Wander through any Australian suburb today and you’ll see towering dual-cab utes dwarfing the sedans in car parks, while massive SUVs navigate school drop-off zones. What was once a landscape dominated by Commodores and Falcons has morphed into something resembling an American highway, complete with vehicles that seem designed more for conquering mountains than working Melbourne's laneways.
Behind Australia's love affair with bigger vehicles lies a complex web of safety implications that extend far beyond the protective cocoon these machines provide their occupants. We've gathered insights from leading safety experts, crash investigators and researchers to examine whether our supersized vehicle fleet represents progress or peril.
The Numbers Don't Lie: Australia's Big Vehicle Revolution
SUV-style vehicles make up 70% of the Australian car market, which is a dramatic change from the balanced mix of vehicle types that characterised our roads just two decades ago.
Professor Stuart Newstead from Monash University's Accident Research Centre puts this in perspective: ‘We have basically abandoned our traditional large and medium cars that we used to drive 20 years ago.’ This transformation extends beyond mere consumer preference to encompass fundamental changes in road dynamics, crash patterns, and safety outcomes.
Tax incentives and business-focused finance options have accelerated this trend, with instant asset write-offs and fringe benefits tax exemptions making commercial vehicles attractive to private buyers. As Newstead observes, ‘We're actually almost providing incentives for people to buy them through taxation.’
The Hidden Toll: What Research Reveals About Larger Vehicles
Dr. Sarah Mitchell, Road Safety Research Institute
‘The fundamental issue isn't necessarily the vehicles themselves, but how they interact with our existing road environment and other users. When we designed our urban infrastructure, we weren't anticipating a fleet where the average vehicle height would increase by 30 centimetres over two decades.’
Comprehensive analysis of 682,509 pedestrian and cyclist collisions reveals that these road users face a 44% higher likelihood of death when struck by SUVs or light trucks compared to conventional passenger cars. For children, the statistics become even more alarming, with an 82% higher fatality rate when involved in collisions with larger vehicles.
‘The geometry tells the story,’ Mitchell explains. ‘Traditional passenger cars strike pedestrians at leg level, allowing them to be thrown onto the bonnet, where longer deceleration distances and softer surfaces reduce injury severity. SUVs and utes, with their elevated and more vertical front ends, strike victims at torso level where vital organs are located.’
Professor James Chen, Vehicle Engineering Safety Lab
‘From an engineering perspective, we're seeing vehicles designed for American highways and rural applications being deployed in environments they were never optimised for. The physics simply don't work in favour of other road users.’
Chen's crash compatibility studies examine how different vehicle types interact in collision scenarios. His research has identified concerning trends in vehicle-to-vehicle crashes where size differentials create disproportionate outcomes. The average dual-cab ute weighs approximately 2,270kg compared to a small car's 1,200kg.
‘The rollover characteristics present additional challenges,’ Chen notes. ‘Higher centres of gravity make these vehicles twice as likely to roll in crashes compared to conventional passenger cars. When you combine significant mass with rollover tendency, the energy management becomes extremely complex.’
Dr. Rebecca Williams, Urban Traffic Psychology
‘What we're observing is a false security phenomenon. Drivers in larger vehicles often exhibit more aggressive behaviours, believing their vehicle size provides immunity from consequences. This psychological aspect compounds the physical safety concerns.’
Research reveals that SUVs lull drivers into a false sense of security, which encourages them to take greater risks. Their height also makes them twice as likely to roll in a crash compared to smaller cars.
The isolation factor plays a significant role. Modern SUVs and utes provide exceptional noise and vibration isolation, which can reduce drivers' speed perception and environmental awareness. ‘When you can't feel the road or hear the engine working, it becomes much easier to drive faster than intended,’ Williams explains.
The Technology Paradox: Why Safety Ratings Don't Tell the Whole Story
Carla Hoorweg, ANCAP CEO
‘We're looking at vehicles that are being designed for the US market, they're not necessarily going to have a focus on pedestrian protection or vulnerable road user protection’, Carla Hoorweg stated to carsguide.
Hoorweg acknowledges the limitations inherent in current safety assessment methodologies. While ANCAP has introduced Vulnerable Road User Protection as a core evaluation pillar, the fundamental design characteristics of larger vehicles present ongoing challenges.
