What the car is to me as a cyclist, I am to the pedestrian […] and that means you have to act considerately” (IU). This consideration could look like self-imposed speed limits: “Sometimes you have got to go 15 km/h - it’s on you to set your own speed limit” (IU). Some installed bells to signal gently to pedestrians and cyclists, as the standard horn was deemed too aggressive.

In interactions with cars, participants described the need for anticipation and self-protection: “If I did not think for the drivers, there would’ve been a crash” (KW). Greater awareness of speed pedelec rules, especially from car drivers, was seen as an important condition for safe coexistence on the road.

3.4 Questioning the status quo

3.4.1 Re-evaluating preferences and norms

Some experienced pedelec users realized they preferred their existing pedelecs and did not see a benefit in changing to a speed pedelec. The speed advantage wasn’t always realized due to infrastructure or legal limitations, and participants described feeling “too fast for bike paths, too slow for the road” (HT).

Others with no prior electric bike experience realized that although they did not intend to purchase a speed pedelec due to price or infrastructure issues, the trial helped lower psychological barriers toward electric bikes in general. Some participants also reported a general increase in motivation to cycle after the trial, since the speed pedelec demonstrated the overall feasibility of cycling, both for everyday use and commuting, as well as its physical and mental health benefits.

3.4.2 Reflecting on infrastructure rules

Participants questioned current regulations and called for change. Many suggested that speed pedelecs should be allowed on all bike paths under certain conditions, for example with speed limitations where appropriate. Besides safety and comfort reasons one key motivation was allowing families or social groups to use the same infrastructure: “It’s important everyone in a family can legally use the same paths” (GS). In general, the ability to use a speed pedelec without coming into conflict with others, to have a space that is “broad and easy to overview, with cars, cycles, scooters and all people harmoniously interacting” (GS) was seen as a primary condition for using a speed pedelec.

4 Discussion

This study provides new insights into the everyday use of speed pedelecs in Tübingen, where a network of cycling infrastructure had been opened to this type of bike and not previously been evaluated. We provided local participants with speed pedelecs to use in their everyday life for 6 weeks, and report the results from interviews conducted with 11 participants. The results highlight the potential role of speed pedelecs as an alternative to cars, but persistent regulatory and infrastructural barriers must be resolved for this potential to be realized. We discuss the results within the framework of the UTAUT, introduced above, to facilitate their integration and extension to other settings. However, it must be considered throughout that our findings reflect only the experiences of regular cyclists, and may not generalize to other populations such as more car-dependent persons.

A key finding was the conditional suitability of speed pedelecs for everyday use. Participants appreciated speed, time savings, independence and sustainability, demonstrating high potential performance and effort expectancy. These results are consistent with findings from other countries where speed pedelecs have gained traction (Lienhop et al., 2015; Hendriks, 2017; Van Den Steen et al., 2019; Zuser et al., 2021). However, as in previous studies, suitability varied depending on the mode being replaced (Lienhop et al., 2015; Van Den Steen et al., 2019; Ravalet et al., 2023), with cars remaining the primary solution for luggage transportation and weather-proofness. This shows that the perceived utility of speed pedelecs depends on people’s needs as well as their previous experience and other available transport options. Nevertheless, participants valued the predictability of travel time and physical exercise, supporting prior findings that these can outweigh modest time losses (Van Den Steen et al., 2019; Herteleer et al., 2022). Participants also cited the same mental and physical health benefits reported in previous research (Lienhop et al., 2015; Van Den Steen et al., 2019; Zuser et al., 2021; Ravalet et al., 2023; Van Der Salm et al., 2023; Meijer, 2024).

During the trial, most participants reported replacing car or public transport trips, consistent with prior evidence especially in the context of commuting (Lienhop et al., 2015; Hendriks, 2017; Renard, 2019; Van Der Salm et al., 2023). However, participants clearly stated that current infrastructural limitations discouraged the long-term use of speed pedelecs as a primary mode of everyday transport. They found that the speed pedelecs’ status of not quite a car and not quite a bicycle posed more problems than benefits, and sometimes opted to use a pedelec instead (which is allowed on cycling infrastructure). This is particularly relevant given the high purchase price of a speed pedelec, which has been highlighted in previous studies (Van Den Steen et al., 2019; Zuser et al., 2021). These results clearly show that, as predicted within the UTAUT, poor facilitating conditions can present a strong and direct barrier on one’s behavior intention and the behavior itself, even given otherwise positive attitudes toward the behavior.

