Older car and safety

[dragonwalker]

I currently have an 09' Honda Civic Lx with 131K miles. It's mechanically reliable and I've had very few problems. I've owned it since it was new. I've been going back and forth on getting a new Honda Civic hybrid or Toyota Corolla hybrid mainly because of the new features, better gas mileage (I've been driving more the last few years but still only about 10K a year) and the cosmetics (my current car is ok but the years are starting to show). I end up talking myself out of it every time because it's much more of a want than a need.

However, my partner brought up recently that the car due to its age might not be as safe or reliable (as in breaking down in the middle of driving). I kind of dismissed it since I do keep up with the maintenance but it got me thinking if the risk of that is significantly more given the car's age? Also would a new Civic or Corolla really be any more safer than my car or is it more marketing hype that drives the feeling but in reality there is little practical difference? I do like the idea of a backup camera and the blind spot monitoring so those are the nice to haves but not sure if the car itself is significantly safer? Given all 3 types of cars are very similar in size I tend to think any additional safety is more hype than reality but I may have missed something in 15 years.

[GilesMM]

Newer cars are safer, that’s a fact.  But also consider minimizing driving and avoiding it after dark and in rain or snow.

[Paper Chaser]

You've got crumple zones, airbags, a collapsible steering column, etc. It's not cutting edge on the safety front, but it's still better than anything produced for the 20th century.

It's hardly a death trap, and with only 131k miles, it's got a lot of life left in it. I'd pay for decent tires, make sure the mechanical stuff is up to snuff, and then drive it defensively.

[reeshau]

New cars are definitely safer, and a number of safety options have become standard, even since 2009.

Total deaths in the US have actually increased in recent years, reversing a long downtrend.  This may seem counterintuitive, but when you dig deeper, you can see that vehicle passenger deaths has continued to decline, while pedestrian deaths are up almost 60% from the 2000's.

In fact, this has become a problem: safer cars (for drivers) invites riskier driving behavior.  (See: Autopilot and FSD abuses)  The next safety regulations for cars will be focused on pedestrian safety.

Freakonomics has done episodes on this.  I thought they had a recent one, but I can't find the link.  I'll fish back in my listening history and see if I can find it, or if it was from somewhere else.

[bill1827]

I'm not convinced that there have been any significant improvements in vehicle safety since the 1990s.

Looking at that NHTSA report the big safety improvements were seat belts and air bags. Front seat belts were made compulsory in the UK in 1968 and wearing them became compulsory in 1983. Airbags were invented in 1919 and fitted to cars in the US in the 1970s.

Anti lock brakes also have a long history.

I can't see the other things they list aiding safety in any meaningful way.

I also note that they claim an estimated 56% reduction in occupant fatalities, but that is from the late 1950s when many cars were death traps. (Ralph Nader, anyone?).

The biggest safety improvement is to have a competent driver who pays attention to the road.

Of course modern cars have a big anti safety device - that multi function screen which is potentially a major distraction.

[GuitarStv]

Don't turn on and fiddle with a cell phone in your car and you'll be massively safer than the average driver.  Add in signaled lane changes, no tailgating, coming up to highway speed before merging, and paying attention to the road while driving and I bet that would put you in the top 1% of drivers - regardless of car feature set.

[techwiz]

The biggest safety improvement is to have a competent driver who pays attention to the road.

100% agree!

[jamaicaspanish]

I sold my 2009 Civic LX-S with 155k miles one year ago ...
I was willing to keep driving it until it died ... but I am glad I sold it and upgraded.
I listed and sold it in 24 hours ... for $7.2k
And upgraded to a 2021 LEAF with 14k miles.
With tax rebates and electric company rebates ... I paid a total of $7k out of pocket to move up 12 years in safety features and shave 140k miles off my local daily driver.
I babysit my grandkids so the back-up camera, 360 degree view is a big plus.
Those safety features also help with the neighborhood kids who are always running, scootering, and biking around.
It also has  adaptive cruise, lane keep assist, and blind spot monitoring.
And heated seats and steering wheel (I know, I'm getting soft).
I loved my Civic. It was my baby. But the LEAF is a clear step into the future.

[yachi]

I'm not convinced that there have been any significant improvements in vehicle safety since the 1990s.

