3 ms·
14 years is a _long_ time in terms of safety tech. I wouldn't buy anything older than 5 for this reason alone.
by Ocerge 4y ago
14 years is a _long_ time in terms of safety tech. I wouldn't buy anything older than 5 for this reason alone.
- barbazoo 4y agoWe used to drive these cars in the past though. Was makes them too dangerous to drive now?
- eightysixfour 4y agoWhile I get your point, the driving environment has changed. The weight of the average vehicle model has gone up something like 700lbs in the last 20 years, not to mention that the vehicles actually sold have transitioned to heavier and more powerful trucks and SUVs.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Der_Einzige 4y agoIronically, many cars from the 2013-2018 era are safer than modern cars, at least in terms of things like collision avoidance systems due to their usage of radar-based systems rather than optical or optical + AI systems. Old teslas with parking sensors are safer than the newer ones where they were removed. Age is not always indicative of technological safety.
- CrazyStat 4y agoHas anyone other than Tesla replaced radar with optics+AI for collision avoidance?
- austhrow743 4y agoI see this written a lot but I'm curious to know if anyone actually has data on money spent on new cars vs alternatives when it comes to QALYs saved. Intuitively it seems to me like there would be much better ways to spend the hundreds of thousands spent over a life time to always be driving relatively new cars. Or just not earning the hundreds of thousands in the first place.
- QuarterReptile 4y agoIt sort of seems like one of those things that makes sense if you have the money, doesn't if you don't, and can't be argued for that reason. In alternative points on this continuum, you put a family of 5 on a moped.
- j45 4y agoNot really. High end features of mid to high end 14 year old cars that are affordable now are common features today. You have to remember the cheapest cars are gamed to not make the cheapest vehicle a good value.