When did car safety peak? If you have young kiddos and prioritize safety should you consider ~2005 cars? Or get something newer?I care about structural integrity, not sensors and nannies that beep all the time.
>>28619109I have had three LeSabre, the first two got totaled by other inattentive drivers, the second time my kids were in the back when I got ass ended at about 20mph while stopped. My kids were fine, and I was able to drive the fucking car away under its own power, newer cars are undoubtedly safer, but it’s the point of diminishing returns. We invest twice as much money and weight into safety, and the car gets 50% safer.
>>28619114>5%
Current-year SUVs 80% of safety is being the larger and heavier object
The newest cars are structurally safer.Notice how every NBA/football nigger goes and crashes their Corvette/Camaro at 120mph and walks away from the scene while the family in the 2000s minivan he hit all die.
>>28619114What year would you say is the point of diminishing returns in your opinion? I probably have the budget to buy a new car, but i think old ones have more sovl.On the other hand i dont want to buy an older unsafe car just so i can personally feel better Have to compromise >>28619118Getting a sedan regardless >>28619123>2000s minivanso just killing niggers kek, based what about a 2015 car?
>>28619115Depends on the manufacturer. I’d say anything after about ‘08, safety wise is just pointless.
>>28619125If you're getting a sedan safety is irrelevant. Notice how every second vehicle on the road is a pickup truck? When their bumpers are at head level with you in your sedan you are going to get obliterated in any collision with one.
>>28619109>When did car safety peak?Glad you asked, because I monitor it closely. TL;DR is that it continues to develop. Nearly every car does not focus on safety equally across all occupants.The new meta for automotive safety shifted from active driver interventions to passenger row safety. The vast majority of safety improvements were entirely focused around the driver.Over the past ten years, the IIHS caught out a lot of auto manufacturers ignoring the front passenger area as many cars would pass the driver's side small overlap but fail the passenger side small overlap test. These failures continue to get caught to even to today. This lead to a development in trying to work towards a whole-car safety picture since passengers are not being prioritized as much.The high focus towards only the first occupant row has led to a specific engineered crash behavior where the vehicle tends to pivot up, levering the chassis upward and causing secondary injuries to second and third row passengers. Newer proposed crash tests are trying to encourage distributing crash forces so that most crash dissipation doesn't introduce pivoting behavior that also leads them to be more prone to rollover crashes too.Another focus is that current crash tests are focused around smaller cars when the current road makeup has taller cars and taller trucks. Bumper heights are increased to compensate.
Few things to consider:1. The best thing you can do to not die in a car crash is to avoid crasher alltogether. Buy a car that does encourage you to drive more safely, something luxurious, but not fast.2. Structural integrity. The newer, the better. Check how did crash ratings changed through the years, i.e. small overlap conducted by IIHS introduced in 2012, almost all cars were shit back then, by the 2015 most of the cars allowed you not to die in such a way.3. Avoid crashes once again, I get it, nannies are annoying, but I think they are still worth it, while they can save you in case of some fuckup.If you insist on considering only structural integrity, look for something with good rating in small overlap test (you are most likely to die that way).>When did car safety peak?No such thing, newer=better, you can check when were the tests updated, small overlap is qute a significant leap, another one, maybe updated side crash test in 2021?If you are too poor to buy something around 10yo, at least look for moderate overlap test.
>>28619323>>28619325Very interesting, thanks. Yeah i had a suspicion that car safety prior to like 2010 is primarily centered around the driver rather than passengers in the rear.
>>28619109Anything with 3 point seatbelts and 190+ inches long is fine. The newest of cars (angry era onwards) are actually less safe thanks to [unexpected steering wheel movement] and comedically large blindspots. Yeah you'll die less often but reducing yearly fatalities from 5 per billion to 4 per billion isn't shit if nom-lethal injuries double as a tradeoff
>>28619376Are you able to substantiate that with hard numbers or do you just not like newer cars?
>>28619450Road fatalities in specifically western countries have gone up as of 2020 onwards
>>28619482>Road fatalities in specifically western countries have gone up as of 2020 onwardsLooking at the stats, here are the following road fatalities for the US:>2021 - 36980>2022 - 42915>2023 - 42975>2024 - 44800The stats substantiate your claim, but vehicle design is not the primary factor as to why this happens. Over the past ten years, the primary factors are the following:>speedingA third of all traffic deaths involve speeding. Outrunning your vehicle's rated crash speed delta is a fast way to render safety systems ineffective.>more impaired drivingMore drivers operate vehicles while impaired. Alcohol remains the leader, with marijuana maintaining a close second place, and drowsiness maintaining a close third. Impaired driving is responsible for 32% of all road fatalities.>more distracted drivingCell phone use leads the leading cause of distracted driving wrecks, with up to 14% of road fatalities resultant from driving while distracted, up from 8% in 2015. Active safety interventions prevent 8333 deaths yearly. At a statistical life value of $13.7 million for each individual according to the DOT, this preserves $114 billion USD of labor value yearly. The expenses incurred by ADAS suites have paid for themselves long ago.>less seatbelt usageNon-use is stabilizing around 8%, although trends indicate a slight decline. About 8% of occupants and drivers do not wear seat belts. They account for 47% of all road fatalities. Crash safety is heavily designed around seatbelt restraint and no amount of safety intervention will fix someone who won't wear a seat belt.Although stats tend not to collect demographics data (either proprietary or racist, take your pick), this is the ten year anniversary of the 2015 migrant crisis, which has transplanted Central Asian and African populations to the western world en masse, which do not follow similar driving norms and have a very relaxed attitude towards risk and safety, or rather a disregard for it.