As outlined in the introduction, there are various countries in Europe, such as Belgium and Switzerland, which routinely permit speed pedelecs on cycling infrastructure (Zweirad-Industrie-Verband, 2023) and observe a larger share of speed pedelecs. Although regional and national contexts can make it challenging to compare policy settings and their specific impacts on behavior, research from these countries suggests that, under more favorable facilitating conditions, speed pedelec riders can realize the expected performance and effort benefits of speed pedelecs, such as predictable, independent and fast travel (Van Den Steen et al., 2019). While exploratory and qualitative, our results suggest that a similar change in facilitating conditions could lead to an increased uptake in Germany and thereby promote more sustainable transport.

However, it is critical to investigate to which extent speed pedelecs access to cycle paths diminishes the safety of other user groups. Our participants generally reported neutral or positive interactions with cyclists and pedestrians, and at times spoke explicitly about adjusting their own behavior to suit the current context. Additionally, other studies have not found an increase of accidents on cycling paths, and rather accidents on roads (Schleinitz et al., 2014; see Vlakveld et al., 2021 for an exception; DTV Consultants, 2023). Nevertheless, it needs to be systematically analyzed whether losing track of speed, as reported by some of our participants, is a frequent occurrence among speed pedelec users and whether this diminishes the objective and subjective safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

Future research should therefore explore with larger, quantitative studies whether the themes presented here can be generalized to especially relevant populations such as exclusive car users and inform our understanding of wider behavior change around speed pedelecs. In particular, further exploration of the facilitating conditions (e.g., further accessibility of cycling infrastructure) that would allow the speed pedelec to replace more cars would be beneficial, as would research into how such facilitating conditions could be created while ensuring safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Examples could include speed restrictions in certain areas, which are especially suitable for speed pedelecs with their mandatory speedometers, and promoting self-regulating behavior such as slowing down in busy areas or around vulnerable infrastructure users, regardless of whether speed pedelecs or conventional bicycles are involved. In a further study, it is necessary to investigate the influence of traffic intensity among jointly managed transport participants on the acceptance of transport modes and the subjective perception of safety. While speed pedelecs remain on the roads, focus should additionally be placed on raising awareness among car drivers to ensure the safety of all road users.

Data availability statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found at: https://osf.io/7pexq/overview?view_only=ef40972cf2cb47a19051b2ebbb64b820.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval was not required for the study involving humans in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

EK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AG: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. ML: Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors report that the companies Riese & Müller GmbH, myStromer AG and Klever Mobility Europe GmbH supplied the speed pedelecs used in this study.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Albers, V. K., Anapyanova, A., and Führ, M. (2022). Nutzung von Radverkehrsanlagen durch S-Pedelecs. itp Schriftenreihe 1:35. doi: 10.48444/h_docs-pub-305

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alwadain, A., Fati, S. M., Ali, K., and Ali, R. F. (2024). From theory to practice: an integrated TTF-UTAUT study on electric vehicle adoption behavior. PLoS One 19:e0297890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297890

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

DTV Consultants (2023) Meer plek voor de speedpedelec? Onderbouwing feiten en cijfers speedpedelec

Google Scholar

EU (2013). Verordnung (EU) Nr. 168/2013.

Google Scholar

Follmer, R. (2025). Mobilität in Deutschland – MiD Kurzbericht Studie von infas, DLR, IVT und infas 360 im Auftrag des Bundesministers für Digitales und Verkehr (FE-Nr. VB600001). Berlin: Bonn www.mobilitaet-in-deutschland.de.

Google Scholar

Gebhardt, L., Brost, M., and Seiffert, R. (2023). What potential do light electric vehicles have to reduce car trips? Future Transp 3, 918–930. doi: 10.3390/futuretransp3030051

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Helfferich, C. (2011). Die Qualität qualitativer Daten: Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews., 4. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss.

Google Scholar

Hendriks, B. (2017). Moving on to the active modes. Netherlands: Radboud University.

Google Scholar

Hennink, M., and Kaiser, B. N. (2022). Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc. Sci. Med. 292:114523. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Herteleer, B., Van Den Steen, N., Vanhaverbeke, L., and Cappelle, J. (2022). Analysis of initial speed pedelec usage for commuting purposes in Flanders. Transp. Res Interdiscip Perspect 14:100589. doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100589

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

HMWVW (2024). Verkehrsversuch Strecke probeweise für Speed-Pedelecs nutzbar. Available online at: https://hessen.de/presse/strecke-probeweise-fuer-speed-pedelecs-nutzbar (Accessed November 3, 2024).

