You might be able to find a used MazdaCX-5 in manual.
Now, I drive a stick and have two teen drivers with zero interest in learning. I also think it is safer for them not to be distracted by shifting, stalling, etc. As my kids say that was a problem that was solved. Mine wanted a Prius because they want to help the environment and that is what we agreed on. Tesla was out and only used Nissan leaf is cheap but the range is poor.
NHTSA has a list of cars that are safe for teens. It is also categorized by price. I am not sure if they have updated it. Bottom line is, larger is better.
Both of my now 30 something kids learned to drive and took their license tests on stick shifts simply because I believe it taught them a skill and it made them better drivers, more in tune with the road and the car so I understand your concerns. (And can’t be sipping on a Latte or chatting on a cell phone when you need to shift away from the light)
At 19 years old your daughter is probably in working or in college and is at least a somewhat experienced and hopefully mature driver so a stick is more of a choice than a need and pretty much all modern cars are worlds safer than they were just a short time ago.
If it’s any help we all worry about our kids, especially the “knuckle heads”, but more important than the size of the car is the “nut behind the wheel” and it seems like you’ve done as good a job as you can do.
And BTW if you think that a car is cause for worry just wait until she starts bringing home the “Current Suitors”.
That isn’t universally true. I’d rather be in a bad wreck in a Miata than in a '55 Cadillac, if for no other reason than in the Miata, the steering column won’t spear me in the heart.
You know what I mean, Mr Lawyer. We are discussing modern cars that the OP might want to buy. Bigger is safer because of the added momentum.
If you compare cars of the same time period to each other, even cars from the era you mention were safer if they were large. My mother was rear-ended by a MG-TD while driving her 1964 Cadillac Series 62 hardtop. There were slight scratches on her Caddie, but the MG was destroyed.
My '74 Volvo was a POS in terms of both durability and reliability, but the safety features–which were very good for the era–were exceptional. The recoverable, impact-absorbing bumpers were particularly good. Once, when I was stopped at a red light, I was rear-ended at low speed by a woman driving a mid-size Buick. There wasn’t even a scratch on my Volvo, but she destroyed the front bumper and grill of her Buick, and there was a fair-sized notch in both of her front fenders.
On that topic, I should mention that the Ray-gun administration rolled-back the bumper standard in 1982, and instead of having to withstand a 5 mph collision, the new standard was 2.5 mph. Of course, the vehicle mfrs then opted to save money on their less-safe recoverable bumper designs, and the body shops then made more money than they had when the standard was 5 mph. Only the consumer suffered in the process.
On the other hand, that added momentum makes it harder to maneuver to avoid the wreck in the first place.
I wasn’t trying to lawyer you - we’ve all seen people on this board who think their old '75 Caprice Classic was way safer than a modern car because they ran it into a tree and barely dented the bumper whereas modern smaller cars crumple even in low speed collisions. They’ve internalized the idea that a big indestructible car is safer in a wreck than a small one that crushes like an accordion, and the regulars here have spent a lot of keyboard time trying to explain how that idea is wrong, because if the car doesn’t absorb the impact, the driver does.
I’m not a fan of the arms race mentality in automotive safety. Yeah, sure, a larger vehicle, all other safety factors and variables being equal, might be safer in an actual collision but that doesn’t mean we should all be driving semis around. After all, if everyone gets that larger vehicle, then the large vehicle safety bonus is nullified. I’d rather our efforts focus on driver skill and mentality than only thinking about the results of a collision that might have been avoided if the car were more maneuverable and the driver more skilled.
There’s even some evidence that making safer cars doesn’t do much to reduce wrecks, the thinking being that people have a baseline level of acceptable risk, and as you make one factor more safe they’re willing to get more risky in other factors. So in other words if you’re driving a rattletrap with broken seat belt, you’ll only go as fast as you’re willing to accept from a risk of injury perspective. If you then switch to a big car with multiple airbags, etc, you might go faster because the perceived risk is lower, and because you’re driving more dangerously you increase your chances of getting into a wreck.
