It looks to me like Consumer Reports did an awful lot of cherry-picking of the data in that video.<p>First, it looks to me like they made the collision happen at the max speed the Malibu could tolerate without collapsing the Malibu&#x27;s passenger compartment. A slower collision might have been less catastrophic to the antique. A higher speed might have been catastrophic to the Malibu.<p>Second, they picked an old car built before seatbelt introduction and emphasized that aspect.<p>Third, they picked an accident type -- frontal offset -- which recent modern cars have been specifically engineered to handle.<p>Fourth, note how carefully the video is edited so that you cannot see the right side of the antique post-crash either overhead or from the side. The editors didn&#x27;t want to show <i>anything</i> that would detract from their chosen message.<p>Modern cars really are a lot safer and <i>way</i> more reliable than cars when I was a kid, and I&#x27;m grateful for it. When my wife got pregnant, the first thing I did was sell my 69 Chevy Nova because I felt that to be responsible for my child, I needed to take care of my life by driving a safer car.  All that said, it irks me that Consumer Reports treated the production and editing of this film as a propaganda exercise instead of a straight-up tell-the-facts documentary.