EVs pose no greater risk to pedestrians than conventional vehicles

(Press-News.org) Under embargo until 4pm GMT/11am ET on Tuesday December 9, 2025 

With images 

EVs Pose No Greater Risk to Pedestrians than Conventional Vehicles 

Electric vehicles (EVs) are no more dangerous to pedestrians than traditional petrol or diesel cars, according to a new study.   

Research by the University of Leeds into UK collisions involving pedestrians and cars found no significant difference in the pedestrian casualty rates between EVs and conventional vehicles.  

It also found that in these crashes, injuries sustained by pedestrians were no more severe when caused by an EV than a non-electric car - despite the heavier weight of EVs. 

The paper ‘Comparing pedestrian safety between electric and internal combustion engine vehicles’ by Zia Wadud, Professor of Mobility and Energy Futures at Leeds, is published today (December 9) in Nature Communications. 

It found that with around 250 billion miles driven by cars in the UK each year, the average pedestrian casualty rates were 57.8 for EVs and 58.9 for non-electric vehicles, per billion miles of driving, between the years 2019 and 2023. 

Professor Wadud, based in the Institute for Transport Studies and School of Chemical and Process Engineering at Leeds, said he hoped the findings would dispel any misconceptions around electric vehicles’ safety.  

He added: “There were two worries about EVs and road safety. First, whether EVs would increase the number of collisions with pedestrians because they were quieter than traditional vehicles.  

“Second, where there is a collision, whether the injuries to the pedestrians would be more severe when involving an EV because the vehicles are heavier. Our results show that this is not the case.”  

Better safety technologies   One possible explanation for the findings, Professor Wadud suggests, is that because most of the EV fleet is much newer and more expensive, the vehicles generally have better safety technologies than most internal combustion engine vehicles on the road today, which help them to evade crashes or limit impact. 

EVs typically weigh about 0.3 metric tonnes more than conventional cars due to heavy battery packs - an additional weight of around five washing machines. This prompted concerns they could cause more severe injuries to pedestrians. However, the study found no statistical evidence that EV-related injuries were more severe.  

Early EVs were initially known for being very quiet, which raised fears about more low-speed accidents involving pedestrians. However, since July 2019 all new types of electric and hybrid vehicles must be fitted with Acoustic Vehicle Alerting System (AVAS), meaning they emit a sound when moving, reducing the risk.  

Hybrid differences     The study distinguishes fully electric vehicles from hybrids, which combine some battery power with combustion engines. Previous research often grouped hybrids with EVs, which Professor Wadud believes skewed results.  

In this study, hybrids showed higher pedestrian casualty rates than EVs and conventional vehicles - 120.14 per billion miles. Professor Wadud contends this could be due to their substantial use as private hire vehicles in the UK. This means they clock up far greater mileage than the average car, and are predominantly driven in and around city centres, increasing the chance of crashes involving pedestrians. 

However, while hybrids are involved in more collisions, injuries tend to be less severe than those caused by conventional cars. 

Larger vehicles and injury severity  The risks to vulnerable road users posed by sports utility vehicles (SUVs) have been highlighted in some news reports. While this study did not look into the casualty rates of SUVs, it found that large SUVs did increase the likelihood of a more severe injury to pedestrians in a collision.   

Professor Wadud said: “We should worry less about the potential dangers of electrified vehicles and more about the growing prevalence of SUVs on the nation’s roads. Whether electric or conventionally powered, these larger, heavier vehicles not only pose greater safety risks, they also take up more road space and emit more carbon over their lifecycle.”  

Greater understanding   Electrifying vehicles is seen as a major pathway to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport. EV use is now actively encouraged by Government policies in many countries, including the UK. As such, EV numbers have been growing rapidly, so it is more important than ever to understand their wider impacts. 

Professor Wadud said: “One of the ways we can fight climate change is by decarbonising transport and drivers switching to EVs is an important aspect of that. 

“These findings suggest we can reassure the public and policy makers that not only are EVs better for the planet, but they also pose no greater risk to pedestrians than current petrol or diesel vehicles on the road.” 

The study analysed collision data from Great Britain's STATS19 road safety database - the official Department for Transport dataset used to record and analyse road traffic collisions reported to the police, across the country. It used the most recent figures available, from 2019 to 2023.  

According to these, 71,979 pedestrians were hit by cars, taxis or private hire vehicles in that timeframe. Of these, hybrid vehicles were responsible for 5,303 pedestrian casualties (7.36%), while electric vehicles were responsible for 996 pedestrian casualties (1.38%). The remaining 65,680 incidents (91.25%) involved conventional vehicles.  

Although casualty figures for EVs and conventional vehicles differ significantly, when miles driven and vehicle volume on the road are considered, their casualty rates are very similar. 

The figures combine slight and serious injuries, plus fatalities. The study also developed a separate statistical model to compare injury severities across the vehicle groups.  

Professor Wadud said that although current EVs are found to be just as safe as internal combustion engine vehicles being driven on the nation’s roads, future research should investigate whether that would still be the case if both had similar levels of safety technology.  

END