This also factors into road design. The reason there’s a trend lately to have sidewalks jut out toward the street at various intervals, or inconsistently-shaped medians in the middle of streets with a lot of traffic or pedestrians, is because those things make drivers feel less safe about going as fast as they ordinarily would, so they slow down because they feel safer doing so, not because there’s a speed limit sign (which as we know they tend to ignore).
So there’s evidence that the more safe a driver feels, the more likely that driver will do dangerous things which can cause a wreck. That’s not to say that I think we should get rid of airbags, but there is an argument to be made that driving an oversized vehicle makes you feel less intimidated and more intimidating, which encourages a lot of people to drive worse than they would in something smaller.
See “Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)” by Tom Vanderbilt for sourcing.
I’m sorry, I just can’t read the rest. My 59 Pontiac had the end of the rear bumper pulled out of place. It bothered me so I tried to bend it back in place. No way. I even ran it up against a tree to straighten it but it wouldn’t move. My 74 Olds though had the shocks on the bumpers. The only thing I’ve ever hit with my Olds and Buicks have been deer, and while $2-3,000 in damage, never hardly felt anything inside or spilled my coffee. My neighbor hit a deer with his Pontiac though and got pretty well banged up from the air bags.
So I’m sure insurance companies love the new car designs where a 20 mph accident can cause the car to crush to absorb the impact but leave the cabin intact. Though the car is demolished, there were no injuries.
They do love the new designs. Replacing a $30,000 car at depreciated value and with deductible is a heckuvalot cheaper than a hospital bill for someone that got badly mangled in a wreck. You and I live in the same state. There’s a reason that Minnesota’s mandatory minimum coverage for bodily injury liability is $30,000 per person whereas the property damage liability is only $10,000, and that’s because on average, patching up humans costs a lot more money than patching up or replacing cars.
If they didn’t love the new designs, the IIHS would be lobbying to return to the old designs that kept cars largely intact but killed the driver. Instead, the IIHS uses two criteria to rate a car: Crash avoidance/mitigation (so, handling, auto-braking, etc) and crashworthiness, which that institution defines as “how well a vehicle protects its occupants in a crash,” not “how low the body shop bill will be.”
In case you or someone else reading this didn’t know, IIHS is funded by every major insurance company as well as a number of insurance companies you’ve probably never heard of. If insurance companies didn’t like pushing for modern crumple zones and safety systems, they certainly wouldn’t be sinking money into the organization that insists on them in order to rate a car highly.
Yup!
The IIHS, which is totally funded by private industry, is clearly in favor of vehicles that are designed to preserve the life of the occupants, rather than the structure of the insured vehicle.
I used to sell insurance back in the good ole days, or the macaroni days as they say. Of course expenses are simply passed on to the customers for people that may not know that.
Consumer Reports reviews address safety, reliability, used prices. I usually start with them.
Head level air bags are important so you’ll want at least 6 bags total. This will give about 20 yrs of cars to work with, but not all had them until later in the 2000’s.
Look for a well protected gas tank.
When similarly equipped, size/weight often offers a protective advantage, but there are many other factors to consider.
Pick a model with decent handling and braking, but not gobs of power.
Check for recalls.
There are advantages to learning to drive in a manual and it may help ensure one is a more competent driver before passing their test. Our kids, now in their 30’s, thank us for teaching them on manuals and continue to drive that type. However, as safety is your first consideration transmission type shouldn’t override that - there are may good automatics.
Post purchase:
Use high quality tires that have good wet and snow/ice performance (Consumer Reports, again) and replace when the tread reaches ~ 1/2 original. This is relatively cheap insurance.
Perform regular safety inspections, keep the brakes up to snuff, etc.
Invest in quality drivers training, if available, including skid training. Spend a lot of time as their passenger to monitor how they’re doing. Of course, model good habits yourself!
We made sure our kids knew they were expected to take a cab or call us, no questions asked, if they had had absolutely anything to drink or simply were too tired (happened a few times).
