head-on collision: old car vs new

[Rathdown]

Last week I clocked about 300 miles in a 1927 Rolls-Royce Phantom I. Top down, no seat belts, road speeds as high as 60-65 mph. Yes, modern cars are dynamically better. But none are as satisfying to drive as cars from the "golden years"; frankly I'd rather die in a car crash like George and Marion Kirby, than survive one in a Prius...

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I hear ya, there. I bought a more modern and safe car, by my standards. A 1990 Colony Park. Still bigger, still square, still traditionally built, but it's got seat-belts, an air bag, etc. I ride in that car and it handles just like a classic (not as classic as yours) but these cars were the same from 77-91. It's satisfying the way it floats down the road like the wood-paneled ocean-liner that she is.

My friend has a 2008 Malibu, nice car, but I hate riding in it. No head room, I have to take my hat off, and it rides like my pick-up truck does. That's not how riding in a car is supposed to be. I feel cramped up and uncomfortable. I prefer the living room on wheels feel of the classics. The heyday of the highway cruisers was from 1955 to about 1977-79 (depending if you're a Ford or GM guy) if you ask me.

Last week I clocked about 300 miles in a 1927 Rolls-Royce Phantom I. Top down, no seat belts, road speeds as high as 60-65 mph. Yes, modern cars are dynamically better. But none are as satisfying to drive as cars from the "golden years"; frankly I'd rather die in a car crash like George and Marion Kirby, than survive one in a Prius...

 

[jamespowers]

Those pictures prove the safety of modern cars. They are significantly more damaged then the Merc, yes, but it is the fact that they are more heavily damaged that actually makes them safer - the car absorbs the impact.

Those cars absorbed the lives of their passengers and the rear ender caused brain damage in a baby in the rear seat. Safe? You gotta be kidding.

 

[jamespowers]

And the passenger compartments are uncompromised, at least in the front-, and rear-enders, as far as I can see. Wrapping a car around a poll sideways at highway speed? Some things are more difficult to protect against than others.

And these picture help prove the point. All the cars shown in the F and R ender pictures have engineered-in crumple zones. Older cars that could 'take a punch' would take a hit and not give way. That sudden stop is more harmful to the human body than a car that will absorb impact via its crumple zones. Even a hit at 40 mph can rattle your cage, as it were. As much as I love my cars, and want something from the 40's, in a choice between my health and the car's, I'll take mine.

If I ever bought a classic, now that you mention it, Lizzie, I would most likely only drive it around town, at the speeds it was intended.

Dead iis dead crumple zone or not.
I drive at all speeds in my 60 year old cars and have gotten in two crashes with them that totalled the "modern" cars and caused quite a bit of damage to the passengers. I walked away unscathed both times. I'll take my chances with what I know.

 

[scottyrocks]

I think part of the equation involves the general lightening of cars. As cars have gotten smaller and lighter, they needed to be built differently. It makes perfect sense that a 60 year old 'tank' would hold up better overall in a collision than a smaller, lighter car. Reinforced passenger cages, seatbelts and airbags help make up the difference.

I watched a video of a Smart car being run into a concrete barrier at highway speed. The passenger compartment remained basically intact. I'm not pushing Smart cars. They are too small for me.

I think I first became aware of auto safety back when Volvo started their ads showing 7 of their cars on top of one another and the bottom car was uncrushed. I always wondered what would've happened if they put an eighth car up there.

 

[jamespowers]

I think part of the equation involves the general lightening of cars. As cars have gotten smaller and lighter, they needed to be built differently. It makes perfect sense that a 60 year old 'tank' would hold up better overall in a collision than a smaller, lighter car. Reinforced passenger cages, seatbelts and airbags help make up the difference.

I watched a video of a Smart car being run into a concrete barrier at highway speed. The passenger compartment remained basically intact. I'm not pushing Smart cars. They are too small for me.

I think I first became aware of auto safety back when Volvo started their ads showing 7 of their cars on top of one another and the bottom car was uncrushed. I always wondered what would've happened if they put an eighth car up there.

The general lightening of cars is more about CAFE standards than anything else really. You get more mph not from a greater efficiency as you do from a smaller lighter car that takes much less horsepower to move.

