head-on collision: old car vs new

[jamespowers]

The bottom line is, people want to be free and independent. I don't blame them, so do I. But when the "one in a million" event happens, and the lawsuits are filed... the tune changes. What used to be "When your number is up, it's your time to go" becomes "I can't believe this happend, somebody has to pay!" That's why certain laws are enacted, to protect people from their hubris......(and save billions in legal fees to boot). People used to drink radium in the early 1900's. Didn't work out so well.....but I'm sure someone will say their Great-Grandpappy lived to 110 ingesting it every day......and he had a beautiful, glowing complexion....lol

Now I can see how Idiocracy the real life version gets started. Dysgenics. We have to protect the stupid from themselves. The fat from food, the lazy from work and the thrill seeker from himself. Way too boring a life for me. Leave me out.
The lawsuits are something entirely different that are in fact caused by the Nanny State letting crazy lawsuits go forward and stupid people on juries. It becomes a vicious cycle.

 

[jamespowers]

I know, that's why I never will, it'll kill me

Yeah me too. Life without risk is life in a rubber room with foam furniture.

 

[cklos]

Now I can see how Idiocracy the real life version gets started. Dysgenics. We have to protect the stupid from themselves. The fat from food, the lazy from work and the thrill seeker from himself. Way too boring a life for me. Leave me out.
The lawsuits are something entirely different that are in fact caused by the Nanny State letting crazy lawsuits go forward and stupid people on juries. It becomes a vicious cycle.

I hear you, and like I said in my past posts, seatbelts and helmets should be a personal choice. But bold, self-empowering words don't put food on your child's table when you're dead. You may not fear for your person much, but the people who depend on you might. Simple things like strapping on a seatbelt, or wearing a helmet while riding will help to save your life if you're involved in a collision. I'm not advocating some cliche, Orwellian world, but was simply trying to point out why laws have taken shape over the years. But.....to get back on the original topic of this thread.......new cars are safer than old ones.....(but the old ones do look better in my opinion).

 

[jamespowers]

I hear you, and like I said in my past posts, seatbelts and helmets should be a personal choice. But bold, self-empowering words don't put food on your child's table when you're dead. You may not fear for your person much, but the people who depend on you might. Simple things like strapping on a seatbelt, or wearing a helmet while riding will help to save your life if you're involved in a collision. I'm not advocating some cliche, Orwellian world, but was simply trying to point out why laws have taken shape over the years. But.....to get back on the original topic of this thread.......new cars are safer than old ones.....(but the old ones do look better in my opinion).

That is what they invented life insurance for.
Good luck in your neon.

 

[therizyflapper]

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

I agree poor car

 

[scottyrocks]

Everyone has their own ideas of risk. How you structure the amount you are willing to accept is risk management. In life, one person's unnecessary risk is another's acceptable risk.

The guy who does your taxes, who likes to drive around in a small sports car because he thinks it's exciting isn't much different than a guy who drives around in a big car such as a Crown Vic, for instance, with red-and-blinkies on the roof. Both people accept different types of risk. There's tons of different types of risk.

Who is right to say that their risk is more 'manly' or just plain ol' better than another's? How does anyone know what anyone else does in their life that's risky? How can someone say something like life without risk is life in a rubber room with foam furniture, and then criticize someone who does something that's risky in a different way?

We all take risks. We just do it differently. And we all safeguard to whatever level we find acceptable. If something is 'too risky,' we generally don't do it. Everyone has their own criteria and their own lines they will not step over. If some of the safeguarding smacks of government interference (i.e. - helmets and helmet laws), then that's not a factor if there just happens to be overlap, as long as the participant is doing the right thing for himself. Criticism of that is inside out.

 

[jamespowers]

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF

The ONLY peer reviewed source for this information, as I understand it.

By the way, interesting note, in 2009, the number of fatal collisions in the USA was 33,808, the lowest number of fatalities since 1950, when 33,186 unfortunate souls were prematurely sent to their rewards by motor cars. Note that in 1950 our population was but 150,697,361 persons, 49,161,691 motor vehicles were registered on our roads, and 458,246 million vehicle miles were travelled on our 1.68 million miles of road. In 2009, our population of 305,529,237 was driving 254,212,610 vehicles 2,953,501 million miles along our 4,607,295 miles of road.

