Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford Man
I've never denied that newer cars are not safer, but there are also many variables in traffic accidents involving 1 vehicle vs. 2 vehicles, a 76 Lincoln vs 2010 Smart, (in which case I think I'd elect to be in the Lincoln even though it doesn't have crumple protection and air bags)
|
Funny. People accuse new-car buyers of being "fat gas-hog driving SUV lovers," yet here's the perfect example of wanting an inferior vehicle simply because it's big and heavy. The Lincolns of 1976 handled worse than today's biggest SUVs, stopped slower, sucked more gas and were far less safe. A Smart is safer in a side-impact collision than a '76 Continental against pretty much any other vehicle, and is probably as safe in a head-on as the Continental. (Certainly for the passenger, who will have an airbag instead of the dashboard to hit.) More likely the Smart would have been able to avoid the collision in the first place.
Quote:
|
I personally have nothing against someone who goes out and buys a new car every year if that's the way they want to spend their money and they feel that's what they need to be happy/safe, but myself I'm comfortable with what I drive. Lots of people on this forum probably wouldn't drive my '88 Escort simply because it's not pretty and shiney and as nice as their 2010 Cadillac, but I keep the maintenance up on it and it is probably MECHANICALLY as safe as 75% or more of the cars on the road and probably as MECHANICALLY safe as 90%+ of cars on the road over 5 years old.
|
Ah, more of the "stupid people buying $50,000 cars" argument. First off, I'm not even arguing against used cars. I'm arguing against "let's pile the family in this '88 Metro I got for a steal and don't worry, I'm a safe driver." And you're in North Carolina, so you haven't experienced the wonder of salt corrosion and "don't worry, I'll just weld in some sheet metal I have laying around." A good head-on, and those things will collapse into a metal pancake and a cloud of rust.
Airbags became standard in the early '90s. New side impact standards went into effect in 1997 (and were anticipated by some manufacturers such as GM, who met those standards with the Metro in 1994.) I would recommend that as a bare minimum if you drive long distances, or in particularly unsafe climates or on unsafe roads. The '94 Metro still gets great mileage, still can be worked on by anybody, and still can be had for a bargain. If you don't drive a lot, don't worry. (Hell, if I had a 10-mile in-town commute, I'd be driving a '68 Beetle on those days I couldn't bike.)
As for new cars, even a $9,000 Kia, Yaris or Versa will beat any car made in the '80s for safety.