Background: Cycling for transportation and recreation is gaining in popularity, especially in older age groups. The rise in electric assisted cycles (EAC) may also have a role to play in this. With an increase in the number of cyclists comes an increase in the prevalence of cycle crashes. However, there is a lack of knowledge on EAC crashes and crash studies including cycle use data. Study aim: To compare the odds of reporting a cycle crash on a conventional (CC) against electrically assisted cycle (EAC), while controlling for age, gender, BMI, cycling frequency and region of residence using prospective data collection. Methods: A 12-month prospective cross-sectional survey-based study, including men and women cyclists aged 40+ years, was conducted in Belgium (3 regions) and the Netherlands. The study participants were the same as the once that participated in the study of de Geus et al$. Socio-demographics, crash details and cycling frequency data were collected every 3 months. Cyclists were grouped into CC, EAC or both (CC + EAC) based on the type of cycle they used during the prospective study period. $ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106893 Statistics: All statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.6.1 (R Core Team, 2013). To examine the odds of being reporting in a cycle crash, with a CC or an EAC, a multivariate logistic regression model was fitted with main- and interaction-effects. For each model odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence interval were calculated. To facilitate interpretation of the interaction-effects, odds were converted to a probability score (probability = odds/ 1 + odds). Results: 921 participants filled out a total of 2040 questionnaires (on average, each participant completed 2.21 questionnaires) and recorded 202 crashes. 57% only cycled on a CC, 19% only on an EAC and 24% on both. Perceived health was sign lower (p<0.001) in the EAC group. Only 10 participants had to go to the hospital from which 4 had to stay >24h.