The PT is the oldest car in the test, so obviously it's going to perform the worst - it's a decade-old design! Chrysler so thoroughly dropped the ball on this car that it would be comical if it weren't so tragic - they had a great start, and then they made the new
Sebring, of all things! Someone thought
that was a better idea?
Jalopnik.com also reported on this (too bad that site is chock-full of airhead members who hate the PT, but somehow are encouraged to post!), and reading the press release, I was struck by one overwhelming fact: the insurance industry wants all drivers to be completely insulated from any need to know how to
drive, to so absolve them from any responsibility to
avoid accidents in the first place that it borders on criminal! Apparently, no car which is not an absolute cocoon, which has so many airbags that the occupants stand more of a chance of suffocating than being injured by the impact, is acceptable.
When was the last time you heard the insurance industry propose stricter standards for receiving a license to drive? Apparently, driving is a 'right' now, not a privilege; any sort of restriction is either politically incorrect or somehow racist, because it affects certain 'oppressed' economic demographics - we can't expect higher licensing fees or education because the cost of education would 'deprive' someone of their God- (or GM-) given "right" to drive.
Better to deprive fellow drivers of their lives when the person has no skills and no responsibility. Just keep texting and talking - the car is only an inconvenient distraction from the "important" stuff.
