I think there is a wealth of false info and misunderstanding about auto safety. Few remember that the federal mandate was either air bags OR an automated seat belt. The primary purpose of a front air bag is to protect unbelted occupants. Ditto for padded dashboards (~1964?) and collapsing steering columns (~1968). Better for society that unbelted drivers die quick and not reproduce. Re seat belts, my 85 300D has self-tensioners. It also has a stupid "gravity lock" with little ball that likes to get stuck and make it so I can't fully pull out the seat-belt and use it until it decides to reset sometimes a day later (safer?). All the above is only to protect a driver who runs into things. I never have in 40 yrs of driving. I never follow too close, change lanes without turning my head to look and signaling, or speed on wet roads. I have been hit multiple times in the rear and sides by idiots, usually with no insurance. I feel safer in my 300D in a side collision than most new sedans, but safest of all in my 65 Newport with its wide heavy doors and really long "crush zone" trunk. That is where the idiots usually attack.

The front disk brake mandate (~1973) was to minimize people going off mountain roads from losing their brakes after riding them miles downhill - think Florida drivers on the Blue Ridge Pkwy.

An amusing youtube video is from the Insurance Institute (or such) claiming to show how much safer newer cars are by a partial head-on crash of a modern sedan against a ~62 full-size GM sedan. The newer car slices thru the old car, leaving a cloud of rust dust. I am guessing the old full-frame car had totally rusted frame rails and body, and maybe some missing parts. What happened to the "crumple zones" idea in the new car, which came thru almost unscathed? That video has many classic car owners saying their cars are unsafe.