"But such increases have unintended safety consequences for the safety of drivers and passengers. The reason is because carmakers build lighter and smaller cars that burn less fuel to comply with CAFE standards.11 The trade-off is these lighter, smaller cars fare much worse in violent crashes, resulting in greater rates of death and injury for occupants. A number of studies have documented the lethal consequences of requiring carmakers to improve fuel standards.​

* According to a 2003 NHTSA study, when a vehicle is reduced by 100 pounds the estimated fatality rate increases as much as 5.63 percent for light cars weighing less than 2,950 pounds, 4.70 percent for heavier cars weighing over 2,950 pounds and 3.06 percent for light trucks. Between model years 1996 and 1999, these rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars and 14,705 for light trucks.12* A 2001 National Academy of Sciences panel found that constraining automobile manufacturers to produce smaller, lighter vehicles in the 1970s and early 1980s "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993."13

* An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16* The same Harvard-Brookings study found CAFE had resulted in a 500-pound weight reduction of the average car. As a result, occupants were put at a 14 to 27 percent greater risk of traffic death.17 * Passengers in small cars die at a much higher rate when involved in traffic accidents with large cars. Traffic safety expert Dr. Leonard Evans estimates that drivers in lighter cars may be 12 times as likely to be killed in a crash when the other vehicle is twice as heavy as the lighter car.18 "
​

 

[Justin B]

This video seems to pop up about once a year and there's always the vintage vs. modern debate.

I can only speak from my experiance, I rolled my '70 Chevelle avoiding a head on with another car who decided to drive in my lane. While the car was totalled, everyone was up and walking around after. Not long after a friend rolled his dads new ('00-'02ish) Cadillac and had to be cut out of it before being hauled to the ER with broken bones and various other injuries.

Does that mean vintage cars are safer? No. Am I saying modern cars are the best? No. So what am I saying? I'm saying that if you wreck your car, you're going to get hurt no matter what you're in.

 

[MisterCairo]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2008003/article/10648/5202440-eng.htm

It would appear that in Canada at least, your chance of dying in an auto accident has decreased by more than half in terms of percentage likelihood and even in absolute terms of numbers since 1979, even though cars are getting "smaller" and there are more than twice as many on the road.

But hey, keep on driving the old clunkers, and good luck!

 

[LizzieMaine]

The question that's much more important to my way of thinking is what's your chance of *being in an accident* in the first place. Who would be more likely to have to worry about surviving an accident -- a driver in a Safe Modern Car yapping into a cellphone while eeming down the Interstate at 75mph while eating a Filet-o-Fish, fiddling with the stereo, and aggressively changing lanes, or a driver in a Model A, chugging along a two-laner at 40mph with both hands on the wheel -- except when shifting gears -- and keeping eyes steadily fixed on the road? The driver with the best chance of surviving an accident is the driver who doesn't get in one.

Along that same line of thinking, I think there's a lot to be said for driving a car that doesn't do all the work for you. If you have to think about shifting gears, have to keep a firm hold on the steering wheel, have to think about your braking distances, have no recourse to cruise-control or any such thing, and have a seat that's not so cozy you could fall asleep in it, seems to me you're much more likely to be paying more attention to what you're doing and not allowing yourself to be so distracted that you're an accident waiting to happen. If you want to relax, get off the road and go sit in a hammock.

 

[jamespowers]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2008003/article/10648/5202440-eng.htm

It would appear that in Canada at least, your chance of dying in an auto accident has decreased by more than half in terms of percentage likelihood and even in absolute terms of numbers since 1979, even though cars are getting "smaller" and there are more than twice as many on the road.

But hey, keep on driving the old clunkers, and good luck!

That may be in Canada but you don't necessarily conform to CAFE standards that keep rising. That stats show that you are likely to get killed now more than ever if you get hit by a bigger car because the law makes the cars lighter than they were even ten years ago.
Now if you want to go running around in a Neon fine but stay away from anything bigger than you or you are finished on the road. That egg shell will break.

 

[sheeplady]

The question that's much more important to my way of thinking is what's your chance of *being in an accident* in the first place. Who would be more likely to have to worry about surviving an accident -- a driver in a Safe Modern Car yapping into a cellphone while eeming down the Interstate at 75mph while eating a Filet-o-Fish, fiddling with the stereo, and aggressively changing lanes, or a driver in a Model A, chugging along a two-laner at 40mph with both hands on the wheel -- except when shifting gears -- and keeping eyes steadily fixed on the road? The driver with the best chance of surviving an accident is the driver who doesn't get in one.

