head-on collision: old car vs new

[scottyrocks]

Well, that goes without saying here. I'm no fan of fifties cars, but what these people did really is wasteful and philistinish: they didn't paint up a junker, they went out and paid over $8000 for a well-maintained, perfectly driveable fifty-year-old car which they destroyed for no genuinely useful purpose: the whole thing was a cheap promotional stunt, no more and no less. It's about the same level of sense as those MIT kids who think it's cute to throw a grand piano off a roof and thus "prove Newton's law of gravitation."

There is something wrong with demolishing a perfectly good old car, as in 40+ years old, as opposed to demolishing said same car while they are still being manufactured. That's what bugged me the most about that video. The '09 Malibu? You can still walk into a Chevy dealership and buy that same car. Not so the '59.

As far as bigger cars, and trucks, always being better, here's a Ford F150 after hitting the same type of barrier that Mini hit, at the same speed.

 

[Edward]

What bothered me most is that they destroyed a '59 Bel-Air.

Admittedly that was the first thing occurred to me. Even if it was totally rotten underneath, there must have been a lot of stuff on there - outer panels, trim, seats.... to someone restoring a car like that. It does seem a waste. If it was a real ponit about safety and those cars were a dime a dozen.... maybe. But still...

One important thing to consider is that cars in the Era weren't being driven the way cars are driven today: they weren't being gunned down freeways at 75mph by drivers fiddling with cellphones or GPSes or whatever. Most cars were being driven in stop-and-go city/town traffic at speeds rarely over 35mph, and when they got on the open road they'd rarely be driven over 45 or so. An impact at 45mph is bad -- but it's a lot, lot worse at 75.

It's important also to remember that then, as now, the vast majority of drivers never had an accident -- and the majority of drivers who were in accidents walked away from them. And no matter how safe a vehicle is on the drawing board, its ultimate safety depends on how prudent and careful the driver is -- an idiot is going to be just as much a hazard to himself and others in a Prius as he is in a Model A.

Were cars as common in the US back then? Based on anecdotal evidence of my parents and many others in their generation, in Ireland in those days there was a much lower instance of car ownership (even into the Sixties), meaning that if you did have an oopsy on an icy or wet road, you were considerably less likely to veer into the path of someone coming the other way.

I don't mean to start a flame war, but are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that NOT WEARING SEATBELTS represents the "ultimate safety"????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp2436-rs200103-menu-125.htm


Simple fact folks - the average car produced today is better and safer than anything from the golden era. I love old cars, looking forward to getting one. But let's not let nostalgia colour our views. If I am forced to be involved in a crash in a car from the forties or fifties, or one from the 21st century, it's the 2012 ANyTHING. Period.

Yeah, the anti-seatbelt arguments I remember (just) from when compulsory seatbelt laws came in in the UK in 1983, for front seat passengers (although they were compulsorily fitted to all new cars sold in the UK from 1967 onwards, and if memory serves the mounting posts were a standard fitting from before that). I remember a lot of folks objecting on grounds of "individual choice", but there were a few spurious arguments that they "drove better when not constrained" - a bit like the argument that kicks around now about bicycle helmets "encouraging" people to take risks and thus being less safe than going without. Basically, some people don't like being told what to do, and more object to change. I think that's the root of it...

It's funny the difference it makes - since 1991 in the UK it has been compulsory to wear a seatbelt in the rear of the car (if fitted - a standard requirement in any new car since 1987, though it was the norm much earlier as it became a marketing tool in family cars). There's no equivalent laws in China, and when I tep into a cab in Beijing and reach for the seatbelt, it's surprising how disconcerting the lack of same is - especially in one of the more old-fashioned cabs that has a cage round the driver not unlike in Deathproof. lol

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...

I'd a thousand time prefer to travel in the Rolls, but I consider it absurd at best to take it to those extremes.

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.

Certainly driving culture and the attitude of the driver(s) is as important as what the vehicle itself can offer. When we were learning to drive, the one thing Dad always aid was "it's the other idiot on the road you have to watch out for"...

I asked on another car related forum why so many women drive todays BIG cars such as BMW X5s, Range Rovers, Audi Q7 VW Tuareg for example. The majority of answers were that they made them feel safer especially if the children were with them if they were to have an accident. By that reasoning if everyone bought these road giants the next step would be for the women to buy small trucks.