>>28619376>comedically large blindspotsif anything this causes more parking lot accidents or fender benders at most the idea that cars are more dangerous to drive because of this is hardly substantiated
>>28619109Cars have never been safer. In fact, people are so confident in their ability to survive a crash that they don't fear getting into one.
>>28619686I mostly agree with this.>2015, you're driving ahead of some retard distracted by their phone>they hit you coming to a sudden stop>2025, you're driving ahead of some retard distracted by their phone>auto braking takes over, they don't hit you
>>28619716The more mass market the car is, the more aggressive these interventions are. Automakers are aware that most people treat cars as a necessary evil and don't really want to commit to being a good driver anyways.I'd say that tires and brakes are way too undersized for ADAS suites to truly save everyone, but it's been effective enough to be worth the addition.
>>28619676ChatGPT post
>>28620179>t. too retarded to do your own research
>>28620181Yeah, that's what I meant.
>>286191092010s Volvo and Subaru have a lot of UHSS and Boron rods in the a and b pillarspretty much the car will hold up, but then there will be allot of problems trying to chop the roof off to get people out.of note is that the amount of air bags and 400 to 800 volt cables in more modern cars makes extraction even more difficult.
>>28619686exactly,guess that's why drivers are so retarded now
>>28619376>comedically largecomically large*>>28619683the A pillars of cars now hide entire SUVs and pickups behind them, some roads are angled such that as you approach them you don't see them unless you're really moving your head around>well then just move your head around duhi'm more concerned about other people who don't do this more than myself
>>28619109>I care about structural integrity, not sensors and nannies that beep all the time.Understandable, but a lot of that shit will help prevent a crash in the first place, or prepare the vehicle for a crash proactively rather than reactively. Regardless, structural safety standard are constantly improving; if you value safety above all else, then stay away from chinese/korean shitter brands and economy-tier vehicles.>When did car safety peak? tl;dr - It hasn't. I'm not that familiar with newer models though, so you'll have to do your due diligence in market research to find makes and models that suit your budget and general needs while meeting the highest safety standards.>>28619201Funnily enough, newer, taller trucks are more likely to run over a sedan than impart a direct impact, so that might not be such a bad outcome.
>>28619109it's basically impossible to die in a new car as long as your seatbelt is on, you can drive directly into a 10000kg concrete barrier at 120mph and walk away near totally unharmed
>>28619118negativesuvs are created based on commercial vehicle rules, they don't need to be as safe as carsfor example roofs can crumble while in cars that is unacceptable
>>28619118>rolls and kills you without even interacting with another vehicle
>>28619109the newest full size luxury SUV will in fact be the safest vehicle you can drive regardless of any other factors
>>28621979You should learn to read. He said they were safer because they were heavier, not because they have extra safety features or some other inconsequential thing like whether the roof caves in or not.The laws of physics are an unavoidable bitch, more certain than death and taxes, more inevitable than the tides themselves, and the laws of physics tell us that when 2 objects of different size/mass end up colliding, the smaller object ends up absorbing most of the energy.
>>28622304I'm limiting to sedans though. Seems like current year will always be the safest
>>286191092010s cars are actually quite a bit safer than 2000s cars. Airbags, modern crash structures, and use of high strength steel all make them better.
>>28622461newest, biggest, heaviest luxury sedan would as good as it gets then. don't get anything less than mid-sizethe inherent safety problem with sedans is the low ride height. if a truck or SUV hits you in the wrong way, i don't know if any safety feature will save you.but you do get the bonus of having less roll potential, and theyr'e just more comfortable
>>28619109So, is this your new way of shitposting about how new cars are Le Bad and your old shitbox is better?The entire point of modern-day cars becoming boringmobiles IS that they're safer than before, with extra crumple zones, extra air bags, reinforced materials that hold better in rollovers, auto braking, lane assist, distracted driver alerts, etc.Are we gonna start treating this like Shrodinge'r Mexican Illegal Immigrant now? taking all the jobs while also being lazy and taking all of the free government assistance money? Is this what we're doing to cars now? Jesus tapdancing fucking Christ
>>28619109If you actually care about safety, get a modern SUV or truck. Anything smaller gets completely crushed in a collision with an SUV or truck.
