Over the past two decades, Australia’s roads have seen a dramatic shift. Gone are the days when the humble sedan or hatchback ruled the streets—now, it seems like every second car is a towering SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle) or a burly ute.
For many, these vehicles offer safety, comfort, and extra space for the grandkids or the golf clubs. But new research is shining a spotlight on a hidden danger.
These larger vehicles may put pedestrians, cyclists, and even their drivers at greater risk than we ever realised. It’s no secret that Aussies love their SUVs and utes.
These vehicles now make up a whopping 70 per cent of the car market, with SUVs alone accounting for over half of all new car sales.
Dual-cab utes, in particular, have become a staple on our roads, making up around 20 per cent of new vehicle purchases.
Whether for perceived safety, the elevated driving position, or simply keeping up with the neighbours, the shift away from traditional sedans and wagons is clear.
But while these vehicles might feel safer from the driver’s seat, the latest research suggests that they’re far more dangerous for everyone sharing the road.
A comprehensive review of 24 studies covering more than 680,000 real-world crashes from the late 1980s to 2022 revealed some sobering facts.
Pedestrians and cyclists are 44 per cent more likely to be killed if struck by an SUV or light truck compared to a regular passenger car. The risk is even higher for children, who are 82 per cent more likely to die in such collisions.
Why are these vehicles so much more deadly? It comes down to their size and shape. Traditional cars tend to hit a pedestrian’s legs, causing them to roll onto the bonnet—a softer, more forgiving surface.
SUVs and utes, on the other hand, have higher, blunter fronts that strike the torso, where our vital organs are, and often knock victims to the ground, increasing the risk of being run over.
You might think that being inside a big, heavy vehicle makes you safer, but that’s not always true.
According to Professor Stuart Newstead from the Monash University Accident Research Centre, utes and SUVs don’t necessarily offer more protection to their occupants than regular cars.
‘For fashion and for perceived lifestyle benefits, or whatever else people have gone to these vehicles for, it’s actually creating a safety disbenefit for us as a community, which I think is quite concerning, but particularly pedestrians and cyclists suffer the most,’ he said.
‘If you imagine a large car or a medium car…It’ll collide with your legs and throw you up onto the bonnet, and the bonnet is nice and long and soft. That is actually the best way to get hit by a car if you’re a pedestrian.’
Their extra weight can make crashes more severe, especially if you hit a stationary object like a tree. These vehicles are also more prone to rolling over, which is a hazardous accident.
There are a few reasons for the surge in popularity. Some people are drawn to the rugged look and the promise of adventure, while others appreciate the extra space and higher driving position.
But there are also financial incentives at play. Tax breaks, instant asset write-offs, and no fringe benefits tax on commercial vehicles make utes especially attractive for business owners.
What’s being done to make our roads safer?
With Australia’s road toll rising for the fourth year in a row—reaching 1,301 deaths in 2024—there’s growing pressure to address the dangers posed by larger vehicles.
The government has set an ambitious goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries on our roads by 2050, but getting there will require some significant changes.
One solution is to update our vehicle safety standards to include pedestrian protection, as has been done in Europe and Japan for nearly 20 years.
This could mean redesigning the fronts of SUVs and utes to be less deadly in a collision. Some cities overseas also discourage using large vehicles by charging higher parking fees.
Starting March 2025, all new vehicles in Australia must be fitted with Autonomous Emergency Braking systems, which can automatically stop the car if a crash is imminent.
While this is a step in the right direction, these systems aren’t foolproof—they don’t always work well at night or if someone suddenly steps out from behind a parked car.
The most effective way to protect vulnerable road users is to slow down. Research shows that once a vehicle travels above 40–50 km/h, the chances of surviving a collision drop dramatically, no matter the type of car involved.
Many European cities have introduced blanket 30 km/h speed limits in urban areas, with higher speeds reserved for motorways. Australia has progressed with 40 km/h zones, especially around schools, but there’s still a long way to go.
Separating cars from pedestrians and cyclists—through better footpaths, bike lanes, and crossings—can also make a big difference.
Do you feel safer in a bigger car, or are you worried about the risks they pose? Have you or someone you know been affected by a road accident involving a larger vehicle? Share your stories in the comments below!
Also read: Major road rule overhaul to ban certain vehicles soon—check if yours is affected!
Unfortunately Lexanne, you have fallen into accepting the same fallacy that many well meaning people have before you.
You have focused on the interaction between the the motor vehicle, cyclists and the pedestrians utilising the same space.
Such, usually results in the proposals to reduce the speed of vehicles, and when in fact since the invention of motor vehicles the major advantage was being able to get get quickly and between points.
The problem is not the vehicles, but that we have interaction.
The solution is not to reduce speeds back to having a person with a white flag walking in front of every vehicle, but to have far better quality separation of vehicular traffic, cyclists, as well and pedestrians.
The cost to society would be far less than it is, if we spent our resources on properly designed and resourced dedicated separate areas with no interaction.
Yes I currently have a 4WD which I use regularly for towing, travelling large distances and and off road use. However I have also owned a car a very small car, have regularly cycled, and often walk and use public transport.
We should always be look at all aspects of a perceived problem not just one aspect, and not at the obvious cause or problem but the base cause.
By looking at the obvious way any fix only is a Bandai covering up the real problem.