Looking at that NHTSA report the big safety improvements were seat belts and air bags. Front seat belts were made compulsory in the UK in 1968 and wearing them became compulsory in 1983. Airbags were invented in 1919 and fitted to cars in the US in the 1970s.

Anti lock brakes also have a long history.

I can't see the other things they list aiding safety in any meaningful way.

I also note that they claim an estimated 56% reduction in occupant fatalities, but that is from the late 1950s when many cars were death traps. (Ralph Nader, anyone?).

The biggest safety improvement is to have a competent driver who pays attention to the road.

Of course modern cars have a big anti safety device - that multi function screen which is potentially a major distraction.

...and the endpoint is the average age of a car on the road in 2012, firmly including OP's '09 Civic.  So that statistic says nothing about improvements between 2009 and 2024.

I'm surprised at the complainy pants push to something new in the name of safety.  Driving under 10,000 miles a year drastically reduces your chances of an accident compared to most drivers.  Your car is quite small and easy to see out of, so its not the best candidate for safety improvement from the addition of a backup camera.  You also don't have a large blind spot if you adjust your sideview mirrors correctly.

It'd be cool if we had danger ratings instead of safety ratings on cars.  Because while making things more convenient, cars make your life more dangerous, not safer.  This danger rating would get multiplied by the miles you drive, resulting in your chance of death.

When you look at statistics, also keep in mind that older cars are cheaper to purchase than newer ones, so you have a segment of the population buying old cars because they cannot afford anything newer.  This segment of the population would also be the one to not take great mechanical care of the older vehicle: waiting longer to replace tires, forgoing long term scheduled maintenance, and overall just looking to spend less on maintaining the car.  Crucially, this should not describe mustachians, who understand that saving a dollar in car maintenance by increasing your chances of an accident is poorly managing your funds.

[fireready]

Our newest car is a 2002 VW Jetta 4 cylinder 5 speed.  Cheap to drive, cheap to insure.  Has air bags, ABS, all that stuff.  Our other vehicles are a 1987 VW van and a 1967 VW Bug.  But I am my own mechanic and simple cars are easy and cheap to fix.
New, expensive cars mean higher insurance rates.  Possible car payments.  Depreciation.  None of that I want or need.
I would drive that Civic to at least 250K.  My daughters 2005 Civic was just totaled in an accident and it had over 225K miles on it with no issues.  She is unhurt, car is not.

my $.02
FR

[Retire-Canada]

Both our vehicles are 2010 and I expect we'll have them another 10 years or so. No concerns about safety as we maintain them well including brakes/tires and drive them reasonably.

[reeshau]

The most objective measurement of the increased safety of newer cars will eventually show up in insurance rates.  Of course, there are a lot of other factors that go into that price:  repair cost, legislation, etc.

As an example, Luminar is setting up insurance brokerages in all 50 states, in order to immediately price insurance for cars equipped with their lidar.  (currently, only the Volvo EX90)  They expect to be able to price insurance $800 per year less than prevailing rates.  Their analysis is backed by Swiss Re.

For what it's worth, it's good to see a company putting its money where its mouth is.  It's not altruistic, either:  not only is it an incentive to get the system (the EX90 has it standard) but it also allows them to capture a "safety value add" ahead of the adjustment of the insurance industry to technology around autonomy.

[BringFuturamaBack]

Just for reference we both drive model year 2000 cars and feel fine. As long as they're in good repair and you aren't doing stupid stuff (phone distraction, drinking, eating while driving, speeding, not swerving into other lanes with no signal, etc.) you really should be close to the lowest risk possible. I get the allure of a new car as well though. The new features are nice. We'll probably buy a new bolt when they come out (assuming the price isn't insane).

[GuitarStv]

Just for reference we both drive model year 2000 cars and feel fine. As long as they're in good repair and you aren't doing stupid stuff (phone distraction, drinking, eating while driving, speeding, not swerving into other lanes with no signal, etc.) you really should be close to the lowest risk possible. I get the allure of a new car as well though. The new features are nice. We'll probably buy a new bolt when they come out (assuming the price isn't insane).

Which features do you like?  I haven't seen any new features that really make me think 'Yeah, that's worth getting a new car for'.