I agree that this is fine for them but raises the danger for anyone they hit... Maybe I'm just not alpha enough to get it, but I never did understand why anyone could serious argue the need for a huge jeep or a Range Rover in the city (here in London they're referred to as Chelsea Tractors, typically driven by the Hoorays' equivalent of what I think they call Soccer Moms in the US).

Well, that goes without saying here. I'm no fan of fifties cars, but what these people did really is wasteful and philistinish: they didn't paint up a junker, they went out and paid over $8000 for a well-maintained, perfectly driveable fifty-year-old car which they destroyed for no genuinely useful purpose: the whole thing was a cheap promotional stunt, no more and no less. It's about the same level of sense as those MIT kids who think it's cute to throw a grand piano off a roof and thus "prove Newton's law of gravitation."

Mn. Doesn't seem to be quite a fair test either. The 2012 car is designed for today's road conditions; a 1952 car was similar engineered to address the contemporary conditions of the roads back then. While I agree that safety certainly has come a long way, to say "look at this old car! Isn't it rubbish now!" in that respect is a bit like saying plate armour was rubbish because it doesn't hold up to gunfire.

Wouldn't matter to me if it was a kiddie car -- destroying something usable just for the sake of destroying it seems completely pointless to me -- there's really no new, worthwhile data to be gained from the demonstration. It's no more commendable than a little kid blowing up army men with firecrackers, or those Yoo Toob morons who cackle like halfwits as they blow up TV sets. Cheap thrills, and nothing more.

Agreed. I first saw this sort of think with the smashing of electric guitars on stage, something which has by now moved through cliché to simple tedium. Sure, there's some level of visceral thrill (and typically on the actually very few occasions on which Hendrix or even Townsend did it, it was carefully calculated with a rigged instrument, and the parts reassembled and reused where possible), but I was always left looking and thinking "I'd have quite liked to own that as it was, if you didn't want it...".

Sigh. And people wonder why I don't want to live to be 100.

A lot of ordinary Americans looked at what the Boys from Marketing were putting in front of them and said "nuts to this."

It's interesting just at what point a market snaps. Similar in audio formats: so many people who'd bought everything three times simply refused to consider another format after CD that loads of alternatives have come and gone without catching on - the MD (Sony bombed so hard with that they gave up entirely on using it as an originals format and switched to pushing it for home-taping - too late for it not to be superceded by mp3 hard drive players), the SACD, the DVD-A... BDs are catching on now - mostly because the players are about the same price now as a decent DVD player, and crucially they will also play DVDs, so there's no 'buy-in' cost to anyone who is looking to buy a new disk player anyhow.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

You could be sentenced to death under circumstantial evidence ie being in the wrong place at the wrong time and no alibi.

I had heard of those cases of people who were wrongly imprisoned, and in some cases even executed, for a crime they didn't commit. But I also found that there was one thing that many of them had in common: they already had lengthy criminal records. Not saying that it was right but that was the fact. It just so happened that they were innocent of that particular crime. And more than a few in those cases had continued scrapes with the law after they were freed.

Fast food tastes the same from the same store in any country. Why cant a McDonalds bought in Spain taste different to that bought in...... Basildon.

Unfortunately that was very idea. Somebody had the bright idea that a Big Mac in one city tasting exactly the same as one in another city, or even halfway around the world, was supposed to be "comforting." [huh]

Though I did hear that the food at a McDonalds or Burger King in other countries are modified a bit to suit local tastes. So I would suspect that a Whopper from the Burger King* at Blackpool Pleasure Beach (reputedly the largest Burger King restaurant in the UK) might taste slightly different than one from the BK just a few minutes from my house.

*I give BK as a example because I avoid McDonalds like the plague.

 

[rue]

Safe or not safe.... I think new cars are ugly, so I'll stick to my 54 Ford, thank you

 

[Undertow]

If we kept everything usable and kept fixing it we would probably still be in a similar situation we are in now. Our industries would be wound down as we did not need new things. No one would want new TV, washing machine or fridge. All our furniture would be old fashioned and all our cars would be too...

You're right, we should throw everything away as soon as the marked-on label says it's expired. Then we should feel fortunate as we pile into Wal-Mart and purchase a newer, better, safer, shinier version.

What if, say, dishwasher production wound down? What if companies had to sell fewer models? What would happen? Would it no longer be possible to sell dishwashers? Or would they just have to sell fewer?

Boy, life must have been absolutely bleak prior to the 1940's. It's really a wonder anyone ever survived!

