Cyclists and pedestrians are 44 per cent more likely to be fatally injured when struck by a sports utility vehicle (SUV) or light truck vehicle (LTV), compared to a smaller passenger car, according to new research.
The study, carried out by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and Imperial College London, analysed real-world collision data from over 680,000 crashes across the past 35 years and found that larger vehicles caused significantly more severe injuries.
For children, the risk was even greater: a child hit by an SUV or LTV was 82 per cent more likely to die than one struck by a passenger car, with the risk increasing to 130 per cent among children under the age of 10.
The researchers, publishing their findings in the journal Injury Prevention, found similar results when isolating SUVs from other LTVs such as small vans and pick-up trucks. They pointed to the taller, wider and heavier profiles of SUVs as the main factor, with the blunt front ends striking adults higher on the body — hitting the pelvis rather than the knees — and young children being hit directly in the head. Victims were also more likely to be thrown forward and struck again by the vehicle.
Across all ages, the odds of suffering a fatal or serious injury compared to a slight injury increased by around a quarter when cyclists and pedestrians were hit by an SUV or LTV. This rose by 24 per cent in adults and 28 per cent in children.

Elsa Robinson, who worked on the study as an MSc Public Health student at LSHTM, said: “Analysing over half a million crashes from countries from across the world tells us that SUVs and other similarly large vehicles are much more likely than traditional passenger cars to cause serious harm if they strike a pedestrian or cyclist.
“Our findings also highlight that these larger vehicles are particularly dangerous for children, especially young children. This could be because children are shorter in height, and are therefore more vulnerable to the risks of being hit by vehicles with a tall front end.”
Anna Goodman, Assistant Professor at LSHTM and senior author of the study, said: “Around the world, we have seen a huge increase in the sale of ever-larger cars. Previous research has found that this trend is substantially undermining progress towards net-zero goals. Similarly, our findings indicate that this proliferation of larger vehicles threatens to undermine all the road safety gains being made on other fronts.
“Cities and countries around the world are starting to introduce measures to discourage the use of these large vehicles, and our study strengthens the road safety rationale for this.”
> SUVs more dangerous to cyclists than other cars, study suggests
The analysis covered 24 separate studies, mostly from high- and middle-income countries, including the US, the Netherlands, Germany and France. Although none of the studies were from the UK, the researchers said the results were broadly consistent across regions, suggesting their relevance beyond North America.
At present, SUVs are involved in around 45 per cent of car crashes in the US and about 20 per cent in Europe. The researchers estimated that if all SUVs were replaced with passenger cars, deaths of cyclists and pedestrians in car crashes would fall by 17 per cent in the US and 8 per cent in Europe. For child cyclists and pedestrians, the reduction would be even sharper — 27 per cent in the US and 14 per cent in Europe.

The Clean Cities campaign group has been calling for higher vehicle taxes and parking charges for “supersized” SUVs to reflect the additional danger to children, greater road damage and larger space requirements.
Oliver Lord, UK head of Clean Cities, said: “It’s alarming to see fresh evidence confirming SUVs are linked to more fatal crashes. No one buying a car would want to put children at greater risk.
“We urgently need government to take action on ‘carspreading’. Councils could introduce fairer parking charges that reflect the size and weight of these vehicles, while government reviews taxes to address the real harm caused by supersized SUVs. That would provide more opportunity to invest in priorities like fixing potholes and better public transport.”
The phenomenon of “carspreading” — cars becoming wider and longer over time — has drawn increasing criticism from active travel advocates. Last month, Clean Cities pointed to YouGov polling showing only 18 per cent of British car owners oppose higher charges for SUV owners, while 61 per cent said SUVs take up too much space and 71 per cent said they make parking more difficult.
The active travel organisation said around 4.6 million vehicles bigger than a typical urban parking space had been sold in the UK since 2021 — around 1.2 million per year — and defined “supersized” SUVs as being more than 1.8m wide or 4.8m long. The extra overhang alone would stretch more than 192 miles if lined up end to end.