Google Scholar

INOVAPLAN (2024). Radverkehrskonzept Tübingen 2030. Karlsruhe: INOVAPLAN GmbH.

Google Scholar

Kapousizis, G., Sarker, R., Baran Ulak, M., and Geurs, K. (2024). User acceptance of smart e-bikes: what are the influential factors? A cross-country comparison of five European countries. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 185:104106. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2024.104106

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lienhop, M., Kämper, C., Thomas, D., and Brandies, A. 2015 Pedelection - Verlagerungs- und Klimaeffekte durch Pedelec-Nutzung im Individualverkehr

Google Scholar

Meijer, M. (2024). Pathway to progress? Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen https://frw.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/4716/1/Final-version-thesis.pdf.

Google Scholar

Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., and Khreis, H. (2016). Car free cities: pathway to healthy urban living. Environ. Int. 94, 251–262. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.05.032

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ravalet, E., Marincek, D., and Rérat, P. (2023). Are fast e-bikes an alternative to motorised individual transport? An exploratory study in Lausanne, Switzerland. Belgeo. 1, 1–18. doi: 10.4000/belgeo.64678

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Renard, A. (2019) Elektrovelos - Auswirkungen auf das Verkehrssystem : Transitec.

Google Scholar

Richards, K. A. R., and Hemphill, M. A. (2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 37, 225–231. doi: 10.1123/jtpe.2017-0084

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schleinitz, K., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Petzoldt, T., Schwanitz, S., Gehlert, T., and Kühn, M. (2014). Pedelec-naturalistic cycling study. Unfallforschung der Versicherer GDV. Berlin: Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e. V.

Google Scholar

Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Krems, J., and Gehlert, T. (2017). The German naturalistic cycling study – comparing cycling speed of riders of different e-bikes and conventional bicycles. Saf. Sci. 92, 290–297. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.027

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

SINUS-Institut (2023). Fahrrad-monitor 2023 Hessen

Google Scholar

Stemmler, T., Schoch, S., Hornung-Prähauser, V., Hollauf, E., Luger-Bazinger, C., and Schaffner, D. (2024). Sichere und effiziente S-PedelecInfrastruktur S-ESPIN. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV). Bundesministerium für Klimaschutz (BMK) Wien and Bundesamt für Strassen (ASTRA) Schweiz.

Google Scholar

Twisk, D., Stelling, A., Van Gent, P., De Groot, J., and Vlakveld, W. (2021). Speed characteristics of speed pedelecs, pedelecs and conventional bicycles in naturalistic urban and rural traffic conditions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 150:105940. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105940

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Universitätsstadt Tübingen (n.d.). S-Pedelec-frei. Available online at: https://www.tuebingen.de/radfahren/34044.html (Accessed November 3, 2024).

Google Scholar

Universitätsstadt Tübingen (n.d.). Stadtplan. Available online at: https://www.tuebingen.de/stadtplan/#radwege_gesamt (Accessed November 3, 2024).

Google Scholar

Universitätsstadt Tübingen (n.d.). Leihen. Available online at: https://www.tuebingen.de/radfahren/31482.html#/34129 (Accessed November 3, 2024).

Google Scholar

Van Den Steen, N., Herteleer, B., Cappelle, J., and Vanhaverbeke, L. (2019). Motivations and barriers for using speed pedelecs for daily commuting. WEVJ 10:87. doi: 10.3390/wevj10040087

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Der Salm, M., Chen, Z., and Van Lierop, D. (2023). Who are those fast cyclists? An analysis of speed pedelec users in the Netherlands. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 17, 1074–1086. doi: 10.1080/15568318.2022.2152402

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Venkatesh,, Morris,, Davis,, and Davis, (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27:425. doi: 10.2307/30036540

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vlakveld, W., Mons, C., Kamphuis, K., Stelling, A., and Twisk, D. (2021). Traffic conflicts involving speed-pedelecs (fast electric bicycles): a naturalistic riding study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 158:106201. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106201

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zuser, V., Blass, D. P., Braun, E., Senitschnig, N., Breuer, D. C., and Soteropoulos, D. A. (2021). Potenzial von S-Pedelecs für den Arbeitsweg - Rahmenbedingungen für eine sichere und effiziente Nutzung in Österreich. Wien: KFV.

Google Scholar

Zweirad-Industrie-Verband (2023). Wo fahren Speed-Pedelecs? Regulierung und Erfahrungen mit Speed-Pedelecs in Deutschland sowie in Belgien, Dänemark, den Niederlanden und der Schweiz. Berlin.

Google Scholar