 

[LizzieMaine]

You're right, we should throw everything away as soon as the marked-on label says it's expired. Then we should feel fortunate as we pile into Wal-Mart and purchase a newer, better, safer, shinier version.

What if, say, dishwasher production wound down? What if companies had to sell fewer models? What would happen? Would it no longer be possible to sell dishwashers? Or would they just have to sell fewer?

Boy, life must have been absolutely bleak prior to the 1940's. It's really a wonder anyone ever survived!

The longer this discussion goes on, the more I think the one true visionary of the 21st Century is Mike Judge.

"Welcome To Costco. I love you."

 

[rue]

You're right, we should throw everything away as soon as the marked-on label says it's expired. Then we should feel fortunate as we pile into Wal-Mart and purchase a newer, better, safer, shinier version.

What if, say, dishwasher production wound down? What if companies had to sell fewer models? What would happen? Would it no longer be possible to sell dishwashers? Or would they just have to sell fewer?

Boy, life must have been absolutely bleak prior to the 1940's. It's really a wonder anyone ever survived!

You know... he actually described a good portion of the lounge with this comment: "No one would want new TV, washing machine or fridge. All our furniture would be old fashioned and all our cars would be too..."
lol

 

[scottyrocks]

Yeah, the anti-seatbelt arguments I remember (just) from when compulsory seatbelt laws came in in the UK in 1983, for front seat passengers (although they were compulsorily fitted to all new cars sold in the UK from 1967 onwards, and if memory serves the mounting posts were a standard fitting from before that). I remember a lot of folks objecting on grounds of "individual choice", but there were a few spurious arguments that they "drove better when not constrained" - a bit like the argument that kicks around now about bicycle helmets "encouraging" people to take risks and thus being less safe than going without. Basically, some people don't like being told what to do, and more object to change. I think that's the root of it...

It's funny the difference it makes - since 1991 in the UK it has been compulsory to wear a seatbelt in the rear of the car (if fitted - a standard requirement in any new car since 1987, though it was the norm much earlier as it became a marketing tool in family cars). There's no equivalent laws in China, and when I tep into a cab in Beijing and reach for the seatbelt, it's surprising how disconcerting the lack of same is - especially in one of the more old-fashioned cabs that has a cage round the driver not unlike in Deathproof.

I had similar experiences over the years with motorcycle helmets. The main argument was 'freedom of choice.' And while I can see that freedom of choice is always preferable to being told what to do, many people are not smart enough to make the intelligent choice. Hence, helmet and seatbelt laws.

It's a slippery slope, the government mandating what we must and must not do, but they do that a lot now, anyway. The way I see it, the government doesn't tell us we must do anything that is not harmful to others now except pay taxes.

As far as the folks who think (thought?) that its safer to drive sans seatbelts, why then do racing car drivers not only wesr seatbelts, but are completely harnessed in to their vehicles? Because they don't want to be thrown clear, or bounce around inside their crashing vehicle like a rag doll. Same can be said for helmets. WHy do racers wear them? The answer should be obvious.

Taking it a point further, what are safer, today's race cars, or the mostly stock 'stock cars' of decades ago? It should be pretty obvious that today's racing cars are miles safer than their older counterparts. But the great equalizer is that all the cars in that environment are built to the same standards. That's not so on public roads. Older and larger/heavier vehicles automatically have an advantage in an altercation.

How many times in my neighborhood have I seen soccer moms by themselves in a vehicle you could move a platoon in? More than I can count on my fingers and toes. Some people need large vehicles but most don't. Large vehicles are a prestige item. They are looked at as safer because so many people have them. So should less people have them? I don't know. I won't pretend I have the answer or the power to tell people what to drive. But for people who want/like/need small(er) vehicles, they need to be as safe as possible.

My dad had a first generation VW Beetle. Those cars were death traps if they hit, or were hit by almost anything. But that's what we knew back then. There were no roll cages, and Beetles handled terribly so avoidance was barely an option. In fact, they didn't accelerate or stop too well, either. It was what it was.

Technology, as far as cars go, has made all of them safer, both big and small. As long as there is a size disparity, larger cars will have an advantage in a collision.

Technology has also made them faster, stop better, get better mileage, be less maintenance intensive, and for some models, believe it or not, last longer, as well. They also generally handle better which makes it more likely a good driver can avoid an accident in the first place.

