Short answer
One large Australian study found that, compared with white, several common colours were associated with a modestly higher crash risk — about 10% for silver and grey overall, and 12% for black in daylight — with the gap largest at dawn and dusk. It is an association from police crash records, not proof that colour causes crashes, and colour matters far less than speed, lighting, driver behaviour and vehicle safety ratings.
The most cited evidence is a 2007 report by Stuart Newstead and Angelo D'Elia at the Monash University Accident Research Centre, commissioned by Australian road-safety bodies. It used police-reported crashes from Victoria (1987–2004) and Western Australia (1991–2004), the only states that recorded vehicle colour. Because there is no count of how many cars of each colour are on the road, the authors used an 'induced exposure' method: crashes where colour could plausibly matter (collisions with other vehicles and with pedestrians or cyclists) were compared with single-vehicle crashes, where visibility to others should not matter, and white was used as the reference colour.
Across all light conditions, silver and grey were associated with about 10% higher crash risk than white, red 8%, blue 5% and green 4%; black's overall figure (6%) was not statistically significant. In daylight the pattern sharpened, with black 12% higher than white, grey 11% and silver 10%. At dawn and dusk black's estimate rose to 47%, though with a wide margin of uncertainty. After dark only red and silver remained significantly higher. No colour was significantly safer than white. The results are consistent with the idea that low-contrast colours are harder to see against roads and backgrounds in poor light, but the study measured association, not visibility.
The authors list the limits themselves. Colour categories are coarse — 'blue' covers everything from near-black to pale metallic. The method assumes that drivers of each colour have the same mix of single-vehicle and multi-vehicle crashes for reasons unrelated to colour, which may not hold if colour correlates with driver age, vehicle type or where cars are driven. Victoria and Western Australia gave quite different results, possibly because of climate or because one state records injury crashes and the other tow-away crashes. An earlier study the report discusses had even found silver cars safer. A 10% relative difference in an already small risk is a modest effect beside the difference between a well-rated and a poorly rated car.
If you are choosing between otherwise identical cars, a lighter, higher-contrast colour is a reasonable small tiebreak, particularly for driving at dawn and dusk. It is not a substitute for things with much larger measured effects: daytime running lights and headlights on in poor light, the car's crash-test rating, speed and attention. Colour contrast depends on the background too — a white car is less conspicuous in snow and a grey car against a wet road — which is one reason researchers treat lights rather than paint as the main visibility tool.
| Colour | All light conditions | Daylight | Dawn or dusk | Dark |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White (reference) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Silver | 1.10 | 1.10 | 1.15 | 1.08 |
| Grey | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.25 (marginal) | not significant |
| Black | 1.06 (not significant) | 1.12 | 1.47 | not significant |
| Red | 1.08 | 1.07 | not significant | 1.10 |
| Blue | 1.05 | 1.07 | not significant | not significant |
| Green | 1.04 | not reported here | not significant | not significant |
Each statement is labelled by kind — established fact, a standard’s requirement, observed market data, a convention, or Colourwise’s own interpretation or analysis — with the strength of the evidence behind it.
FactModerate evidence· Victoria and Western Australia· 1987–2004
Newstead and D'Elia (MUARC Report 263, 2007) found silver and grey cars associated with about 10% higher crash risk than white cars across all light conditions, using police-reported crashes from Victoria and Western Australia.
Method: Stratified induced-exposure analysis with Poisson regression; white as reference
Caveat: Association only; confounding by driver and vehicle characteristics cannot be excluded.
Source: An Investigation into the Relationship between Vehicle Colour and Crash Risk (Report No. 263)
FactModerate evidence
In daylight the same study estimated black cars at 12% higher crash risk than white; at dawn and dusk the estimate for black was 47% higher, with wide confidence limits.
Caveat: Black's all-conditions estimate was not statistically significant; the dawn/dusk figure is imprecise.
Source: An Investigation into the Relationship between Vehicle Colour and Crash Risk (Report No. 263)
FactModerate evidence
The MUARC study found no colour that was statistically significantly safer than white.
Source: An Investigation into the Relationship between Vehicle Colour and Crash Risk (Report No. 263)
Colourwise interpretationLimited evidence
Car colour is a minor factor in crash risk compared with speed, lighting use, driver behaviour and a vehicle's crash protection.
Based on: The largest relative differences in the MUARC study are around 10% outside dawn and dusk; Colourwise's reading is that these are small beside the factors road-safety bodies prioritise.
Caveat: Not a quantitative comparison; no single study ranks all these factors together.
Reviewed 29 September 2026. Colourwise summarises its sources in its own words and does not reproduce standards text or proprietary colour data. Spotted an error? Tell us.