>>28622478there are pros and cons to each. for example, you may be safer in a collision while in a trugg due to greater mass and sitting above the impact, but there is much greater rollover risk since the center of gravity is so high (which can also happen due to a collision)
>>28622304>>28622461>>28622478>if a truck or SUV hitsThose are too low. Even bigger RAM vehicles and Silverado has normal skirt height.Hitting a semi isn't even that bad. But the trailer?
>>28619109Early 90s American full-size sedans. They were still built like tanks, but had modern safety equipment like airbags, crumple bumpers, and anti-lock brakes. All the advantages of old Detroit iron (mass, thick steel body, heavy frame that all resist damage and shield occupants from harm) with the added advantage of modern safety techmology (ablative bumpers that dissipate energy, airbags that do airbag things, brake and traction control systems that help prevent loss of control). I would say a 1990-1995 Grand Marquis or Impala would be about as good as you could get.
>>28620226I fucking hate modern A pillars. I calculated my personal field of vision in my 2011 silverado, I have a 22 degree blind spot IN FRONT OF my truck. It's 17 degrees in my wife's mini cooper, not as bad but still terrible loss of visibility. They claim it's for safety to support the car if it rolls. Bullshit. My '71 Nova only had a sub 6 degree forward blind spot from the A pillar, basically non-existant, and the A pillars held up fine when I rolled it 3 times down an embankment. Welded tube steel cages are great like that.
>>28623178Rollover testing has always been retarded and unrealistic which is probably the reason and it's only recently that new, more realistic methods have started to gain traction, albeit very slowlyThe car is either dropped flat on it's roof on bare asphalt from a great height or it's put in an industrial crusher until the pillars give in, neither of which even remotely reflect what happens in an actual rollover
>>28622485>taking all the jobs while also being lazy and taking all of the free government assistance money?These aren't mutually exclusive actually. When a normal human being (northwest european or northeast asian) gets paid they accumulate capital and enrich the community around them, can go into business and start producing value, et cetera. Whereas, when you pay a natural slave it's essentially wasted money, because it never goes anywhere good. They lack stewardship, don't take care of their own things or things around them, remain poor, will be prone to petty vandalism or burglary of public goods when there are no consequences for doing so, rendering many social technologies impossible, et cetera.When you employ a valuable human they create more value and conditions for growth and expansion of civilization, resulting in even more potential 'employment' as a banal economist might put it. Whereas when imported slave races are used as mercenaries by factions of defective elites it really is a 'stolen job', because they don't exponentiate value and can not create the conditions for higher levels of civilization in their own right - in essence being parasitically dependent on the conditions for the very existence of those 'jobs' in the first place being arranged for by the hosts - resulting in stagnation and negative sum competition for rent seeking. Happens every time.
>>28619109Car safety isn't keeping pace with the number of 5000lb trucks and roastiemobiles on the road, in addition to cell phones and touchscreens making everyone distracted tards. You would unironically need to travel back in time to the early 2000s to find the perfect sweet spot of car safety, reasonably attentive drivers, and a minimum of gigantic vehicles.
Makes me wonder how safe an early 2000s flagship luxury car is compared to a new economy car of todayI feel very safe in my LS430
>>28619325>3ngl automatic braking saved my ass once. I was driving a friend’s car and the car in front slammed on his brakes while I was adjusting the A/C.
>>28622461Modern Subaru is probably the best. The flat boxer engine slides under the cabin in crashes instead of intruding in through the firewall.
Car safety peaked in the early 00s, when a GMT800 was the largest vehicle a sane person would be driving.They're letting domestic automakers design downright dangerous gigavehicles to scalp retarded women and insecure faggots. I remember the designer of some late-00s trugg (RAM i think?) as describing the front end design as "like a giant fist moving through the air" or something to that effect. At that point why not cover it in 1' spikes to make it even more ANGY and sell even more units to dicklets? Fuck the other guy, right?No matter what car you buy, if some Becky scrolling instagram in her Hummer EV drifts across the mustard you're fucking dead, no ifs or buts. Even if you're both going like 30.Once some dude got drunk and ran from cops in his lifted RAM, banged it off the speed limiter (~120mph) on the interstate and rear-ended a newish Altima which was probably going 60-70. With a mere 60mph delta it peeled the roof and B/C pillars off the car and splattered the occupants guts all over the road.More of the same antisocial bullshit that w*stern society loves to cook up lately. Fuck the other guy, any sort of social harmony is for commies.
>>28619109Like mid to late 2000shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5eyQ8sUacE
