Ever-larger cars (‘carspreading’) may be contributing to increased insurance loss severity. Higher, blunter front ends have been associated with more severe bodily-injury claims, and rising vehicle complexity can inflate repair costs.

A June 2026 analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E) and Clean Cities finds new cars sold across the EU, UK, and Norway have been growing by about 1.2cm in length and 0.5cm in height each year since 2000. If that trajectory continues, their modelling suggests around 400 additional vulnerable road users (VRUs) could die each year by 2040, compared with a 'right-sizing' scenario that returns average new-car dimensions to 2015 levels.

The carspreading trend: How vehicles have grown since 2000

For insurers, these findings have potential implications beyond projected fatality figures, particularly for loss severity in third-party bodily injury claims. Larger vehicles tend to have higher, blunter front ends (bonnets/hoods), which may alter crash dynamics and the locus of impact on the human body.

T&E’s modelling draws on a Belgian VIAS analysis linking a 10cm increase in bonnet height with a 27% higher fatality risk for vulnerable road users (VRUs) in collisions. To estimate child impacts, it uses US research associating a 10cm front-end height increase with an 81% increase in child pedestrian fatality risk.

These findings are relevant in the context of the EU General Safety Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2019/2144), which mandates enhanced pedestrian and cyclist protection as a condition of type-approval, and UN ECE Regulation No. 127, which sets technical requirements for pedestrian protection performance of vehicle frontal structures. The research suggests that vehicle dimensional growth may not be neutral to bodily injury outcomes, and that existing type-approval standards may not keep pace with the dimensional trend.

Bigger bonnets, worse outcomes: The bodily injury evidence 

The finding that larger, higher-fronted vehicles increase pedestrian and cyclist fatality risk aligns with the broader safety literature. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis (24 studies) found that, in crashes, the odds of death are 1.44 times higher for adults and 1.82 times higher for children when struck by an SUV/light truck rather than a passenger car. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has also highlighted how SUVs’ higher points of impact contribute to more dangerous cyclist injuries.

The liability arms race: How larger vehicles externalise harm

The higher odds of death for pedestrians and cyclists struck by larger vehicles, when translated into insurance terms, points to a potentially worsening pattern: Bigger vehicles may externalise harm, increasing third-party bodily injury liability exposure. 

The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI, affiliated with IIHS) notes that for property damage liability, larger and heavier vehicles tend to generate higher indemnity costs because they inflict greater damage on the objects and persons they strike, and that injury-claim severity tends to increase with vehicle mass and frontal profile. 

In the academic literature, this tortious externalisation has been characterised as an 'arms race; effect: When drivers move into heavier vehicles, they may gain occupant protection while increasing the risk of serious injury imposed on third parties; a dynamic that, as several commentators have argued, existing liability and rating frameworks may not fully internalise. For more on how these trends may affect insurers, see Browne Jacobson's insurance sector insights.

What the data shows

Insurers may also need to consider the repair-cost dimension of vehicle size increases. UK market data suggest that repair complexity and costs are already placing pressure on claims indemnity: In Q1 2026 the Association of British Insurers reported that the average accidental damage claim reached £3,699, citing higher parts prices and increasing vehicle complexity.

The FCA, in its review of the general insurance market and in supervisory communications, including its 2022 Dear CEO letter to motor insurers, has identified more complex vehicles and broader cost inflation as contributors to higher motor premiums; the FCA's Consumer Duty (PS22/9, in force from 31 July 2023) further requires firms to demonstrate that pricing delivers fair value to customers, a standard that may come under strain as vehicle complexity drives up underlying claim costs.

IIHS/HLDI have separately noted that crash-avoidance technology can raise repair costs through sensor replacement and recalibration requirements. Larger vehicles often carry more of that technology and more expensive body-in-white componentry to begin with.

What this means for insurers

The strategic implication is that insurers may need to consider proactive responses rather than relying on shifts in consumer behaviour.

 A UK study reported in The Guardian found that warning labels about SUV danger had limited effect on purchase intent, suggesting that price signals and regulatory intervention may prove more effective than voluntary disclosure alone. T&E has recommended that the European Commission exercise its powers under Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 to adopt delegated acts capping bonnet leading-edge heights and maximum vehicle widths, and that Member States adjust vehicle taxation to discourage dimensional supersizing. 

Insurers could complement such measures by refining actuarial rating factors to reflect front-end geometry, kerb weight, and the presence of VRU-safety technology (e.g., autonomous emergency braking systems assessed under Euro NCAP VRU-protection protocols), and by actively supporting fleet procurement policies and municipal access restrictions that may reduce the most severe third-party bodily injury loss outcomes.