3 ms·

Until you get in an accident, and then you’ll care (or be dead so you won’t). Safety has come an awful long way in 35 years. And I actually think “most people”

Until you get in an accident, and then you’ll care (or be dead so you won’t). Safety has come an awful long way in 35 years. And I actually think “most people” do give a shit about their families not dying preventably

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
Dunno. I'll take my chances in a 35 year-old Suburban in a collision with most other vehicles on the road.
- ivanbakel 4y ago
  The vehicle would fare better, and you would fare much worse. Modern cars wreck to preserve their passengers, rather than vice versa.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    It's 35 years old, not 65 years old!
- Karellen 4y ago
  1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck Sure, a lot of advances in safety were made in the 28 years between 1959 and 1987, so your car won't fare as badly as the Bel Air, but there were plenty of other advances in the 22 years between then and when that Malibu was made in 2009, and likely quite a few in the 13 years since. It's a free country, so you can take your chances if you want. I wouldn't rate them that highly though, FWIW. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - robocat 4y ago
    Great video. It is impressive how long the windscreen of the Malibu stays intact.
- loudmax 4y ago
  The weight of the 1988 Suburban ensures that in a collision, the risk of being killed is transferred to the people in the vehicle struck by the Suburban, rather than the occupants of the Suburban.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    Yes. That's the point of the comment.
- 0xfeba 4y ago
  That only works if most other vehicles weigh substantially less, which they don't. Suburban vs Smart Car, sure, you "just" kill all the occupants of the smart car, and get some whiplash since you don't have headrest and possibly head injuries, since you might not have a shoulder belt. Suburban vs modern sedan, truck, SUV, semi -- you're dead.

HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago

Dunno. I'll take my chances in a 35 year-old Suburban in a collision with most other vehicles on the road.

ivanbakel 4y ago
The vehicle would fare better, and you would fare much worse. Modern cars wreck to preserve their passengers, rather than vice versa.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  It's 35 years old, not 65 years old!
Karellen 4y ago
1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck Sure, a lot of advances in safety were made in the 28 years between 1959 and 1987, so your car won't fare as badly as the Bel Air, but there were plenty of other advances in the 22 years between then and when that Malibu was made in 2009, and likely quite a few in the 13 years since. It's a free country, so you can take your chances if you want. I wouldn't rate them that highly though, FWIW. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- robocat 4y ago
  Great video. It is impressive how long the windscreen of the Malibu stays intact.
loudmax 4y ago
The weight of the 1988 Suburban ensures that in a collision, the risk of being killed is transferred to the people in the vehicle struck by the Suburban, rather than the occupants of the Suburban.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  Yes. That's the point of the comment.
0xfeba 4y ago
That only works if most other vehicles weigh substantially less, which they don't. Suburban vs Smart Car, sure, you "just" kill all the occupants of the smart car, and get some whiplash since you don't have headrest and possibly head injuries, since you might not have a shoulder belt. Suburban vs modern sedan, truck, SUV, semi -- you're dead.