NHTSA Study Confirms New Cars Are Safer, Regulations Not a Scam

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here
nhtsa study confirms new cars are safer regulations not a scam

You might want to sit down for this one. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a study this week showing older cars without modern day safety hardware are — and I’m sorry to say this — far more dangerous than newer vehicles. Unbelievable, right?

Of course not. As tacked on and obnoxious as a lot of safety regulations often seem, they are delivering onto us safer automobiles. The old maxim of “they don’t build cars like they used to” is absolutely true, but not in the way your grandfather meant it. According to data compiled from the U.S. government’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) between 2012 and 2016, fatal incidents occurred in older model-year vehicles at a much higher rate than their newer counterparts. Not surprisingly, the NHSTA also suggested the severity of an occupant’s injuries increase the older a vehicle gets.

Still, the disparity between the vehicle age groups is surprisingly vast.

Incidents that resulted in death saw 26 percent of occupants riding in 2013-17 model-year autos perish, while 55 percent died in cars in models dated 1984 or older.

However, the data is somewhat generalized and doesn’t take the finer details into account. One reason newer vehicles statistically perform better in crashes is because they weigh so much more. In an attempt to highlight the crashworthiness of modern automobiles, the Australasian New Car Assessment Program chucked two Toyota Corollas at one another last year. One was from 1998 and the other was from 2015.

To the surprise of no one, the newer car fared much better in the test. But what really surprised testers is just how ravaged the older Toyota ended up. A lack of driver restraint systems allowed the dummy to bounce around the interior like a pinball while structural failures resulted in the total deformation of the cabin. A lot of that has to do with where and how the vehicle is reinforced, but weight also plays a factor — and a 2015 Corolla outweighs the 1998 model by about 400 pounds.

This isn’t the case for every single model. Some have gotten lighter, but the general trend over the last 15 years is for most cars to pack on the pounds. The prevalence of SUVs has also bulked up average weight. On the road, this translates into more opportunities for two-ton trucks to go head-to-head with a 1,900-pound Geo Metro.

That doesn’t make the NHTSA’s data bogus. Had those two Corollas shared an identical curb weight, the newer model would probably still have shined far brighter in the crash test. But it does explore one more reason why the older cars did so poorly in the study.

The NHTSA attributed continued gains in vehicle safety systems as the primary reasons newer cars performed so well. That progress was also shown in the FARS analysis. Here is the proportion of occupants killed in a crash, broken down by vehicle model year, according to the study:

1984 and older — 55 percent

1985-1992 — 53 percent

1993-1997 — 46 percent

1998-2002 — 42 percent

2003-2007 — 36 percent

2008-2012 — 31 percent

2013-2017 — 26 percent

Included with the study was a “ pocket shopping guide” intended to help motorists better understand driver assistance technologies. While an invaluable hunk of consumer data in a world where the average driver appears to have next to no understanding of how these technologies work, we’d have preferred seeing the agency take it a step further by warning drivers not to over-rely on these systems. The NHTSA actually seems more interested in convincing shoppers the technologies are safe.

In one section of the pocket guide, a short FAQ asks: “Do these driver assistance technologies make my vehicle more vulnerable to hacking?” Interestingly, it doesn’t give a yes or no answer. Instead, we get the explanation that the Department of Transportation and automotive companies “consider cybersecurity a critical issue for the future safe deployment of these technologies.”

Research has shown that motorists are far too trusting of advanced driving aids. Many systems can also lead to diminished skills and absentmindedness, despite providing an additional safety net. We also know that connected cars are at a far greater risk of hacking — not just because we’ve seen that it is theoretically and technically possible, but also because older cars don’t have the electronic systems required. While that shouldn’t scare you away from purchasing a new vehicle, we’d like to see the NHTSA operating at maximum objectivity. Otherwise, it makes it seem like they’re trying to hawk new cars and tech on behalf of the automotive industry.

[Image: Institute for Highway Safety]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends, regulation, and the bitter-sweet nature of modern automotive tech. Research focused and gut driven.

More by Matt Posky

Join the conversation
2 of 80 comments
  • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on May 14, 2018

    I'd like to see this on a chart with the ATP cost of vehicles behind it (inflation adjusted and non-inflation adjusted).\ "1985-1992 — 53 percent 1993-1997 — 46 percent 1998-2002 — 42 percent 2003-2007 — 36 percent" 53% to 36% in twenty years is great! "2008-2012 — 31 percent 2013-2017 — 26 percent" Diminishing returns. Go back to the 08-12 regulations and reduce cost OR freeze the current standards for a decade so costs come down through economies of scale.

  • WildcatMatt WildcatMatt on Jun 04, 2018

    One point I don't see much being made of here is maintenance and age. A car of any age is going to depend in part on how far out of spec the various components are. For every older car on the road where everything has been replaced on schedule, there will be fifty who are lucky to have tires with tread on them. Having a 1997 Volvo 850 deploy its airbags in an accident will only mean so much when the brittle clips holding the dash in place fail in the impact and the whole thing lands in your lap anyway...

  • Ernesto Perez There's a line in the movie Armageddon where Bruce Willis says " is this the best idea NASA came up with?". Don't quote me. I'm asking is this the best idea NY came up with? What's next? Charging pedestrians to walk in certain parts of the city? Every year the price for everything gets more expensive and most of the services we pay for gets worse. Obviously more money is not the solution. What we need are better ideas, strategies and inventions. You want to charge drivers in the city - then put tolls on the free bridges like the Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges. There's always a better way or product. It's just the idiots on top think they know best.
  • Carsofchaos The bike lanes aren't even close to carrying "more than the car lanes replaced". You clearly don't drive in Midtown Manhattan on a daily like I do.
  • Carsofchaos The problem with congestion, dear friends, is not the cars per se. I drive into the city daily and the problem is this:Your average street in the area used to be 4 lanes. Now it is a bus lane, a bike lane (now you're down to two lanes), then you have delivery trucks double parking, along with the Uber and Lyft drivers also double parking. So your 4 lane avenue is now a 1.5 lane avenue. Do you now see the problem? Congestion pricing will fix none of these things....what it WILL do is fund persion plans.
  • FreedMike Many F150s I encounter are autonomously driven...and by that I mean they're driving themselves because the dips**ts at the wheel are paying attention to everything else but the road.
  • Tassos A "small car", TIM????????????This is the GLE. Have you even ever SEEN the huge thing at a dealer's??? NOT even the GLC,and Merc has TWO classes even SMALLER than the C (The A and the B, you guessed it? You must be a GENIUS!).THe E is a "MIDSIZED" crossover, NOT A SMALL ONE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, oh CLUELESS one.I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE NONSENSE you post here every god damned day.And I BET you will never even CORRECT your NONSENSE, much less APOLOGIZE for your cluelessness and unprofessionalism.