And yet when you get into the statistics broken down by type of accident, we find that many more people were killed back in 1950 by trains .45 versus about .07 per 100M miles traveled. See back then they didn't have safety things like railroad crossing arms etc. You also need to take into account numerous other differences in driving today as opposed to back then. How many traffic lights were around back then as opposed to today? About 1,000 times more today. Today there are stop signs or stoplights at just about every major intersection. They were very sparse back then and thus increased your chances of getting in an accident. I won't even mention paved roads and sidewalks, if they included motorcycles in the total, drinking and driving was more prevalent back then etc. etc. I am surprised it isn't higher. They even include pedestrians, bicyclists and unknowns in the total vehicle fatalities. That means the people didn't even have to be in the car to be counted.
However, the first link only goes back to the early 1990s and the second link gives little detailed information......
The fact that they even got these statistics 17 years before the DOT was even established is suspect. How did they get the numbers of miles traveled etc? Who reported it and did people report it accurately? Was the data estimated?
It makes complete sesne that there was a record low of traffic accidents in 2009, 2010 or 2011. People drive less in a depressed economy because they cannot afford to travel. I would be surprised if it were higher.

 

[jamespowers]

Who is right to say that their risk is more 'manly' or just plain ol' better than another's? How does anyone know what anyone else does in their life that's risky? How can someone say something like life without risk is life in a rubber room with foam furniture, and then criticize someone who does something that's risky in a different way?

You have that way out of wack there. There is a difference between the government taking over risk management and the individual managing their own risk. You have no choice with the former. However, seeing as that would get into the political arena, we best leave that alone.
Secondly, I didn't start this thread criticizing the safety of older cars---you did. I am just examining the REALITY of that claim. What? You expected your thread to be greeted by fanfare and trumpets in a vintage forum?! :rofl:

 

[LizzieMaine]

Seems to me I remember something back in the 90s when the big push was being made for mandatory seat belt laws about the insurance industry leading the charge -- promising that such laws would lead to lower premiums, lower medical costs, and better service all around. The lobbyists had a field day with that whole deal.

Well, we're twenty years on. We're still waiting for the lower premiums, lower medical costs, and better service all around. If I didn't know better I'd swear that the whole movement had less to do with Aunt Sammy wanting to keep us all safe and secure than with protecting the interests of a certain rodentine pack in Hartford.

 

[vitanola]

duplicate post

 

[vitanola]

And yet when you get into the statistics broken down by type of accident, we find that many more people were killed back in 1950 by trains .45 versus about .07 per 100M miles traveled. See back then they didn't have safety things like railroad crossing arms etc. You also need to take into account numerous other differences in driving today as opposed to back then. How many traffic lights were around back then as opposed to today? About 1,000 times more today. Today there are stop signs or stoplights at just about every major intersection. They were very sparse back then and thus increased your chances of getting in an accident. I won't even mention paved roads and sidewalks, if they included motorcycles in the total, drinking and driving was more prevalent back then etc. etc. I am surprised it isn't higher. They even include pedestrians, bicyclists and unknowns in the total vehicle fatalities. That means the people didn't even have to be in the car to be counted.
However, the first link only goes back to the early 1990s and the second link gives little detailed information......
The fact that they even got these statistics 17 years before the DOT was even established is suspect. How did they get the numbers of miles traveled etc? Who reported it and did people report it accurately? Was the data estimated?
It makes complete sesne that there was a record low of traffic accidents in 2009, 2010 or 2011. People drive less in a depressed economy because they cannot afford to travel. I would be surprised if it were higher.

"I am surprised it isn't higher. They even include pedestrians, bicyclists and unknowns in the total vehicle fatalities. That means the people didn't even have to be in the car to be counted. "

Such are still counted, when a motor vehicle of any kind is involved.

"The fact that they even got these statistics 17 years before the DOT was even established is suspect.?"