My son recently had an accident in his hand-me-down car, a 20 year-old Mazda 3 sedan, and he was lucky to get out of it alive and without debilitating injury.
My husband and I are now looking for a new car for him.
My focus is however 100% on buying the safest overall vehicle.
My husband insists that we should get our son a Volvo XC40 SUV, because he claims that this is the safest car by car that is available in Australia.
And according to its crash test safety rating, it does indeed sound good on paper.
However when I saw a real Volvo XC40 for a test drive, what shocked me the most was how short it was, and how it lacked any semblance of a boot.
The back seats were also were very cramped, leaving the back of the vehicle vulnerable, in my opinion, to a rear-end collision that would expose both the passengers and the driver.
I was later to learn that although the Volvo XC40 has ample air-bags for both front and side impacts, it has ZERO air-bags in the rear.
So am I being irrational, as my husband calls me, or does the Volvo XC40 leave a lot to be desired regarding rear-end collisions?
I know that it has a brilliant reputation for safety, but, a tiny boot with zero airbags or other protections is a recipe for disaster.
Please either confirm that there is merit in my concerns, or if not, please tell me why?
Thank you
Sonja, The ANCAP Safety Ratings now are all very odd. A car loses points if the rear baby seat attachment point is the wrong type or in a different position to others. Pure survivability from good crash worthiness is only part of the story. Once there used to be a large consideration of Primary Safety, ie the ability to avoid the crash in the first place. Now it’s seen as inevitable that we will crash, or be crashed into.
Not too many years ago I think that it was four people in a stopped car on the M1 south of Brisbane were killed instantly when a speeding driver slammed into the back of them one night. That drive also lost his life so we will never know the full story, but it was an impact that was not survivable in any context as after the massive impact, there was an immediate fire.
I’m not sure what you mean by rear airbags as no manufacturer includes airbags for rear impact as such. There is the curtain airbag along both sides and now an airbag between the front occupants but as far as rear impact protection goes, a person seated correctly with the seat belt secured gets protected by the seat back and head rest.
Does your son have any say in what car he will be driving? For overall safety, it really helps if the driver is comfortable with the vehicle and can drive it defensively and confidently.
Make sure that your son also drives a Honda CRV as a comparison vehicle. Honda make a big deal about their “Advanced Compatibility Cabin” where they build these cars such that in and impact the forces are directed away from the interior of the car.
Don’t be a pessimist as more people go through their entire driving life and never get in a crash than do. Your son has had his crash and could well never have one again.
I agree with 45er, reducing speed limits only reduces the severity of accidents. Since more suv’s are on the roads and in car parks it has become more dangerous for smaller vehicle owners. Car parks should reserve parking areas for those smaller vehicles. I hate having to park near vehicles that I cannot see past to safely drive past the larger vehicles. Plus the high rise of immigrant drivers who have not had the same driver training in their countries creates danger on our roads. I have given away my cars, because I am no longer confidant on the roads. Please educate the authorities that teaching people to pass their test is not the same as teaching them to drive and think about other road users. Stop using bandaids to try to alleviate the situation on our roads.
Back in 2003 I was very thankful that we had a 4WD Nissan Pathfinder when we were hit head on in a 100km zone. Thankfully we both survived albeit with an extended period of time to overcome the pain and minor injuries inflicted on our bodies. The occupants of the other vehicle were not so lucky.
Large vehicles, especially tray back utes, are a menace in car parks, where the spaces are not big enough for them.
Another unfavourable factor about the huge vehicles is sometimes their lights CAN, be so much brighter and being higher, shine straight into oncoming traffic, causing drivers to look mostly to left while driving to avoid being blinded.
We also need our roads to be in a vehicle worthy condition, just like our cars need to be road worthy. Government cost cutting is also killing people.
This idea that we could ever achieve a zero road toll is fantasy at best and completely impossible to achieve while there are vehicles of any description transporting people anywhere.
The only way that it could be achieved would be if all personal vehicles were banned and removed from the roads. (Some say that this is the real net aim from certain sides of politics and that is what they are driving for as they limit what vehicles we can own and drive.)
If the dream of the self driving cars was to ever eventuate, it would mean that all vehicles (yes, even bicycles on the roads) would be under the direct control of a super computer controlling each and every moving vehicle.
I cannot see human nature allowing such a draconian society as it would take away freedom of movement and putting it in the hands of “big brother”.
As the active safety driver assist controls build up in all vehicles, the costs go up and it could come that we end up where society was around 120 years ago where only the wealthy and privileged actually had personal transport. (Prior to the affordable motor car, very few people actually owned horses, let alone a horse and buggy. About 140 years ago the “safety bicycle” arrived and it was a revolution in personal transport for the middle class but still expensive for the working class in society and whilst a family could all throw a leg over a bicycle and travel as a pack, it was not very common and there was always the risk of collisions with and between horse drawn transport.)
Better driving training is essential, but I fear that many learners are only interested in learning just enough to past the practical test and need no more than that.
Advanced and Defensive Driver courses would go a long way, but many would baulk at the extra time and expense needed to get there.
Avoiding situations where traffic conditions raise the risk of collisions and driving within the limits and conditions are foreign to many people.
The active driver assist systems including active cruise control and lane centring may actually serve to give drivers a false sense of safety and stop actually driving the car as they leave the computer brain do all the “hard work” of driving.