Lots of people who die in accidents are perfectly innocent: driving with both hands on the wheel, being on back roads where the speed limit is below 40, and are not talking on a cell phone. We lost a family member a year and a half ago who met all those criteria (and never had a traffic ticket!) it is not his fault that the other driver was drunk and going over 80mph. But he is still the one who died.

It only takes one idiot to kill you. It's not my driving I'm worried about. I get what you are saying about paying attention, but the plain fact is that not many people do. I think we over emphasize how much control we have over these things. When push comes to shove I want to try and survive with a good quality of life.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It only takes one idiot to kill you.

Quite true. Which would suggest our main priority ought to be getting the idiots off the road -- or at least making it very difficult for one to *be* an idiot.

If I were dictator, every car would have a governor installed on it to keep the speed under 50, all cellphone usage in cars and operating under the influence of any intoxicant would be strictly prohibited on penalty of lifetime loss of license for the first violation. Television viewing or computer use in a moving car would be prohibited, even by passengers. And automatic transmissions, cruise controls, and all food served at drive-thru windows would be very heavily taxed. And I bet the accident rate would go way way down.

 

[rocketeer]

I think there is is a lot of prejudice amongst those that own old cars and those that own newer vehicles. If you have an old car that you love and cherish, all your spare time and a lot of your money has been spent searching for parts, do you really want someone telling you it is dangerous to its occupants even if it is? Lots of people that are into old stuff will argue forever that old cars are safer simply because they like the look of the car, sometimes they read about deaths in modern cars and of course they may know someone or may have had personal experience of surviving a crash in a 'Vintage' classic' car.
I have had many old cars, American and English and I would love another 1961 Ford Zephyr or 1960 Cadillac despite neither being fitted with an airbag. At present I drive a Peugeot 406 estate, it actually drives a lot better than the 1960 Zephyr Estate I had in the 1980s. So for a general everyday car, give me the peugeot. for posing around and impressing my friends into old stuff , the Zephyr wins any day.
I dont go with that drivers were more careful years back, there were still drunks at the wheel, cars with faulty equipment and poorly qualified drivers(read uninsured or un licenced), there were less vehicles on the road, and if you got hit by a car or motorcycle you could be impaled on a number of items ranging from Sharp hood ornaments to blade like number plates on (UK) motorbikes.

If you are interested in this sort of thing, look for a book titled Car Crashes and other Sad Stories:- heres a link http://www.amazon.com/Crashes-Stories-English-German-Edition/dp/3822864110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336425561&sr=8-1

And for those that cant be bothered with following a link here is the book description from Amazon:-

An incredible and utterly unique historical document. This book contains selections from the photographic collection of one Mell Kilpatrick, a news photographer from South California who relentlessly pursued his profession during the 40s and 50s, capturing images from the plentiful crime scenes and in particular automobile collisions that came his way. Kilpatrick was an obsessive witness to the effects of the post-war explosion of car culture in California, and through his lens he repeatedly viewed the fatal consequences of speed. technology and reckless abandon. His work might have remained lost and unknown, sealed away in his locked darkroom, untouched since his death in 1961, if it hadn't been brought to light by collector and dealer Jennifer Dumas, who Found the 5,000 negatives and realised she'd stumbled upon something very special. Although he covered other 'stories' apart from crashes, including shots of everyday life in the small towns he visited, it is the roadside images that dominate the collection. They are an unsparing archive of human tragedy. Picture after picture unveils yet another tableau of disaster with infinite variations -- the fragile shells of cars collapsed and upended, corpses hidden or fully revealed, stoic cops and laughing bystanders dealing in different ways with the reality of sudden death. It is this combination of the banal or ordinary and the appalling horror of the moment of impact that makes Kilpatrick's work a Fascinating experience.

 

[Talbot]

Along that same line of thinking, I think there's a lot to be said for driving a car that doesn't do all the work for you. If you have to think about shifting gears, have to keep a firm hold on the steering wheel, have to think about your braking distances, have no recourse to cruise-control or any such thing, and have a seat that's not so cozy you could fall asleep in it, seems to me you're much more likely to be paying more attention to what you're doing and not allowing yourself to be so distracted that you're an accident waiting to happen. If you want to relax, get off the road and go sit in a hammock.