 

[cklos]

I guess you own stock in Exxon Mobil...lol

Safe or not safe.... I think new cars are ugly, so I'll stick to my 54 Ford, thank you

 

[Cobden]

As long as there is a size disparity, larger cars will have an advantage in a collision.

The thing is, that is the only time that the larger car has the advantage. As I mentioned before, in a head on crash between too light cars, both come off better then a head on crash between too heavy cars, and a light car crashing into a immovable block will come off better then a heavy car: F=MA and all that.

And I feel that a car that causes excessive and unnecessary damage to other road users is just as unsafe as a car that causes unnecessary injury to the driver; case an point is bull-bars on SUV's (thankfully banned over here); an accessory whose only point, as far I can see was to turn Tonka Toys from something seemingly designed to cause unnecessary injury to any unfortunate pedestrian/cyclists who happens to get in the way into something pretty much guaranteed to kill such a pedestrians/cyclist

 

[rocketeer]

I had heard of those cases of people who were wrongly imprisoned, and in some cases even executed, for a crime they didn't commit. But I also found that there was one thing that many of them had in common: they already had lengthy criminal records. Not saying that it was right but that was the fact. It just so happened that they were innocent of that particular crime. And more than a few in those cases had continued scrapes with the law after they were freed.



Unfortunately that was very idea. Somebody had the bright idea that a Big Mac in one city tasting exactly the same as one in another city, or even halfway around the world, was supposed to be "comforting." [huh]

Though I did hear that the food at a McDonalds or Burger King in other countries are modified a bit to suit local tastes. So I would suspect that a Whopper from the Burger King* at Blackpool Pleasure Beach (reputedly the largest Burger King restaurant in the UK) might taste slightly different than one from the BK just a few minutes from my house.

*I give BK as a example because I avoid McDonalds like the plague.

I was inadvertently referring to the Timothy Evans case, directly associated with the murders at 10 Rillington Place, London. Its quite a complicated case but Evans took the blame for his wifes death during an illegal abortion at the hands of Christie. He was known to fantasise and was illiterate as well as being persuaded by Christie it was his(Evans) fault and to disappear as the Police would be looking for him.

The burger, indeed I did expect it to taste different , being in Spain I expected something slightly different, exotic maybe rather than a bland usual taste that reminded me of what I could get on a council estate back home.

You know... he actually described a good portion of the lounge with this comment: "No one would want new TV, washing machine or fridge. All our furniture would be old fashioned and all our cars would be too..."
lol

It's great that all the members here embrace modern technology by simply using this forum. We have such a varied selection of members from those like Lizzie who are not keen on 1950s cars and prefers old things to new, to those that like me that like muscle cars from the 60s and would others that would not be seen dead in second hand clothing.
Wouldn't it be as boring as a Spanish BigMac if we all liked B17 aircraft and thought 1950s jet fighters were rubbish, or all only wore 'vintage' clothing when retro can be just as good.
I mix my old tech with my new as I sit in my (expensive)replica of an Eames lounge chair, in my living room(lounge) lit by art deco lighting reading 1950s editions of Hot Rod and Honk. When I get fed up with those I can watch DvDs of the 1933 King Kong or the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo on my flat screen tv.
Everyone comments on how well the old and new go together, including my 1963 Wurlitzer jukebox sitting in the kitchen amongst the pots n pans, though I would like an old 1960s coffee range to go with it.
Should I want to I can dress like a Power Ranger to travel at hyperspeed on my Hayabusa or pretend I am a geriatric Marlon Brando on my old British motorbike.
It's great we have such diversity so not everybody wants to live like the Waltons.

And Ugly cars! Yes a lot of modern cars are ugly, just as ugly as some old cars. How about the family DeSoto in Happy Days , now that was an ugly car. And some old cars are gorgeous such as the Cord 812 convert as are some modern cars such as the Mercedes SLR as opposed to the Bugatti Veyron which is a million £s worth of ugliness(in my opinion)
So now! its back to the Lounge.

 

[rue]

I guess you own stock in Exxon Mobil...lol

Nope, it's just worth it for me to drive the car of my choice [huh]

 

[rue]

I was inadvertently referring to the Timothy Evans case, directly associated with the murders at 10 Rillington Place, London. Its quite a complicated case but Evans took the blame for his wifes death during an illegal abortion at the hands of Christie. He was known to fantasise and was illiterate as well as being persuaded by Christie it was his(Evans) fault and to disappear as the Police would be looking for him.

