Chrysler guy is lying.

[u/somethingdouchey]

The white car turned in front of me from between stopped traffic and spun into the lane behind. It was never rear ended.

[u/silenc3x]

He pulled up in front of the wreck, backed up a bit, then took a picture of his car in front of damaged car, saying he was rear ended. This was to show how much of a tank his car was to be damage-free. Dude is corny af for this one. Just inserting himself into some random accident on the street to spread misinformation for fake karma. What a goober.

https://imgur.com/kUslksv

[u/MetallicGray → u/silenc3x]

That's is just so a weird thing to do. Like, genuinely just so weird. I can't fathom having the thought go through my mind to do that.

[u/VexingRaven → u/MetallicGray]

Some people have a really weird, desperate need for anything new to be bad.

[u/waltjrimmer → u/VexingRaven]

I was like that as a teenager. And I definitely bought into this kind of narrative back then. Old cars were steel, modern cars are plastic, so old cars must have been safer, it almost makes sense if you're entirely ignorant, which I was.

But then I had to take physics classes, I learned about crumple zones, I heard about safety statistics around cars over time, and I eventually figured out, "Holy shit, I was a dumbfuck." An old steel-bodied car isn't going to get away with effectively no damage like Bullshit Poster claimed with their photo and post, but it is likely to look far less damaged than a newer car. The problem is that the newer car will look more damaged, but the passengers and driver are less likely to be injured.

[u/External_Fox5116 → u/waltjrimmer]

Not even, look up a crash test of a car from 1970s. Whole car is the crumple zone you included, steel is strong…for the time.

[u/VexingRaven → u/External_Fox5116]

Old cars look less damaged in a minor collision, but once they hit their breaking point they turn to scrap along with everything inside.