New Cars are Safer than 90s Cars

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by oneMadRssn, May 18, 2017.

  1. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #1
    This is why new cars are better. This is an example of government regulation working.

    1998 Toyota Corolla vs 2015 Toyota Corolla



    I hear all the time people saying that car's haven't changed much in the past 30 years, and that buying a 90s used car in good condition is a great way to save money. This video shows that is BS. Maybe they haven't changed much in terms of drivetrain technology, but safety technology has improved tremendously.

    Also smashey smashey, crash test videos are fun.
     
  2. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #2
    You can't put those 2 things in one sentence and call BS on it. It is 100% fact and indisputable that buying a used car over a new car "is" a great way to save money.

    For people to say that cars haven't changed much over the last 30 years they are ignorant and of course that is BS. Of course government regulations play a part in that but many manufactures (makes and models) exceed most government regulations.
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    well, I'm all for safety with cars...I see people drive everyday. There is, of course some variability over the years from say a 1991 Suzuki Sidekick and a 1979 Volvo 244 in terms of safety...
     
  4. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #4
    I'm glad you put this in PRSI. :) The problem with the GOP who apparently want to mindlessly cut regulation for the purpose of increasing profit, and oh yeah, increase jobs <wink> without any balanced discussion of why regulations exist, is more of their irresponsible pandering, misleading approach regarding the conduct of business.
     
  5. jeyf macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    #5
    i would agree with the OP that newer cars are safer, handle better, etc. Buy the newest car you can. I bet you can remedial any increased risk in an old car by driving slower on the way home from the bar tomorrow.

    -about 1995 most cars started to bloat out to the current day land boats.
    -car manufacturers cut back on true performance cars. More money in 4door grocery getters. New car buyers have aged and tend to not go out drifting Sunday morning.
    -Remember a few years back Toyota wound up in court over faulty brakes.
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    do you have a link to the regulations the GOP wants to cut here?
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    I'm going with edk99, on this one. I drive a 1996 Toyota Corolla with 180,000 miles on it, and I plan on driving that car into the ground. My wife just bought a Prius (after driving her 1986 Camry into the ground) and it has waaay more safety features. But while safety is an important consideration, it isn't the only thing to think about. I'll stick with my fugly car, drive conservatively, and save my money, thankyouverymuch.
     
  8. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    sons 95 Altima had just a tad over 200k mile on it and sadly he crashed, it's not worth repairing so he picked up an 02 Lexus IS 350 .new is nice but we don't need the eternal payments that come with them.
     
  9. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    I don't need to. I'm referencing the GOP mindset and sales pitch, which are presented in self serving ways (appealing to the target of the sales pitch). The GOP categorizes wholesale regulation cutting as the solution to jump start the economy without any discussion of bad versus good regulations. My opinion is that you'll get some secondary reason (more jobs), when the real agenda is padding the bottom line, no matter how much new blood is spilled. Remember, many regulations are written in real blood or red ink.
     
  10. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #10
    So to answer @jkcerda, no you don't.
     
  11. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #11
    Please do, ignore what I said. My comment was addressing how the GOP approaches regulations in general. Maybe JK wants to research that for us. :)
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    when it's your claim then it's up to you to back it up ...
     
  13. imhereareyou macrumors regular

    imhereareyou

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    #13
    hold up, who buys a used 90's car?? I have not gone out looking at used cars and thought hmm, lemme get a 90's car, most have too many miles on them. Now I do go out looking for cars in the 60's and 70's and thats not cause I wanna be safe in a bubble its cause I want the sound, the feel, the smell and the power that only one of these can bring me.
     
  14. Stefan johansson macrumors 65816

    Stefan johansson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Location:
    Sweden
    #14
    Yes,new cars of same or similar models are normally safer than old ones,but put up any of those "city cars" like smart,G-wiz or Renault twizy in a crash test against any decent 1960s Ford F-150 pickup truck...
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    all depends on what you want, late 90's -early 2000 go for around 1200-2500 depending on mileage, take care of them and they will last you a good 5 years, hell my sons 95 altima had 120k mile when we bought it and the only reason it's toast is because of the crash. hard to beat these beater cars to go to work.
     
