Unlike you say, my argument is completely unaffected by that premise and could be about an entirely made up hypothetical car, the core ethical argument would still be equally valid.
Why? Because the axiom that the car does not meet the safety standards was established by the poster I commented on. I do not need to proof an axiom someone else set up for the sake of discussion.
Now you could argue that safety standards are discoupled from actual accident numbers (something I have never seen evidence for), but that is a different argument and thus the burden of proof that this is in fact the case is on you.