A research paper published in April, led by civil engineer Ruth Carlson and co-authored by Nima Dadashzadeh at the University of Huddersfield, suggested that heavier vehicles were linked to a greater risk of fatal collisions.
The researchers warned that increasing average car weight in the UK could lead to a rise in deaths unless new policies, such as taxing heavier vehicles and adjusting parking fees, were introduced.
> SUVs ‘eight times more dangerous’ to kids walking or cycling than smaller cars are
Parents have also raised safety concerns about SUVs. Harriet Edwards, a mother from Sutton, said: “It’s not just the added stress of not being able to find somewhere to park, it’s the sense that if I’m involved in a collision with one of these giant SUVs, that me and my family are far more likely to be seriously hurt or killed.
“If you cause more danger, create more potholes and take up more parking space, it’s only fair that you pay a little bit more.”
While proposals for SUV-specific congestion charges have been floated before — notably a £25-per-day charge for “Chelsea tractors” proposed by former London mayor Ken Livingstone — they have so far failed to be implemented. Transport for London reported 110 road deaths in the capital in 2024, up from 95 in 2023, although it does not break down how many involved SUVs.
Previous studies from the US have shown that SUVs cause 55 per cent more trauma and 63 per cent more head injuries to cyclists than standard cars, and that SUVs are eight times more likely to kill children walking or cycling than smaller vehicles.




















21 thoughts on “Cyclists 44% more likely to be killed by “supersized” SUVs than smaller passenger vehicles, as researchers warn against “proliferation of larger vehicles””
It’s a fashion choice. If a
It’s a fashion choice. If a particular other fashion choice was 44% more dangerous than the alternative, the government would ban it instantly.
It’s not just that – it
It’s not just that – it started as a tax-avoiding scheme plus marketing to the less socially-inclined plus upselling.
Nothing “innocent” or “it’s just one of those fads” about it (to the extent that fads don’t start from people pushing a product – discuss).
Huh it’s almost like the Tyre
Huh it’s almost like the Tyre Extinguishers knew what they were talking about..
“We urgently need government
“We urgently need government to take action on ‘carspreading’.
I know: they could add an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill so that drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists by driving a dangerous vehicle could be sentenced to life in prison. Just like they plan to do for cyclists who kill through reckless riding.
Driving a vehicle that you know is much more dangerous for vulnerable road users is reckless isn’t it? I haven’t looked at the figures, but I’m pretty sure that more pedestrians are killed in collisions with SUVs and LTVs than are killed in collision with cyclists.
If getting the law on cyclists is so important, it must be doubly, trebly, quadruply important to get the SUV/LTV law in place. Unless the cyclist law is just fluff to placate the cyclist haters.
Absolutely disgusting…..!
Absolutely disgusting…..!
I read a similar study where there was an 88% increase in the risk of fatality if an elephant sat on your lap, compared to a chihuahua!😳
On a serious note, SUVs and LTV/HGVs should be required to pass at a greater distance, say >2m?
I’ve sent numerous video clips to Operation SNAP and the Police only seem interested in close passes <50cm (under 2ft).
We were passed by a vehicle travelling at over 20mph on a bridlepath, Police said it didn't meet "the threshold" - see attached image.
Ultimately, this comes down to a lack of public interest in the safety of cyclists per se, based on legacy media's biased reporting and rabid support of the IDS "cycle haters"???
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
I think you should avoid those parties altogether.
Having read that report, I
Having read that report, I have now declined several invitations to such parties.
Knowledge is power!