In my modern car, I can't feel a thing as I go down the road. There are no squeaks, rattles and gear whine like my old car to let me know how well things are working.

 

[sheeplady]

Quite true. Which would suggest our main priority ought to be getting the idiots off the road -- or at least making it very difficult for one to *be* an idiot.

If I were dictator, every car would have a governor installed on it to keep the speed under 50, all cellphone usage in cars and operating under the influence of any intoxicant would be strictly prohibited on penalty of lifetime loss of license for the first violation. Television viewing or computer use in a moving car would be prohibited, even by passengers. And automatic transmissions, cruise controls, and all food served at drive-thru windows would be very heavily taxed. And I bet the accident rate would go way way down.

I agree with you on this. Sadly, I don't think we can expect people to control themselves anymore. Our punishments also fall far short of the crime. The man who killed my family member got two years in jail, done in sympathy by the judge because he had "a mild brain injury and a family." Never mind the the person he killed (who has way more than a brain injury) and his family. I think the survivor's problems were totally self inflicted and the judge should have not at all reduced his sentence, because it shows the wrong message.

Rocketeer- I don't think anyone here is saying that people shouldn't drive older cars. Personally, I think it's incredibly neat that people do. But I personally wouldn't do it.

 

[jamespowers]

I think there is is a lot of prejudice amongst those that own old cars and those that own newer vehicles. If you have an old car that you love and cherish, all your spare time and a lot of your money has been spent searching for parts, do you really want someone telling you it is dangerous to its occupants even if it is? Lots of people that are into old stuff will argue forever that old cars are safer simply because they like the look of the car, sometimes they read about deaths in modern cars and of course they may know someone or may have had personal experience of surviving a crash in a 'Vintage' classic' car.
I have had many old cars, American and English and I would love another 1961 Ford Zephyr or 1960 Cadillac despite neither being fitted with an airbag. At present I drive a Peugeot 406 estate, it actually drives a lot better than the 1960 Zephyr Estate I had in the 1980s. So for a general everyday car, give me the peugeot. for posing around and impressing my friends into old stuff , the Zephyr wins any day.

I am not arguing that at all. I am saying that the way cars are made today are for bureaucratic reasons not safety. They are lighter, flimsier and more dangerous as the research I posted earlier proves. More people die simply because the car is lighter and made with thinner materials that fold up like a cardboard box. Statistics and studies prove this out. They are conning you into feeling safer with technology that might not save you in a situtation that you could well have survived previously. All that stuff that you think is going to save you just depends on what you hit. If you hit an ant then you might survive. Rearend a garbage truck and you are toast. You are getting an inferior product and paying more for it than ever before. That is what I am saying.

 

[scottyrocks]

There are lots of anecdotals here. Anecdotals are not a viable research tool.

The general lightening of cars is more about CAFE standards than anything else really. You get more mph not from a greater efficiency as you do from a smaller lighter car that takes much less horsepower to move.

I am saying that the way cars are made today are for bureaucratic reasons not safety. They are lighter, flimsier and more dangerous as the research I posted earlier proves. More people die simply because the car is lighter and made with thinner materials that fold up like a cardboard box.

The study you sited is old, going back to the early 2000s and earlier. Cars have come a ways since then.

And small cars do have a larger than likely chance of coming out worse for wear in a collision with a larger car. But not always.

And café standards or not, cars became small before they became safe. Technology and development are resulting in more and more small cars becoming safer. It was necessary for the very reasons you stated, James. Small cars are inherently more dangerous than larger cars, especially when they run into them. That's why the idea of racing safety 'roll' cages were developed and designed into passenger cars and are especially important for small cars.

Here are small cars that do very well in very harsh front-enders:

Mini Cooper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPt-u1LZj8U

Fiat 500:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdJjW-v1o&feature=relmfu

And one of the smallest cars on the road, the Smart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdJjW-v1o&feature=relmfu

You can see the passenger compartments flex and absorb impact, but not collapse. You can’t argue with these results.

Cars are evolving with every redesign, and today’s small cars can take a punch as well as, if not better than, any cars of only a few years ago. So now they get much better gas mileage, emit less emissions, and protect their occupants in a crash. Seems good to me.

Change happens, regardless of how much some of us may not want it to. But it does. If it didn’t, we’d all be riding around on horses. Or our feet.

 

[scottyrocks]

Good point, but remember that the crash test chose a car, the '59 Bel-Air, with a known weakness in tjust that sort of crash due to a very poorly designed "X" frame. The car was hit in just the rignt spot to cause it to crumple, and a six cylinder engine model was chosen so that the impact would bypass the engine entirely. In this way the accellerautin of the mass of the engine would not absorb any of the energy which could otherwise be used to crumple the passenger compartment..

Many crash tests that I have looked at have been done in this way - front offset. Do you feel the '59 would have done better in a full frontal?

 

[jamespowers]

There are lots of anecdotals here. Anecdotals are not a viable research tool.



The study you sited is old, going back to the early 2000s and earlier. Cars have come a ways since then.

And small cars do have a larger than likely chance of coming out worse for wear in a collision with a larger car. But not always.

And café standards or not, cars became small before they became safe. Technology and development are resulting in more and more small cars becoming safer. It was necessary for the very reasons you stated, James. Small cars are inherently more dangerous than larger cars, especially when they run into them. That's why the idea of racing safety 'roll' cages were developed and designed into passenger cars and are especially important for small cars.

Here are small cars that do very well in very harsh front-enders:

Mini Cooper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPt-u1LZj8U

Fiat 500:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdJjW-v1o&feature=relmfu

And one of the smallest cars on the road, the Smart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdJjW-v1o&feature=relmfu

You can see the passenger compartments flex and absorb impact, but not collapse. You can’t argue with these results.

Cars are evolving with every redesign, and today’s small cars can take a punch as well as, if not better than, any cars of only a few years ago. So now they get much better gas mileage, emit less emissions, and protect their occupants in a crash. Seems good to me.

Change happens, regardless of how much some of us may not want it to. But it does. If it didn’t, we’d all be riding around on horses. Or our feet.

Yeah, cars have come a long way---smaller and of even cheaper materials. That was not just one study it was several.
Interesting how the comments section of those crash test videos have been disabled. Hmmmmmm....
If that is doing well in a 40mph crash test with the door flying open then I don't know what it would be like at freeway speed---much less tangling head on with a tree or a bus.
That "efficiency" comes at a price. More expensive cars that are made much lighter and thus unsafe. All in all this quest for efficiency has not done anything over the last 40 years---there is still that foreign oil dependency looming over us. I am not willing to sacrifice lives for silly unreachable goals.
This is what a mini cooper looks like in real life after a head on crash with a truck:

The poor woman was in critical condition last that I know of. The truck driver walked away with minor injuries.

Next, the fiat 500:

"Try to imagine what would happen if a large SUV like the Audi Q7 crashed into a small mini car like the Fiat 500. Not sure? Well, Germany’s automobile club ADAC performed a “David vs Goliath” crash test between the two cars, but unlike the biblical story, David aka the Fiat 500, did not even come close to winning this match.The two cars collided head on at an average speed of 56 km/h (around 35mph). According to ADAC, whereas the driver and passengers of the Audi Q7 would have made it out of the crash with minor and non life-threatening injuries, the risk of serious injuries in the Fiat 500 was surprisingly high for both front and rear passengers. However despite what you may think, ADAC’s prime objective wasn’t to show that a large SUV is safer than a minicar but to point out that automakers should take smaller sized vehicles into consideration when they design a large size model. "
Interesting. I think smaller car makers should take larger size vehicles into consideration when they design a small size model. Hmmmmmmm...


The Smart:

"The IIHS took the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and the Smart cars, all vehicles that achieved the IIHS’s rating of “Good” in the traditional 40-mph barrier test. In these tests though, each one drops from “Good” to “Poor.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that a small, lower weight vehicle will be at a disadvantage in an accident with a larger, heavier one. So in that respect I think the IIHS testing is important, because it simply informs people better that there is more to the story then just a car’s crash test star (or “Good”) rating."
I hope the owners really like the car because it is going to become a part of you in a crash. I love it when car makers lie about how well their cars do in crash tests by handicapping the tests. Reality has a way of being the same no matter how much people want to deny it.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Television viewing or computer use in a moving car would be prohibited, even by passengers.

While there were no TV screens in cars when I was a kid, it was drummed into me by my Dad that when you were riding with him your job was to ride shotgun and be an extra pair of eyes, not sleeping, reading or contemplating your navel and most certainly not gabbing on the phone or texting if they had been around back then.