[ChpBstrd]

The 2006-2011 Civic had the highest safety rating in all 4 categories from the IIHS and was awarded "Top Safety Pick".

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/honda/civic-4-door-sedan/2009

Not much has improved since then. Nothing here to worry about.

Bonus: it lacks an infotainment screen, a feature added by manufacturers to wreck more cars and increase sales.

[SilentC]

‘08 Hyundai with 200k miles here.  I don’t worry about it, I do myself much more harm shuffling my playlist while driving than if I had another $30k invested in a vehicle.  I keep the tires in shape and try not to drive when all the drunks are out (after the end of football games, 2am on a weekend morning etc.)

[Laura33]

I think you need to look more closely vs. make generations.

First, as many have said, your current car is completely fine.

Second, safety improvements:  you need to distinguish between life-and-limb safety improvements vs. "annoying repairs" improvements.  For example, backup cameras:  if you're going 2 mph backing up into traffic going 25 mph, no one's going to die.  It's a fender-bender.  OTOH, automatic braking, when you're at highway speeds and get distracted for a moment?  That can be a literal lifesaver.  And also consider the potential impacts on pedestrians -- vehicles with the giant front grills can do a lot of harm. 

And the flip side is what are the detriments that come with new cars?  I am particularly annoyed with those giant screens that require you to navigate through menus to change anything -- they basically force you to take your eyes off the road to change the fan speed or radio station.  My analog controls, OTOH, allow me to change basically everything without ever taking my eyes off the road.  If you do decide to look for a new car, pay very very close attention to how easily the car functions without you having to distract yourself to do stuff.

tl;dr:  There's a lot of hype.  The key is to distinguish whichever bit of the hype represents progress that matters to you from all the rest of the noise.  For me, I paid up for the automatic crash avoidance and cameras for my DD -- she's VERY ADHD, and so I had a legitimate fear that she could get distracted and hurt herself or someone else.  I didn't get all of that stuff for myself.  Me, I just drive a stick, which forces my attention to the road anyway -- and the convertible is seriously helpful for avoiding blind spot issues.  ;-)

[Cassie]

I’m hoping my 2008 Toyota Corolla lasts 10 more years because I don’t want any of the newer features. A backup camera would be the only option I would like. I only have 72k miles on it so will probably last a long time.

[seattlecyclone]

Just for reference we both drive model year 2000 cars and feel fine. As long as they're in good repair and you aren't doing stupid stuff (phone distraction, drinking, eating while driving, speeding, not swerving into other lanes with no signal, etc.) you really should be close to the lowest risk possible. I get the allure of a new car as well though. The new features are nice. We'll probably buy a new bolt when they come out (assuming the price isn't insane).

Which features do you like?  I haven't seen any new features that really make me think 'Yeah, that's worth getting a new car for'.

Our daily driver is a 2004 Prius. When I rent a new car while traveling the only new safety feature I notice and appreciate at all is the backup camera. As unlikely as it is for a toddler to walk behind my car right before I start backing up, the reality is that I would have no way of noticing that in my current car, and such collisions did in fact happen often enough in older cars that the regulators decided it was worth mandating cameras in newer vehicles.

[Paper Chaser]

Just for reference we both drive model year 2000 cars and feel fine. As long as they're in good repair and you aren't doing stupid stuff (phone distraction, drinking, eating while driving, speeding, not swerving into other lanes with no signal, etc.) you really should be close to the lowest risk possible. I get the allure of a new car as well though. The new features are nice. We'll probably buy a new bolt when they come out (assuming the price isn't insane).

Which features do you like?  I haven't seen any new features that really make me think 'Yeah, that's worth getting a new car for'.

Our daily driver is a 2004 Prius. When I rent a new car while traveling the only new safety feature I notice and appreciate at all is the backup camera. As unlikely as it is for a toddler to walk behind my car right before I start backing up, the reality is that I would have no way of noticing that in my current car, and such collisions did in fact happen often enough in older cars that the regulators decided it was worth mandating cameras in newer vehicles.

Backing into parking spaces makes this a lot less likely too.

[Retire-Canada]

Backing into parking spaces makes this a lot less likely too.

Definitely. I do this pretty much every time I park. If I do have to back out of a spot I walk around my vehicle. I have an effective back up alert "radar", but no reverse camera in my 2010 vehicle.

