are car safety standards this piss poor even in 2017?

>>16663047
Get a roll cage if you care that much fag

File: bait.png (130KB, 950x380px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 950x380px

>>16663047
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/mustang-2-door-coupe

Seems pretty good to me

>>16663047
The cab looks like it retained it's shape pretty well

>>16663047
I would say don't crash it, but it's a Mustang

You're aware that's not a head on, right?

File: A BOMB.jpg (27KB, 368x399px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 368x399px

>cars not designed to pass small overlap test failing small overlap test

HOLY SHIT MAKE ANOTHER THREAD YOU HAVE TO TELL THE WORLD

I was close to getting a GT350 but then I remembered how much I like to have functioning legs

>>16663109
>making excuses
It was clearly not that strong to begin with sot or not

>>16663047
What speed is that?

If it's 50mph+, that doesn't look too bad. Zones are crumbled and passenger cell is 90% intact.

>>16663143
And how poor you are.

>>16663250
ford shill detected

>>16663047
where the fuck did the front of the car go

>be teen
>crash into tree
>engine goes straight through cabin because lolford
>lose pelvis and everything below it
>nothing of value was lost

File: small-overlap-overhead.jpg (60KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 620x400px

>>16663299
It's the small overlap test, which intentionally avoids most of the car's crash structure.

Most of the front of the car is still where it wss before the hit.

File: willys.jpg (305KB, 2662x1422px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 2662x1422px

>>16663047

Shit like this is street legal... Do you think we give a fuck about safety standards? Don't you got a PQRSTUV inspection or something?

this is why i will move to a city where i will never need a car...driving makes me too worried about crashing

cant get over this fear even though ive been driving for years

>>16663537
Just get a big ass SUV like every mother who's worried about safety

Just don't do the parts where you text while driving and never check your mirrors

>>16663537
haha pansy faggot

>being a car enthusiast
>caring about safety in fast cars
Pick one

>>16664173
>>16664185
>replying to shitposting
Protip: He wouldn't be here if that post was true

Cars weigh too much for their frames and body now. Technically mid 2000s cars would pass better.

>>16663537
Kek what a fag.

>>16663047
just dont crash faggot LMAO

>>16663047
>crash tests designed to completely fuck up cars
>dummies show nonlethal damage
>car is totalled

>hurr durr lol why do crumple zones crumple

>>16663047
>not understanding the difference between frontal offset and small frontal offset
>not understanding that the same energy hitting a smaller area does more damage

>>16665319
kek when the gas tank lid flies open

>>16665355
Making excuses for a car that only scored 2 stars.

>>16663047
Lowset score for a decade, even Ssangyong scored 4 stars.

File: 2014-04-20.gif (198KB, 600x528px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 600x528px

>>16665535
Gee, maybe when you make a new test every 5 years and then test cars designed before the test was implemented, they don't do well. Whodathunkit.

When will society accept the fact some things will always remain dangerous? Driving is by far the most dangerous thing most do throughout the day. If they don't like it then don't drive.

>>16664173
I have owned a small car for years, larger cars are weird to drive. I always feel like im going into other lanes and parking is a pain in the ass. As much as driving scares me driving in a big car just feels really uncomfortable. That said, I'm sure if I drove in one for a long amount of time it would be much easier.

>>16663082
>bus cucks not being disingenuous shitposting scum

File: kankerrat.jpg (5KB, 250x215px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x215px

>Mustang scores poorly on crash protection


> The test is wrong
> Safety is for pussies

>>16663143

t. bicycle commuter.

File: fagstang.jpg (347KB, 726x1139px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 726x1139px

Never get in the back of a mustang.

>>16667946
If you can fit in the back of a Mustang you're either 10 years old or a midget.

>>16667911
>every small meme car loved on /o/ scores poorly when hit by giant ass trucks from any direction

>they're obviously unsafe and should all be confiscated and crushed

>not liking the crx

>>16665319
>RIP legs

>>16665575
Yet Every other manufacturer has the same lead time on a new car and even the Indians are doing much better.

>>16667911
The Twingo outscores the Mustang on occupant safety.

File: loll.jpg (191KB, 639x353px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 639x353px

>>16670153
Nigga your legs aren't in the fucking engine bay

ITT: High school kids who can't understand crumple zones

>>16663504
>Shit like this is street legal

This.

Gov't should BTFO mandating safety standards. Just rate the vehicle, put a crash-worthiness sticker on it and let me buy what I want.

The alternative is that I buy a bicycle and blow through stop signs with the rest of the pedalfags.

>>16671962
safety standards are the reason that my face sin't a crumple zone anymore, they're also the reason for airbags and most likely seatbelts, even though we all know how the three point harness came to fruition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OysZ_4lp0
If we didn't have safety standards, that 2015 Tsuru would probably be average in terms of safety ratings

>>16670970
All that metal in front doesn't just disappear you know, it displaces into the cabin

>>16670970
How else am I supposed to turn the crankshaft?

>>16673505
It's a crumple zone. Do you need to look up the definition of "crumple" before you come back?

>>16673263
I think that anon was saying that you can buy the car that you want still. let people who accept the risk buy the deathtraps

>>16673618

A race to the bottom is always a great idea. Keep buying used cars if you want something cheap and dangerous.

>>16673505

That's mostly wheel well and that wheel and tire were designed to be broken off and you can see that happen in the video.

>>16673660
>race to the bottom
Stay in school. Some people would prefer a cheaper car that has more risk in the event of a crash.

>>16673681
And the rest of us don't want a car market that only has unsafe cars at the low price range because manufacturers are more motivated to compete on price rather than safety.

If you want a cheaper car, then you aren't buying new anyway so this discussion is kind of moot.