Could Older Cars Ever Be Banned On Safety Grounds?

There's no denying that this week's crash test footage showing the difference between a 2017 Honda Jazz and a 1997 Rover 100 was eye-opening, and it could be a catalyst none us wants

Matt Kimberley

Updated: 10 Oct 2024

Could Older Cars Ever Be Banned On Safety Grounds?

While watching the ugly crash test comparison video we reported on earlier this week, we had a realisation. From a conservative point of view, the 20-year-old Rover 100 wasn’t just less safe than the Honda Jazz it was compared to; it was actually unsafe.

A car of any age can be made unsafe with any number of tyre-related fails, general lack of maintenance or taking short-cuts during repairs. Even so, none of us had considered the cars of two decades ago to be fundamentally unsafe. After all, the 1990s is an era full of cars we’d like to have babies with. But for the first time the authorities have a 20-year frame of reference on film to identify just how weak old cars are compared to new ones. Some will be better than others (Volvo, we’re looking at you), but most will be poor by 2017 standards.

It’s one thing to use the argument of: ‘well I just won’t crash’ before it happens, but looking at that Rover crumple; at the steering wheel clouting the ‘driver’ in the head as it shoots out and upwards… you’re not walking away from a crash like that. And you can never guarantee you won’t have one; there are too many variables on the road.

Still, it remains our free choice to drive an old car if we want to, and many of us do. We’re adults, and it’s our risk to take. Right? Well, there are people out there who disagree. Road safety charity Brake is a deeply serious group that believes everyone caught doing 31mph in a 30 zone should be banned for life and sentenced to 48 hours on a selection of medieval torture devices.

They’re not the only ones in the UK trying to minimise road accidents and fatalities. There’s the Road Safety Foundation, RoadPeace, the beard-wearers at GEM Motoring Assist and the wheel-shufflers of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (who are actually very good, if a bit dry). That’s just a few examples before we even get to the government’s own ever-present Think! campaigns.

Watching that video, we started wondering how long it’s going to be before just one expert, somewhere, calls for a ban cars over a certain age, or at least those that didn’t hit their maximum targets in the Euro NCAP tests. Once an expert says it’s a good idea, naturally the safety charities will follow, and then the momentum starts building. Out of the blue a law banning pre-1990 or even pre-2000 cars could smack us right across the face. For safety’s sake, we’d be told. For your own good, they’d add. Think of your family.

It’s not as unlikely as you’d think (or hope). All it would take is for someone in the Global NCAP system, or at Thatcham, to write a paper on how many lives could theoretically be saved if all old cars were banned. That sort of thing happens all the time with crash statistics for motorbikes or inner-city roads, for example, so it’s literally no stretch at all of the imagination to picture a study into fatal or serious accidents in cars built before a set date.

There can be two main reasons why this hasn’t happened yet. Firstly, there has in the past been a natural, progressive decline in the numbers of cars that survive past 20 years old. You could reasonably expect that to continue. Unfortunately for that theory, the nineties were full of great cars that people want to keep on the road, both because they’re awesome fun, because they’re rare and in many cases because they’re worth something. I don’t see there being as big a decline in older car numbers as we’ve seen in the past.

The second possibility is that even the stiffest of road safety charities know that trying to get older cars banned would be a minefield of apoplectic owners, legal challenges and mandatory compensation running into millions of pounds, which, of course, would have to come from the government. So parliament isn’t likely to be too chuffed about the idea.

But the fact remains that we’re potentially a single academic paper away from having to fight this fight. Let’s hope it never happens.

Comments

Anyone remember this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv4yoQKJ12s
Yeah, Alex Kersten lied to us all.

You can’t just say cars older than this a banned, a 1980s Volvo or Saab is safer than a 2004 city rover! Each car is totally different! Whoever said this rule has no idea how car development works

Here’s what I think, and why I’ll be sticking with my 1990’s cars:

How many lives could be saved in theory as a result of a ban is just that; a theory.
Who and what exactly is an ‘expert’ in car crashes? It certainly isn’t someone who’s experience lots of them or apparently they’d already be dead. Maybe it’s just someone who’s crashed cars into concrete blocks in a controlled environment. But the last time I drove a car was in the uncontrollable environment called ‘the real world’, and I see very few concrete blocks on my daily commute.
My small 1990’s hatchbacks have arguably better chassis dynamics and better visibility from the driver’s seat - both of which contribute to passive safety - than a ton of newer vehicles. I think, personally, I’d be less likely to crash an older car.
I, like others who’ve commented, can’t afford a brand new car even if I wanted one. I don’t want one, however, because generally they depreciate far too rapidly, they cost a fortune to repair due to being so complex, and as a result cost more to insure. In fact, my insurance premiums continue to fall year-on-year despite the current trend of prices generally increasing.

I don’t think any of that can be true, otherwise motorbikes would of been banned by now right? 🤔

I hosnestly think this is a slightly good idea because this is what my mom drives. I think that not all old cars should be pulled off the road, only cars such as that sh*tmobile.

I’d rather die crashing my 75 Trans Am than live knowing I’d been in a Honda Jazz.

All cars over a certain age? Come on. If an american station wagon from the 70s collides with any compact from the 90s the guy in the compact will die and the station wagon driver will walk away.

Government compensation? HAH. In 2007 the Norwegian government encouraged everyone to buy diesel cars, because of their low emissions. In 2017, because somebody found out their emissions actually are huge, dirty and nasty, they put a diesel ban on Oslo. This is state and city officials. No compensation, no apologies, just a shrug and a threat of being fined.

This Is bs comparing a British hand built car, to a Japanese car
I wise man once said “hand built is just another way of saying the door will fall off”

Comparing a 1997 Rover 100 (based on the 1980’s Austin Metro and only got 1 star when tested brand new) to a larger, 5 door family car with a 5 star rating, isn’t really fair. Compare it to a modern supermini, or compare a similar late 90’s car to the Jazz, and the results wouldn’t be quite as shocking. Or, instead of giving attention to all of the clickbaity news, we could focus on the problem of distracted driving, which causes a huge number of accidents.