wtf, I don't remember 1998 Corollas to be such deathtraps

Partial overlap crash. They didn't test for that in 1998. It's the price you pay for a lighter car that's simpler to work on.

>>17526835
IIRC auto manufactures did not appreciate the IIHS doing independent crash testing back then.

Pretty much any car after the 90s to early 2000s is going to have poor visibility and be a pain in the ass and more expensive to work on.
Because of side-impact airbags and rollover protection we'll never see cars again that are light, cheap, and efficient. Emissions are one thing. but I Honestly don't know how necessary all the additional airbags and extra shit is over say a stiffer frame with crumple zones.

As a reminder airbags only exist as an involuntary safety feature because people weren't wearing their seat belts and either cracking their skull on the windshield/dash or being ejected from the car. I think Ariel Atom style "kit" cars will get more popular as safety and emissions regs push base model price points sky high while everyone is poor. As a result of thick A-pillars that hold airbags making visibility non-existent all 2018 US cars will be required to have a backup cam and a screen to go with it.

>>17528690
>reading reviews for Fiat 500
>massive number of complaints about the lack of a backup camera
People who need a backup camera for twelve foot long shoebox should have their license revoked immediately

File: 26903072020_f90dbb8c2e.jpg (63KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x281px

Luckily I drive a 1985 Corolla, so I'm good.

>>17526823
You're so worried?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk-rHAndNc

>>17528690
Airbags help even with seat belts though. Like, a lot.

>>17529221
That I would agree with completely, but I do wonder what the point of diminishing returns once you start adding onto the standard driver/passenger and side impact bags.