They probably shouldn't be buying new cars or anything close to new. I bet most of these are 55+ drivers. I understand the indoctrination that has gone on for 40-50 years that you need a new car for it to be dependable, but that's simply not true. It's a shame people didn't learn/teach themselves differently through those years.
You are forgetting that dirty four letter word.
RUST!
Last vehicle I had towed to a junkyard, engine and tranny were fine at ~60K mi, engine subframe rotted out, could no longer even jack it up on manufacturer designated pinch rails.
Had a different vehicle, also seldom driven once replaced from being a daily driver, and rust caused the strut spring seat to fail, dropping front corner onto the tire. That would have been a nasty accident if I'd been taking a curve on the expressway doing 70MPH.
Still have another vehicle, last inspection I did while replacing rusted spring seats, showed the spring shackels also nearly shot. Another dangerous situation if it failed at high speed.
A lot of people don't inspect and repair, they inspect and retire, if they inspect at all.
It also depends on what the risk is. Typical healthy 30 year old person gets stranded, they call for help or hike their way out. Elderly, disabled, or ill person, gets stuck in severe heat or cold, could die from it even if they have a cell signal and a tow truck is eventually coming.
Just sayin'... if I was in a high risk group, I'd much rather be in a 5 year old vehicle than a 16 year old vehicle (average miles/year of vehicles on US roads is a little under 13K/yr last time I checked so at 200K mi as per the topic # would average out to a 16 y/o vehicle).