[GuitarStv]

Backing into parking spaces makes this a lot less likely too.

Definitely. I do this pretty much every time I park. If I do have to back out of a spot I walk around my vehicle. I have an effective back up alert "radar", but no reverse camera in my 2010 vehicle.

Yeah, I was taught in driver's training that it's usually the safest option to back into a parking space or driveway - always back up where there's no chance of through traffic.  Many modern cars are designed to be difficult to see out the back though.  My mom's 2017 Corolla is much harder to back up with than my 2005 Corolla because of the angles and the size of the rear windscreen - I'm glad that she has a backup camera.

[Retire-Canada]

I rented a vehicle this year and it had a back up camera, a 360 deg top down camera, back up "radar" [probably auto reverse braking, but I didn't test it] and then side mirrors and rear view mirror. My friend laughed the first time I tried to reverse the rental. I was stuck in information overload with so many places to look and data to process.

I can't see out the back of my vehicle so all I have is side mirrors and the revere alert "radar" which is audible so I can just look at my two mirrors.

[sonofsven]

I've always driven work vehicles where the interior rear view mirror is unusable.
One thing I always add to the exterior rear view mirrors are the little stick on convex mirrors. I look at the main mirror first, then the small stick on mirror to see it there's anyone in my blind spot.
You can add an aftermarket camera and a head unit (the radio) with a screen for probably $300-400. I added one on an older truck, mainly for backing up to a trailer; it's invaluable.
On my newest truck it has all the safety stuff. The thing I find the most useful is the blind spot detector on each exterior rear view mirror. A little orange light comes on the mirror face when someone is on my blind spot. It's especially useful at night on the freeway.

[Rottedlog]

Just commenting as a follow to this, currently selling my Mistubishi Mirage for a late 2000s Caddilac DTS as a second car. The reasons were safety, a third kid and frankly we mainly use it for driving a 200 mile round trip with a carpool 1x/wk and wanted something comfortable. As it's a carpool that is growing from 2-4 here this month I wasn't worried at all about the extra gas. I'm sure this was not a mustachian purchase.

[FireLane]

I've got you beat! I have an '06 Civic with 215,000 miles.

I'm not overly concerned about safety. Like others have said, if your car has seat belts, air bags and crumple zones, you've got all the important safety improvements of the 20th century. Anyway, the best protection for car accidents is to drive as little as possible.

I hear the concern about your car breaking down in the middle of driving. I've considered getting a new car not because of safety, but because mine needed several expensive repairs over the past year. However, some other posters here set me straight on that.

Any car, no matter its age, can have an unexpected breakdown. The average cost of keeping it running is what you should be concerned about. In my case, the cost of a new-to-me car, versus the cost of keeping this one running, would be pretty close to a wash.

[zolotiyeruki]

Keep the Civic.  At 131k miles, it's still got half it's life left.  At least.

The much-touted safety features that have incrementally crept (or been forced) into cars over the last 20 years don't actually move the needle much.  They also drive up the cost of building cars, and tremendously increase the cost of repairs for minor collisions.  Backup cameras were mandated starting in 2018, and (IMO) only provide a benefit when you're driving a car with really poor visibility.  Poor visibility caused by other requirements, like really beefy rollover protection requiring massive pillars, or fuel efficiency requirements that have, ironically, made it significantly harder to produce smaller, more efficient vehicles.

Bluetooth is about the only feature our cars have that would be nice, and that's easily remedied with a $15 BT radio transmitter.

[Car Jack]

The #1 safety feature is seat belts.  Wear them.

My son's car is a 2020 Subaru STi.  He began to rely too much on the backup camera.  Rather than looking out the mirror or looking over his shoulder, he backed out of our garage with the back up camera.  Problem was that the auto garage door malfunctioned and stopped before the top.  He dented his roof and tore off the antenna.  $1000 deductible later and he no longer relies on just the rear camera.  Be careful on relying on these "safety features" in modern cars.  I'm fine driving a car without ABS brakes as a skilled driver can stop significantly faster than someone mashing down enough to engage ABS.  I taught race car drivers for a dozen years.  I've seen plenty of drivers who easily out braked someone relying on ABS.