  16. oneMadRssn, May 18, 2017
    Last edited: May 18, 2017

    oneMadRssn thread starter macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #16
    You're not really saving money if you are taking on a greater risk, you're just paying in a different way. While not currency, risks have costs.

    Owning costs fewer dollars than leasing because owners take on risk. In theory, the cost of owning and leasing is the same if you factor in the cost of the risk. The same economic theory, I think, applies to safety of cars. Choosing to save money by driving the less safe car increases your risk. While you're not paying for it in dollars, you are throwing the dice and gambling with risk. Assuming the odds of an accident are the same in both a new and old car, the difference in harm, medical cost, lost wages, etc. can be significantly different in new and old cars.

    Most importantly, no amount of conservative driving and being careful can prevent just pure sh*t luck accidents.

    I also like to think of it as cost to society - every time someone else is injured in an accident, some portion of my taxes go to funding their care or disability payments; unpaid hospital bills or interest; and stuff like that. Further, that person is removed from productive society, and thus no longer contributing the the GDP, not paying income taxes, has less disposable income to spend in my community, etc. The cost to me is indirect, but it's real.

    So while choosing to drive an old car to save a buck can work out for some percent of individuals, society as a whole still bears the cost of that risk. And as demonstrated by this crashtest video, it's pretty black and white. Twenty years in safety technology makes the difference between walking away with some soreness and walking away in a stretcher.
    --- Post Merged, May 18, 2017 ---
    You'd be surprised then. Those small cars can have very good crash test ratings, and a 60s Ford pickup is basically a death trap.


     
  17. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #17
    A 90's car is a classic around the rust belt parts.
     
  18. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    Dude, I made my point which I clarified for you. If you want to dispute what I said, or make your own point about the car industry specifically, which I did not specifically address, feel free, but don't be lazy and research your own points. :)
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    nah, busy today to do any research.
     
  20. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #20
    meh, depends if you're going to crash it doesn't it?

    I ride a motorcycle most of the time so obviously I'm willing to forego some of the crash protection for other reasons. I'm willing to increase my level of risk and take responsibility for keeping myself out of trouble.

    But yes, the engineering is impressive, however the modern corolla is about 1.5 the weight of the old one.

    It saddens me that rather than teaching people how to not put their cars into stationary objects or other cars, we're stuck dumbing cars down, making them fatter and heavier, etc.

    I've been on the road 20 years and have had zero accidents.
     
  21. oneMadRssn thread starter macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #21
    When people are involved, this will go wrong because people are imperfect. In every dataset, there are exceptional circumstances, but the data doesn't lie. Crashes happen to good drivers pretty often.
     
  22. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #22
    Sure. This is why you need to not get complacent and keep your eyes open. However, I'd argue that the number of "good drivers" on the road these days would be less than 5-10%. Most of them are too busy with their phones and/or just plain incompetent at operating a motor vehicle.
     
  23. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #23
    Again, I am admittedly biased - but I'll take a 1975-95 Volvo or a 85-97 Saab over any modern car. When design wasn't based on pure Capitalism.
     
  24. Stefan johansson macrumors 65816

    Stefan johansson

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Location:
    Sweden
    #24
    Well,you're still comparing with hatchbacks,try google the Renault twizy... I accidentally got hit by one of those in an accident,when cruising in town with my 1943 Willys. The twizy was totally demolished,sending the driver to hospital for a few days,I drove back home,and repaired the light damaged Willys jeep myself in less than two hours....
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    And I'm sure those cars would come up well. I mean look at the OP. The 1990s Corolla has a fatal accident, the 2015 Corolla has a walk out accident.
    --- Post Merged, May 18, 2017 ---
    Maybe the Twizy was going a lot faster than your car, and as your car is military spec I presume it can take a fair beating at low speed.
     

Share This Page