I think some common sense should be in place in the discussion
of car to car comparison. Of course we assume the driver and the
driving style are the same! I don't really quite get it about what
'ah pek in old proton vs dangerous driver in big car'.
Other than the above, yes there can be various schools of thought.
Some may say at 3-digit speeds, even a 5-star safety car can't keep
its occupants safe. Hence the safety aspects, in the perspective of
these people, are considered redundant for the extra costs that you
pay for.
However I'm from the other school that, better car build and more
safety features will LOWER A DRIVER'S RISK LEVEL in an accident as
compared to a more basic car, ceteris paribus (driving style,
speed). Yes in accidents at mad speeds, death is inevitable.
However, accidents can occur even when you're travelling as slowly
as 50km/h. I'm not going to list down all the possible scenarios,
anyone who drives should know what I mean. So the crux now
is, even at such harmless speeds, what are the CHANCES a poorly
designed car can keep its occupants safe, as compared to a more
safety-reputed car?
But I won't be so radical as to slam the TS, it's a lame act. I'm
just trying to give my fair view on what's been argued so far. I do
agree with "you pay for what you get". However there's no
benchmark on how much to pay is RIGHT. It all depends on
how much the consumer is willing/ready to fork out. It's just like
buying unit trusts, you go for the one with the risk level you're
ready for.
P.S.: Still, on a PERSONAL note, my benchmark is above China-made
cars, thanks to the power of media. Even for non-savvy me, YouTube
is sufficient to show me the safety standards of the PRC cars.