Cars don’t give a single shit
Cars don’t give a single shit about passing distances when they are head on. There is a lane near me that is genuinely just wide enough for the modern wankpanzer to go down it on its own. Still, you meet a car coming the other way and I reckon about 60-70% of the time they don’t slow down even a little. The other day when it was busy and cars were having a fun time trying to find passing spots etc I had 3 work vans all drive straight at me at speed. They can within 10-20cm of my bars max. They all did this from a standstill after letting a car pass. They could have waited 10s or pulled off gently but no, it was agressive and basically telling me to fuck off, they own the roads.
Cars don’t give a single shit
Cars don’t give a single shit about anything. But that’s perfectly OK, most of them aren’t sentient & don’t single me out. It’s the drivers that worry me.
The government should bring
The government should bring back the proposals to triple VED for LTVs!
This government? Are you
This government? Are you serious?
While putting hard numbers to
While putting hard numbers to it is great, the bottom line is “Well, DUH!!!!”
Tomorrow morning the roads in
Tomorrow morning the roads in my area will be gridlocked with monsters like this, Many doing totally unneccessary school runs as they live within walking distance of the local schools. There is no need whatsoever for these vehicles in urban areas and it’s time something was done about them. Perhaps the chancellor should consider hiking the VED on them.
Or mandate that such vehicles
Or mandate that such vehicles be preceeded by a man with a red flag, and be restricted to 4 MPH? New update for the HC anyone?
whats the percentage of SUVs
whats the percentage of SUVs vs the smaller passenger cars in the mix of cars thesedays ? the 44% might simply reflect the ratio of how many of these types of vehicle now drive on the roads, or that the drivers feel more secure so take more risks.
I mean theyre all supposed to pass NCAP right ? thats supposed to mitigate injuries to pedestrians that get hit by these vehicles, one of the reasons car designs all look very generically alike thesedays is because of NCAP forcing car manufacturers to improve injury survival rates of pedestrians in collisions.
obviously if you are only 2ft tall as a kid, faced with a mini truck sized Discovery you cant even see over the bonnet, the odds arent great, but it isnt necessarily a straightforward equation of SUV automatically makes it more likely youll be killed by it.
stonojnr wrote:
Didn’t they cover the first part with “Cyclists and pedestrians are 44 per cent more likely to be fatally injured when struck by a sports utility vehicle (SUV) or light truck vehicle (LTV), compared to a smaller passenger car…” (I’ve not read the research here but I think I skimmed one of the papers sampled by this meta-study and IIRC they corrected for this).
Of course it is entirely possible for a number of reasons that those in said vehicles might be driving with less care for others too.
stonojnr wrote:
NCAP classification is still vouluntary, where vulnerable road user protection is only the third tier categorised. Nothing there that is supposed to be passed by law. It’s all about whether the motor manufacturer believes that a higher NCAP rating will give them a sales advantage.
I fkn hate SUVs. They are
I fkn hate SUVs. They are everywhere. Blocking up the roads. One person in them usually. Pathetic vehicles.
The second photo is quite
The second photo is quite telling. The Merc can’t even fit within the parking space provided. That should be a parking ticket, better still tow it away. There should be greater consequence for choosing to driving these beasts.
That would be an interseting
That would be an interseting way to “de-incentivize” these beasts! Whether it doesn’t fit by a little or a lot, it doesn’t fit! Ticket or tow! It is a danger.
This is basically a “D’uh, no
This is basically a “Duh, no shit Sherlock!” situation.
Something heavier will hurt and kill more than something lighter.
All other things being equal.
The number of people wanting to drive a car will not suddenly decrease due to larger more fashionable cars being a bit more expensive.
Those that can afford them will.
Those that can’t will simply get a smaller/cheaper car.
The numbers of them on the roads has increased in proportion to smaller cars in recent years.
So the bottom line is, has this proportional increase in more dangerous large private cars led to an increase in KSIs?
Resulting in increased pressure on the healthcare system, let alone the human suffering cost.
If so, we need the law to adapt. Quickly.
People wanting to drive larger vehicles like vans, buses, lorries etc need special licences and training to do so.
We need the same to apply to larger private cars along with their users understanding the increased danger they pose.