The 2025 Kia Tasman achieved a five-star ANCAP rating, demonstrating that manufacturers can engineer safer large vehicles. However, even this top-rated ute exhibited minor concerns in crash testing, including driver dummy pelvis displacement in full-width frontal crashes.
The rating system faces criticism for focusing primarily on occupant protection rather than compatibility with other road users. An example involves crash data showing that some highly-rated utes demonstrate higher real-world pedestrian fatality rates than lower-rated passenger cars, highlighting the disconnect between laboratory testing and road reality.
Also read: Best and Worst Cars for Pedestrian Safety in Australia
Blind Spots and Visibility: The Hidden Danger Zone
Dr. Marcus Thompson, Human Factors Engineering
‘The visibility crisis is quantifiable and alarming. Our measurements show forward visibility reductions of 58% in SUVs compared to conventional cars, creating danger zones that extend up to 10 metres in front of these vehicles.’
Thompson's research team employs sophisticated camera systems and software to create comprehensive ‘blind-zone maps’ that quantify visibility constraints. The methodology, adapted from US Department of Transportation protocols, provides objective measurement of previously subjective safety concerns.
‘The geometry creates unavoidable compromises,’ Thompson explains. ‘Taller hoods, larger mirrors, and thicker A-pillars are necessary for the structural integrity and functionality of these vehicles, but they create substantial blind zones that technology can only partially address.’
Even advanced systems like 360-degree cameras and proximity sensors have limitations. Screen resolution and driver attention factors mean that technology cannot eliminate the visibility challenges created by vehicle design.
The Regulatory Response: Balancing Innovation and Safety
Janet Morrison, Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Safety regulations are improving; as of March 2025, all new vehicles must be fitted with Autonomous Emergency Braking systems specifically designed to detect pedestrians and cyclists. The AEB mandate represents the most significant regulatory intervention, requiring sophisticated sensor systems capable of detecting and responding to vulnerable road users.
Morrison oversees the implementation of Australian Design Rules (ADRs) that govern vehicle safety standards. She acknowledges that technology-based solutions address symptoms rather than causes.
‘We're examining European pedestrian protection standards that focus on front-end design characteristics,’ she explains. ‘These standards emphasise energy absorption and impact distribution rather than relying solely on collision avoidance technology.’
Finding Common Ground: Practical Solutions
The expert consensus points toward multi-faceted approaches that acknowledge both market realities and safety imperatives.
Design Evolution
Manufacturers are responding with lower bonnet profiles, enhanced visibility systems and improved front-end energy absorption. The Kia Tasman's five-star rating demonstrates that engineering solutions can address many safety concerns without compromising utility.
Driver Education
Enhanced training programs focusing on the unique characteristics of larger vehicles, particularly regarding blind spots and stopping distances, could reduce incident rates.
Infrastructure Adaptation
Urban planning modifications, including wider footpaths, improved sightlines at intersections, and separated cycling infrastructure, can reduce conflict points between large vehicles and vulnerable road users.
Technology Integration
Advanced driver assistance systems, when properly implemented and maintained, can partially offset geometric limitations. However, experts emphasise that technology should supplement rather than replace fundamental design improvements.
Policy Refinement
Potential modifications to taxation and incentive structures could influence purchasing decisions toward safer vehicle configurations without eliminating choice.
The Path Forward: Balancing Choice with Responsibility
Australia's move towards larger vehicles carries measurable safety implications that extend beyond the boundaries of individual choice. While these vehicles serve legitimate needs and provide genuine utility, their proliferation creates challenges that demand thoughtful responses from manufacturers and regulators.
The solution isn't necessarily smaller vehicles, but smarter ones designed with comprehensive safety considerations. As our expert roundtable demonstrates, engineering expertise exists to create safer large vehicles, the regulatory framework is evolving to address identified gaps, and consumer awareness is growing regarding the broader implications of vehicle choice in reducing road accident risks.
The question facing Australia isn't whether we can continue our love affair with large vehicles, but whether we can mature that relationship to account for the safety and well-being of all road users. The experts suggest we can through sustained effort, informed choices and recognition that true automotive progress measures success in capability, comfort and community safety outcomes.
Our roads are changing. The question is whether we'll guide that change thoughtfully or simply hope for the best while crossing our fingers at every intersection.