The summary clearly states their source;"1950-1974: National Center for Health Statistics, HEW and State Accident Summaries (adjusted to 30 day Traffic Deaths by NHTSA); FARS 1975-2008 (Final); 2009 Annual Report File (ARF); Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT): Federal Highway Administration"

Lest you also question the pedigree of the Federal Highway Administration, it traces its roots to the Office of Road Inquiry, established by Congress in '93. In '05 that organization's name was changed to the Office of Public Roads in the Agriculture Dept. The name was changed again to the Bureau of Public Roads in '15 and to the Public Roads Administration in '39. Now known as the PRA, it was then shifted to the Federal Works Agency which was subsequently abolished in '49, at which time the name of this office reverted to Bureau of Public Roads, but now it was part of the Department of Commerce rather than agriculture. In '67 the functions of the Bureau of Public Roads were transferred to the FHWA.

"How did they get the numbers of miles traveled etc? "

According to references to earlier iterations of these statistics in "World's Work" and the "Review of Reviews", from state road departments, state Health Departments, motor vechicle resistration bureaus, and the predecessor organisations of the FHWA, same as today.

"It makes complete sesne that there was a record low of traffic accidents in 2009, 2010 or 2011. People drive less in a depressed economy because they cannot afford to travel. I would be surprised if it were higher."

How about 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, et cetera? In each year there were fewer fatalities than in the previous year.

Modern cars are simply safer. Period

Knowing that, I still choose to drive my Ford, which EVEN IN ITS DAY was considered to be a mite dicey as to safety.


But at least I do not attempt to delude myself.

I've installed bronze thrust washers in the rear end, had the wheels re-spoked, installed a wiper, rear-view mirrors, brake light(s), a strobe and Rocky Mountain Brakes, but if I'm hit, I'll have a pretty bad time of it.

 

[cklos]

Nice.... life insurance may cover the bills, but can't cover a lifetime of experiences spent with your family. Good luck in your death-trap........

That is what they invented life insurance for.
Good luck in your neon.

 

[Edward]

That is what they invented life insurance for.
Good luck in your neon.

And this is why lawyers invented "contributory negligence".

 

[cklos]

Thank you Sir....you explained my point much better than I did, with far less words.

And this is why lawyers invented "contributory negligence".

 

[rocketeer]

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

With a lot of sympathy aimed at the destruction of this car, and it was only a 4 door, not exactly a collectors dream , how do people feel about the destruction of what was then considered old cars in Films(Movies) and TV for entertainment value?
Chinatown has a famous scene where a 1935? Ford is driven into a tree? It wasn't fake and the owner would not sell the car to the studio so they paid to fix it. Dukes of Hazard, just how many 68-69 Dodge Chargers were written off. American Grafitti, 3 1955 Chevrolets were used, The racer, the crasher and the burner, and I have just watched an episode of The Fall Guy in which a 1960 Pontiac was heavily rear ended.
if you saw any of these when they were fresh, what did you think? "Oh No they just smashed up that Charger", Ford Pontiac or whatever. Or were they just old cars.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Very true, and some day when I have kids and grandkids, I want stories to tell them about the crazy stuff I did. All my elders have them, I sure as heck want 'em, too!

Yeah me too. Life without risk is life in a rubber room with foam furniture.

 

[jamespowers]

And this is why lawyers invented "contributory negligence".

That could apply to anything. Eating fatty foods, riding a motorcycle, skydiving, smoking, drinking, walking, living in the worng neighborhood etc, etc. Life insurance here is not based on that. Age and health are determining factors.

 

[J.W.]

With a lot of sympathy aimed at the destruction of this car, and it was only a 4 door, not exactly a collectors dream , how do people feel about the destruction of what was then considered old cars in Films(Movies) and TV for entertainment value?
Chinatown has a famous scene where a 1935? Ford is driven into a tree? It wasn't fake and the owner would not sell the car to the studio so they paid to fix it. Dukes of Hazard, just how many 68-69 Dodge Chargers were written off. American Grafitti, 3 1955 Chevrolets were used, The racer, the crasher and the burner, and I have just watched an episode of The Fall Guy in which a 1960 Pontiac was heavily rear ended.
if you saw any of these when they were fresh, what did you think? "Oh No they just smashed up that Charger", Ford Pontiac or whatever. Or were they just old cars.