The burger, indeed I did expect it to taste different , being in Spain I expected something slightly different, exotic maybe rather than a bland usual taste that reminded me of what I could get on a council estate back home.


It's great that all the members here embrace modern technology by simply using this forum. We have such a varied selection of members from those like Lizzie who are not keen on 1950s cars and prefers old things to new, to those that like me that like muscle cars from the 60s and would others that would not be seen dead in second hand clothing.
Wouldn't it be as boring as a Spanish BigMac if we all liked B17 aircraft and thought 1950s jet fighters were rubbish, or all only wore 'vintage' clothing when retro can be just as good.
I mix my old tech with my new as I sit in my (expensive)replica of an Eames lounge chair, in my living room(lounge) lit by art deco lighting reading 1950s editions of Hot Rod and Honk. When I get fed up with those I can watch DvDs of the 1933 King Kong or the Swedish version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo on my flat screen tv.
Everyone comments on how well the old and new go together, including my 1963 Wurlitzer jukebox sitting in the kitchen amongst the pots n pans, though I would like an old 1960s coffee range to go with it.
Should I want to I can dress like a Power Ranger to travel at hyperspeed on my Hayabusa or pretend I am a geriatric Marlon Brando on my old British motorbike.
It's great we have such diversity so not everybody wants to live like the Waltons.

And Ugly cars! Yes a lot of modern cars are ugly, just as ugly as some old cars. How about the family DeSoto in Happy Days , now that was an ugly car. And some old cars are gorgeous such as the Cord 812 convert as are some modern cars such as the Mercedes SLR as opposed to the Bugatti Veyron which is a million £s worth of ugliness(in my opinion)
So now! its back to the Lounge.

The only thing I got out of all you wrote was that you think the DeSoto was ugly :eeek: :eeek: :eeek:

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I love the DeSoto on Happy Days, I'd drive one in a heartbeat!

And Ugly cars! Yes a lot of modern cars are ugly, just as ugly as some old cars. How about the family DeSoto in Happy Days , now that was an ugly car.

I guess you and me were on the same wavelength lol

The only thing I got out of all you wrote was that you think the DeSoto was ugly :eeek: :eeek: :eeek:

 

[rocketeer]

The only thing I got out of all you wrote was that you think the DeSoto was ugly :eeek: :eeek: :eeek:

Yes I can waffle on when there is nothing decent to watch on the TV. And just wanted to tell the world I like old stuff and new.

I love the DeSoto on Happy Days, I'd drive one in a heartbeat!



I guess you and me were on the same wavelength lol

And I think the 1961 Plymouth Fury is the ugliest car ever made, though I would love one, at present it is my favourite old car

Well thats what forums are for isn't it? Discussion? Surly it would be as boring as anything if everyone agreed with everyone.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I love the DeSoto on Happy Days, I'd drive one in a heartbeat!

My childhood best friend's father drove that same car, only in green -- lasted him more than twenty years before he gave it up. You could get lost in the back seat.

 

[scottyrocks]

Nope, it's just worth it for me to drive the car of my choice [huh]

And if you're doing the 'old-fashioned' thing, basically driving around the neighborhood, then its a good thing.

 

[rue]

I guess you and me were on the same wavelength lol

As always

Yes I can waffle on when there is nothing decent to watch on the TV. And just wanted to tell the world I like old stuff and new.



And I think the 1961 Plymouth Fury is the ugliest car ever made, though I would love one, at present it is my favourite old car

Well thats what forums are for isn't it? Discussion? Surly it would be as boring as anything if everyone agreed with everyone.

No worries

And if you're doing the 'old-fashioned' thing, basically driving around the neighborhood, then its a good thing.

That's pretty much it

 

[jamespowers]

The longer this discussion goes on, the more I think the one true visionary of the 21st Century is Mike Judge.

"Welcome To Costco. I love you."

As I said before dysgenics.

 

[jamespowers]

As far as bigger cars, and trucks, always being better, here's a Ford F150 after hitting the same type of barrier that Mini hit, at the same speed.

Another case for a new pile of junk being labeled as "safe" being in reality bogus. Fine with me. Crumple zones make me safer when I hit one of these aluminum cans. They crumple and absorb not only their energy but mine.
In reality though, that makes them unsafe as heck. We need to get after the car manufacturers and the government for forcing these unsafe heaps on the public---in essence killing more people every year as they get lighter and more unsafe in the name of fuel economy.