An 09 Civic is arguably one of the most reliable cars on the planet.  Do some over maintenance and the thing will go as long as you want it to.

I'm considering a "new" car and was looking to possibly look at one I would really like.  1981 BMW 320i.  Manual.  No air bags.  No ABS.  The seat belts work just fine and crumple zones were designed into this car long before this car came out.

[Dee18]

I purchased a new CRV hybrid last year, replacing my much loved 2005 Honda Accord. From 2005 to 2023 the safety features increased tremendously.  There are also a lot of convenience features that make driving much less tiring.  My favorites include automatic emergency braking, blind spot alerts, adaptive cruise control, lane departure warnings (I actually don't have this on but it's great for my daughter who gets sleepy on long drives), and the back up camera. Being able to see maps on a screen is also great if I'm in an unfamiliar area.  And being able to dictate a text is great when meeting up with someone. 

[JAYSLOL]

I’ve got a 1995 Tercel, it’s tiny, doesn’t have abs or traction control, doesn’t even have a driver’s airbag, much less any other form of safety. Would I rather be in a brand new car if I planned to drive it at 60mph into a brick wall?  Yeah, definitely, but I also feel perfectly fine driving it because I drive it like the old shitbox it is, I use it for putting around town, and when I do highway driving, I keep it pretty slow and I drive with unmatched focus.

[alsoknownasDean]

I'm not convinced that there have been any significant improvements in vehicle safety since the 1990s.

Looking at that NHTSA report the big safety improvements were seat belts and air bags. Front seat belts were made compulsory in the UK in 1968 and wearing them became compulsory in 1983. Airbags were invented in 1919 and fitted to cars in the US in the 1970s.

Anti lock brakes also have a long history.

I can't see the other things they list aiding safety in any meaningful way.

I also note that they claim an estimated 56% reduction in occupant fatalities, but that is from the late 1950s when many cars were death traps. (Ralph Nader, anyone?).

The biggest safety improvement is to have a competent driver who pays attention to the road.

Of course modern cars have a big anti safety device - that multi function screen which is potentially a major distraction.

What about electronic stability control?

A 2009 Civic isn't exactly a Geo Metro, and if in good condition, is as safe today as it was in 2009, all else being equal. It seems that passive crash safety improved significantly throughout the 2000s if the NCAP testing is any indication.

[zolotiyeruki]

It seems that passive crash safety improved significantly throughout the 2000s if the NCAP testing is any indication.

The problem with this logic is that they come up with the tests, and then rate cars against those tests. An improvement in fleet-wide crash safety ratings doesn't necessarily correspond to a significant reduction in injury and death statistics. As injury and death stats improve, they have to devise more and more edge cases to chase ever-shrinking marginal improvements.  Seat belts made a huge impact. So did crumple zones and ABS. Front-impact air bags, too, albeit to a lesser extent, and side air bags to an even lesser extent. More recently, lane assist, backup cameras, automatic braking? Now we're getting into the realm of trying to compensate for poor choices. And that's a Sisyphean task

[ChpBstrd]

My understanding is that "electronic stability control" means "automatically stop the wheels from spinning out". I.e. if you are driving on ice, and accelerating from a stop light, and as you press the pedal the wheels slip, so the transmission automatically senses this and disengages for a second. It's one of those features justified on safety grounds that adds probably $1,000 to the price of every car and eliminates the possibility of certain transmission designs. But it's a fair question to ask if accidents actually happened because drivers were punching the gas and spinning out when accelerating (without intending to lose traction, like for fun). As @zolotiyeruki notes, it's an effort to compensate for bad choices.

[Retire-Canada]

My understanding is that "electronic stability control" means "automatically stop the wheels from spinning out".

I can spin my rear truck tires off a start with ESC activated no problem. What I can't do is get the truck to slide sideways on slippery surface. As soon as I disable the ESC I can spin the truck 180 in a snowy parking lot easily. Definitely a useful feature. Particularly in a truck that is RWD most of the time. This is a 2010 vehicle. My 1997 truck didn't have it and it would love to have the rear step out and spin if you weren't attentive.

[GuitarStv]

It seems that passive crash safety improved significantly throughout the 2000s if the NCAP testing is any indication.

