There's also the factor of how it's going to affect your job and life if your car breaks down. A 2-decade-old car is going to break down at some inopportune time, like it or not, even with the best maintenance.
While, 2002 car may be relatively safe, I would still prefer to have the safest car on the road. Usually it will require less servicing than an old car and be more dependable too.
A 2018 car will have front and side airbags designed to work as well on 120lb woman as a 200lb man, backup cameras, very advanced stability control systems, and will have been tested against the most common causes of crash deaths since 2002.
You can go to the NHSTA website and download the raw crash test and see how many gs your head will experience or how many netwons of force will be applied to your femurs. Using this information, I can see that you would be very likely to sustain a concussion in an accident in a 2002 Camry and your chest would be compressed by 30mm, while in a 2018 Camry you're at minimal risk for any head injury and your chest would only compress by 23mm.
It's pretty interesting stuff. TL;DR: cars are safer today than 20 years ago, by a lot.
One can be a Chicken Little to the point that I would ask, why drive at all? It's just not worth the risk. A sixteen-year-old car has airbags and designed-in crumple zones. It ain't no 2019 Volvo, but "kill you in a crash that a new one will let you walk away from" is ridiculous hyperbole.
A 2-decade-old car is going to break down at some inopportune time, like it or not, even with the best maintenance.
Brand-new cars do the same thing. In fact, I view cars like I do electronics: if it makes it through the first six months, you're probably good for 100K miles. And if it breaks down, so what? You email your "flexible hours" employer, tell them you'll miss standup this morning, then dip into the massive amount of funds you saved by not having a car payment to get it fixed. Oh, it's an inconvenience for sure, but is it worth $600/month to avoid once in a great while (or not at all, if Honda or Toyota)? Hell, our VW camper is 37 years old, and I'd rely on it to get me to work every day, and I think VW makes shitty cars. Take care of your shit, and it will take care of you, even if it's a VW.
Some are obviously so scared of breakdowns and that life-ending crash that is assuredly just around the next corner that they'll foot the $600/month (or whatever a car payment is these days) for their big-ass SUV that they make any excuse to justify. Others, IMO, manage risk much more realistically.
The risks of injury in an automobile accident should absolutely weigh into the calculus of car ownership. Especially considering the staggering amount of progress made in vehicle safety in the past 10 years. If a brand new Camry saves you from a single ER visit that you would have had driving an 2008 Camry, then it's already paid for itself.
It's not really any different from buying a fancy $150 toothbrush that does a better job at preventing cavities, or any of the many other purchases that statistically save you money in the long-term.
But I am curious what progress you feel has been made in auto safety in the last ten years that is "staggering". By 2008, I think we got the low-hanging fruit: 1. ABS 2. Airbags 3. Side-curtain airbags 4. Sacrificial crumble zones
I do not consider lane keeping and automatic braking to be "staggering" progress, but incremental.
If a brand new Camry saves you from a single ER visit
That is the very definition of begging the question.
