Sarah Vaughan Director of Angelica Solutions discusses why the widening road safety gap could drive higher motor claims costs and why insurers should act now
For motor insurers, falling road casualty numbers should be good news but if the injuries that remain are increasingly severe, lower frequency may offer less financial relief than expected. The widening safety gap between people inside vehicles and vulnerable road users could become a significant pressure on claims costs, with implications for pricing, reserving and profitability.
As governments encourage more walking and cycling, insurers need to consider how this could change their exposure to serious injury claims. Advances in vehicle safety have substantially reduced casualties among drivers and passengers, but pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists have not benefited to the same extent. Without better protection, growth in active travel could increase claims involving lifelong care, rehabilitation and lost earnings, placing pressure on insurers’ margins and ultimately the premiums customers pay.
Our analysis of England’s STATS19 police collision data illustrates the distinction. Between 2010 and 2024, casualties among people travelling inside vehicles fell by 46%. Among vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, the reduction was just 16%.
Vulnerable road users now represent around four in ten casualties, compared with three in ten in 2010, and approximately 57% of those killed or seriously injured. Roads are becoming safer at different speeds depending on how people travel.
When progress changes the risk
That disparity should challenge how insurers interpret improvements in their portfolios as a reduction in overall frequency does not necessarily indicate a comparable reduction in financial exposure. When the remaining claims involve more severe injuries, the cost of lifelong care, rehabilitation and lost earnings becomes increasingly important.
Motor insurers have spent years adapting to legal reforms, including changes affecting whiplash and smaller injury claims. Those adjustments are important, but they should not define our entire view of what comes next, the industry needs to examine whether a changing casualty mix could erode improvements achieved elsewhere.
This presents a strategic issue for insurers as much as an actuarial one. Pricing, reserving and capital planning depend on assumptions about future losses. If travel behaviour changes while those assumptions remain anchored to historic patterns, businesses could underestimate the exposure developing within their portfolios.
Active travel needs a safety dividend
Encouraging walking and cycling supports healthier communities and more sustainable transport. However, increased participation needs to be matched by a reduction in the likelihood of serious injury.
We modelled what could happen if walking and cycling increased while current injury rates remained unchanged. Under a 50% growth scenario, England could see around 4,700 additional pedestrian and cyclist deaths or serious injuries annually.
A separate 60% growth scenario produced an approximately 22% increase in total deaths and serious injuries across all road user groups. Our claims model estimated an associated rise of around 18% in third-party injury costs and approximately 6% in overall motor claims costs.
These are illustrative scenarios, not forecasts. They depend on unchanged injury rates within each casualty group and simplifying assumptions linking casualties to claim costs. Better infrastructure, awareness and prevention could materially change the outcome. Equally, swamped infrastructure and inexperienced cyclists could lead to higher injury rates. The purpose is to show why the relationship between participation, safety and financial exposure deserves attention before losses emerge.
That also means asking whether investment decisions reward growth in activity without sufficiently tracking safety outcomes. The financial value of prevention needs a clearer place in the conversation about future mobility investment.
From pricing risk to influencing outcomes
Insurers have an opportunity to contribute more actively to that relationship as the industry understands the consequences of serious injuries through claims that can extend over decades. That knowledge should inform discussions about prevention, alongside decisions about premiums.
Collision records show where and how people are injured and the claims analysis adds insight into the financial consequences. Bringing these perspectives together could help transport authorities and road safety organisations target interventions where they could make the greatest difference.
Internally, insurers should connect pricing, claims and reserving expertise to test how changing travel patterns might affect their books. National trends provide a starting point, but regional differences and portfolio characteristics require closer examination.
The broader lesson for financial services is that desirable social change still requires deliberate risk management and supporting a transition means understanding its potential costs early enough to help reduce them.
We should measure success in active travel through safer participation as well as greater participation. For insurers, helping achieve that outcome would protect people, support sustainable transport and strengthen the financial resilience of the market.