The problem with this logic is that they come up with the tests, and then rate cars against those tests. An improvement in fleet-wide crash safety ratings doesn't necessarily correspond to a significant reduction in injury and death statistics. As injury and death stats improve, they have to devise more and more edge cases to chase ever-shrinking marginal improvements.  Seat belts made a huge impact. So did crumple zones and ABS. Front-impact air bags, too, albeit to a lesser extent, and side air bags to an even lesser extent. More recently, lane assist, backup cameras, automatic braking? Now we're getting into the realm of trying to compensate for poor choices. And that's a Sisyphean task

I don't like that some of the new technology for 'safety' either make things less safe, are have unclear net safety benefits.

Larger pillars in cars improve safety for rollovers, but significantly decrease visibility around the vehicle for the driver.  If you can't see, I'd argue that's less safe . . . and I'd warrant that more deaths are caused by inability to see properly than (relatively rare) rollovers.

My mom's Toyota Corolla has a lane assist feature that very nearly caused an accident while I was driving it.  It was snowing heavily while we were driving on a two lane (one in each direction) road going about 70 or 80 kph.  Deep snow had blown about three feet into my lane in one section, so I moved half into the oncoming lane to avoid it.  The lane assist then yanked the wheel out of my hands where I was loosely holding it and back into our lane.  I had to grab it hard, then fight the car to avoid the deepest snow . . . but we started to fishtail because of this and it was pretty terrifying.

Another example would be LED lighting on new cars.  LEDs are generally great . . . they take less energy, they consume less power, they produce more light.  But the colour of LED lighting on new cars is bluer and much more concentrated, which is harder for the human eye to process at night and causes greater glare.  This glare is blinding to drivers of oncoming traffic, and apparently the problem becomes significantly worse as people age.  (And don't get me started on the fact that you can buy illegal retrofit LEDs at any big box store to jam into your older vehicle halogen casings and blind people, and the police have effectively no way of catching you while doing this).

[reeshau]

But it's a fair question to ask if accidents actually happened because drivers were punching the gas and spinning out when accelerating (without intending to lose traction, like for fun). As @zolotiyeruki notes, it's an effort to compensate for bad choices.

Having commuted in the dead of winter for many years, I can confirm that they do.  Many dufuses, thinking their pickup made them invincible in any conditions, would blow by me going full speed on the interstate in terrible conditions.  It was dark enough (morning and evening!) To see their lights for some time.  Then, on the next curve or small hill, you could see:  red lights.  White lights.  Red lights.  I appreciated the heads up about the black ice / drifted lanes / etc.

[GuitarStv]

But it's a fair question to ask if accidents actually happened because drivers were punching the gas and spinning out when accelerating (without intending to lose traction, like for fun). As @zolotiyeruki notes, it's an effort to compensate for bad choices.

Having commuted in the dead of winter for many years, I can confirm that they do.  Many dufuses, thinking their pickup made them invincible in any conditions, would blow by me going full speed on the interstate in terrible conditions.  It was dark enough (morning and evening!) To see their lights for some time.  Then, on the next curve or small hill, you could see:  red lights.  White lights.  Red lights.  I appreciated the heads up about the black ice / drifted lanes / etc.

Four wheel drive means that you can accelerate in slippery conditions.  Winter tires mean you can stop and corner.  A surprising number of folks believe that they're somehow equivalent though, and drive like maniacs with 4WD.

[Paper Chaser]

My understanding is that "electronic stability control" means "automatically stop the wheels from spinning out". I.e. if you are driving on ice, and accelerating from a stop light, and as you press the pedal the wheels slip, so the transmission automatically senses this and disengages for a second. It's one of those features justified on safety grounds that adds probably $1,000 to the price of every car and eliminates the possibility of certain transmission designs. But it's a fair question to ask if accidents actually happened because drivers were punching the gas and spinning out when accelerating (without intending to lose traction, like for fun). As @zolotiyeruki notes, it's an effort to compensate for bad choices.

What you're describing sounds more like traction control, where power is decreased to slipping wheels. It can be done a few different ways.

Electronic Stability Control detects skids, slides, etc based on yaw, and automatically applies the brakes to individual wheels to stop the uncontrolled movement and return the vehicle to it's original path.

Both Traction control and ESC have been mandatory on US vehicles since 2012.