But many of those cars were nothing like 50 or 60 years out of production at the time of filming, but probably readily available (especially in the Dukes and the Fall Guy).

 

[cklos]

I don't understand what you are trying to say....please clarify.

But many of those cars were nothing like 50 or 60 years out of production at the time of filming, but probably readily available (especially in the Dukes and the Fall Guy).

 

[jamespowers]

"I am surprised it isn't higher. They even include pedestrians, bicyclists and unknowns in the total vehicle fatalities. That means the people didn't even have to be in the car to be counted. "

Such are still counted, when a motor vehicle of any kind is involved.

"The fact that they even got these statistics 17 years before the DOT was even established is suspect.?"

The summary clearly states their source;"1950-1974: National Center for Health Statistics, HEW and State Accident Summaries (adjusted to 30 day Traffic Deaths by NHTSA); FARS 1975-2008 (Final); 2009 Annual Report File (ARF); Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT): Federal Highway Administration"

Lest you also question the pedigree of the Federal Highway Administration, it traces its roots to the Office of Road Inquiry, established by Congress in '93. In '05 that organization's name was changed to the Office of Public Roads in the Agriculture Dept. The name was changed again to the Bureau of Public Roads in '15 and to the Public Roads Administration in '39. Now known as the PRA, it was then shifted to the Federal Works Agency which was subsequently abolished in '49, at which time the name of this office reverted to Bureau of Public Roads, but now it was part of the Department of Commerce rather than agriculture. In '67 the functions of the Bureau of Public Roads were transferred to the FHWA.

"How did they get the numbers of miles traveled etc? "

According to references to earlier iterations of these statistics in "World's Work" and the "Review of Reviews", from state road departments, state Health Departments, motor vechicle resistration bureaus, and the predecessor organisations of the FHWA, same as today.

"It makes complete sesne that there was a record low of traffic accidents in 2009, 2010 or 2011. People drive less in a depressed economy because they cannot afford to travel. I would be surprised if it were higher."

How about 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, et cetera? In each year there were fewer fatalities than in the previous year.

Modern cars are simply safer. Period

Knowing that, I still choose to drive my Ford, which EVEN IN ITS DAY was considered to be a mite dicey as to safety.


But at least I do not attempt to delude myself.

I've installed bronze thrust washers in the rear end, had the wheels re-spoked, installed a wiper, rear-view mirrors, brake light(s), a strobe and Rocky Mountain Brakes, but if I'm hit, I'll have a pretty bad time of it.

Those are counted but in tines past, there were far higher cases of ancillary damage more than there is today. More people rode bicyles and walked back then. They were out there more often.

Adjusted, how nice. How did they adjust the figures?

Those sources for mileage traveled are bogus. They are purely estimates. People didn't travel those kinds of distances when they lived, worked and played in the same city or maybe one over at the most. Most mileage was logged on vacations---not everyday travel like we commute to work every day. Their "commutes" were not over five miles---both ways.

Less but not dramatically less like you make it to be record breaking. If it goes up next year due to more driving does it mean the cars are less safe then?

You keep believing modern cars are safer. Keep buying their lines but it doesn't mean they are in real life outside the test facility. The independent tests I posted before show exactly what the real damage would be when you got into a real accident. You can hide behind figures but the body count will still mount. You can delude yourself into thinking a Fiat 500 is safe, a Mini Cooper is safe or even that a Smart car is safe but the ratings still come back POOR.
I have been in several accidents with my vehicles and they are still on the road today and so am I. In the process, the cars I hit are off the road. Interestingly, none of those accidents were deemed to be my fault.
I'll take this:

(I ran broadside into another car in my 1957 Chevrolet and sustained similar damage but I could still drive it away---although illegally without headlights etc.)
Over this any day: