> They’re all shitty and people have been disillusioned into thinking a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 2023 hitting someone going fast is going to hurt the someone more than a giant 3000lb hunk of metal made in 1973 going fast is severely disillusioned about what makes a 3000lb hunk of fast moving metal dangerous.

That's the thing with crash resistance progress - two cars colliding into what would have been a fatal crash in 1973 have pretty good chances of everyone leaving alive with barely more than a concussion trauma.

My argument was not that cars are more safe for the driver (they aren’t), but OP said that by me driving a 70s truck, others are less safe… a pedestrian getting hit by a 3000 pound object going 40 is going to die regardless of the crumple zones, and a sedan getting plowed into by a truck, modern and huge, or old and huge, is still just getting plowed into by a truck. By driving an old car, the only person I am endangering more is myself and my passengers.

Driving an old vehicle makes others less safe. The risk of collision decreases with safety features like ABS. The 70s truck doesn't have these safety features.

> a pedestrian getting hit by a 3000 pound object going 40 is going to die regardless of the crumple zones

That depends on the design as well. A flat "sports"/sedan style car just levers a pedestrian with the hood - the legs will be broken, yes, but in most cases the pedestrian survives. A SUV or particularly American "truck" style cars in contrast just smashes the pedestrian's whole body to a pulp - see e.g. [1] for a visual.

On top of that, modern cars have a ton of automated systems doing stuff like pedestrian detection visually indicating pedestrians and bicyclists in the dead spot(s) and automated brake assistants, not to mention ABS/ESP assisting the driver in emergency braking to not lose control. An old car does not have these features and thus has a higher chance of the driver injuring others on the road.

> and a sedan getting plowed into by a truck, modern and huge, or old and huge, is still just getting plowed into by a truck.

A modern car/SUV absorbs a significant portion of the crash energy in its own body, additionally so does the other vehicle. An old car does not.

[1] https://smartgrowthamerica.org/bigger-vehicles-are-directly-...

There is a big difference between driving a vehicle that requires manual gear change and a vehicle that is in disrepair.

Right on. Though the safety features built in to modern cars these days are light years ahead of what they were back then. The primary safety feature of my 1960 MGA is a foam padded bar for the passenger to bounce their head off of during a front end collision. Whereas my 2013 G Wagen has front and side air bags, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, collision avoidance and so on.

Relevant - Mercedes missed out on a $250k G Wagen sale because they build so much electronic crap into the new models that I personally cannot stand (like you!). I don't need a distracting touch screen or Alexa built into my car, thanks.

Exactly. And to be clear, my argument is for the other people: my car hitting them will do arguably the same amount of damage if it’s a half ton pickup from the 70s vs today, it’s just about how safe I am in a crash, so the only person that gets to determine that and weigh the odds is me.

Automatic transmissions are now good enough that we can just conceptually bundle all that stuff up in the “let the car deal with it” box. (For normal drivers at least).

These driver assist tools they interfere with your steering evidently aren’t as flawless. And anyway, in general the “steering” task will be primarily in human hands for the foreseeable future, mixing ownership of the task seems like a bad move.

I don’t think all changes that put the car in charge of more of the driving process are bad. They just need to be careful about what they transfer over, the car needs to take the whole task and do it perfectly.

These systems don't pull the wheel when they detect something in another lane. They do pull the wheel if you try to change lanes and fail to signal.

If there is no one there, why do I need to signal? I don’t want the cat touching the steering at all.

To tell the computer that you intend to change lanes and aren't unintentionally drifting.

You are, furthermore, required by law to signal lane changes, regardless of if you happen to notice other cars around you or not, at least in every state in the US.

Edit: rereading you comment, you claim to have nearly hit another car when it pulled the wheel, so it sure sounds like you weren't actually correct that there wasn't anyone else around. Please consider that automobiles are heavy machinery, you take on a great deal of responsibility when you get behind the wheel, and that safety code have been written in blood.

At least in my state, ARS 28-754 sb. 1 at the end specifies “if any other traffic would be affected”.

If you aren’t near any other cars, like no other cars in sight, you cannot get in trouble for not signaling if a cop is sitting off the roadway and wants to pull you over for it. Nearly every state has a clause like this.