head-on collision: old car vs new

[vitanola]

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.

Oh yes. Of course.

This explains why motor vehicle fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled reached a record low of 1.14 in 2009, as opposed to 1.73 back in 1994, approximately 5 in 1960, and 7 per 100 million vehicle-miles back in 1950, despite the generally lower speeds and lighter traffic of those days. I do see how the heavier machines of 1950 are so very much safer than out current light weight death traps

Such thinking appears to be convoluted in the extreme to one who does not view ANY government action as ineffective, or unconstitutional.

Even though I do understand that old cars are not as safe as modern units, I still drive my Ford, which is really a bit of a death-trap even though fitted with Rocky Mountain brakes.

I firmly believe, though, that many of our nation's current troubles would be ameliorated by the adoption of a maximum 35 mph speed limit, but alas am certain such will indeed be adopted only after gaggles of cob rollers are seen gracefully flying over the mythical Isle of Manhatta, scattering their "blind eels" hither and yon.

 

[jamespowers]

Oh yes. Of course.

This explains why motor vehicle fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled reached a record low of 1.14 in 2009, as opposed to 1.73 back in 1994, approximately 5 in 1960, and 7 per 100 million vehicle-miles back in 1950, despite the generally lower speeds and lighter traffic of those days. I do see how the heavier machines of 1950 are so very much safer than out current light weight death traps

Such thinking appears to be convoluted in the extreme to one who does not view ANY government action as ineffective, or unconstitutional.

Even though I do understand that old cars are not as safe as modern units, I still drive my Ford, which is really a bit of a death-trap even though fitted with Rocky Mountain brakes.

I firmly believe, though, that many of our nation's current troubles would be ameliorated by the adoption of a maximum 35 mph speed limit, but alas am certain such will indeed be adopted only after gaggles of cob rollers are seen gracefully flying over the mythical Isle of Manhatta, scattering their "blind eels" hither and yon.

Please site the source of such statistics so I can check them out. It makes absolutely no sense.
Government has its place but not in making anything unsafe.

 

[scottyrocks]

Sorry, James, I don't automatically put 'lighter' and 'unsafe' into the same category. I've now seen a number of very small cars rammed into concrete with little damage to the passenger compartment. That took research, engineering, and money.

I'm not sure I understand what you're not happy with. You don't like crumple zones ('They crumple and absorb not only their energy but mine. In reality though, that makes them unsafe as heck')? What is the alternative? Vehicles made out of 'I-beams,' for instance, that don't give at all? The deceleration forces inside such a vehicle upon hitting an immovable object would be way more lethal than a controlled crumple-zone deceleration. Is that what you prefer? I'm really curious.

 

[jamespowers]

Sorry, James, I don't automatically put 'lighter' and 'unsafe' into the same category. I've now seen a number of very small cars rammed into concrete with little damage to the passenger compartment. That took research, engineering, and money.

I'm not sure I understand what you're not happy with. You don't like crumple zones ('They crumple and absorb not only their energy but mine. In reality though, that makes them unsafe as heck')? What is the alternative? Vehicles made out of 'I-beams,' for instance, that don't give at all? The deceleration forces inside such a vehicle upon hitting an immovable object would be way more lethal than a controlled crumple-zone deceleration. Is that what you prefer? I'm really curious.

I have seen a number of the same tests that were done by disinterested parties that made the results go from good to poor. The ones I posted were just a small amount of them. Money has more to do with it than you are admitting.
I was being facetious when I made that comment---however the underlying fact is that I wouldn't want to be hit by my 57 GMC if I were in a Smart car or Mini Cooper.
I would prefer that they make the car reasonably well so that it could withstand a 40mph crash without killing the occupants. If it takes I beams in combination with airbags and other technology then so be it.

 

[vitanola]

Please site the source of such statistics so I can check them out. It makes absolutely no sense.
Government has its place but not in making anything unsafe.

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.

 

[scottyrocks]

Although I knew I wouldn't find anything, I looked for any film I could find of a 1957 GMC pickup, or the like, either being crashed or after a crash. Even so, I would have to believe that running said truck and Mini, for instance, into each other would not result in the Mini's occupants being worse off than the truck's. Do you think that hitting a 1957 pickup would be worse than hitting this:

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

A video showing the occupants of the truck in an identical crash would be enlightening. I doubt that the passenger compartment would have remained as intact as that of the Mini or a Fiat 500. If you have any footage of a truck like yours being run into a wall I'd like to see it.

 

[vitanola]

Although I knew I wouldn't find anything, I looked for any film I could find of a 1957 GMC pickup, or the like, either being crashed or after a crash. Even so, I would have to believe that running said truck and Mini, for instance, into each other would not result in the Mini's occupants being worse off than the truck's. Do you think that hitting a 1957 pickup would be worse than hitting this:

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

A video showing the occupants of the truck in an identical crash would be enlightening. I doubt that the passenger compartment would have remained as intact as that of the Mini or a Fiat 500. If you have any footage of a truck like yours being run into a wall I'd like to see it.

Remember that in 1950's cars particularly it was common for the machine to survive a mid-speed collision relatively undamaged though the driver was seriously injured by bouncing around the interior of the machine.

 

[MisterCairo]

Folks, if people want to believe a car from 1950 is safer than one built today, let them. It won't change a thing. Again, old cars look great, I can't wait to own one, and yet they remain spectacular garbage from an engineering and safety point of view.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

You'll never get everyone on the same page.

I personally think unibody construction is a joke, a way to save costs is more or less what it is. I'd feel safer in a truck, which is Body-on-Frame, as all cars were once upon a time. That's why I stick with Ford Panther Platform vehicles for modern transport, my newest one so far being a 2003 Crown Victoria. It's built in the traditional sense B-o-F, RWD, V8, but also offers all the conveniences and modern amenities we're accustomed to, CD player, power everything, seat-belts, air bags. They're great cars that'll seat 6 and have room for groceries in the trunk.

They're also easy to work on compared to most new cars that you can't even hardly change the spark plugs on. They're not as easy as their fifties and sixties counterparts, true. I got along for years on Gumout, Duct Tape, a Screwdriver, and some Channel Locks. However, for as far as modern cars go, the Panthers have been easy on the pocket book.

I don't know enough about crumple zones or crash data to be an expert, I just know what my life has taught me and it's that these cars have remained unchanged for the most part since the Ford Downsize in 1979 and so many are still on the road, there's plenty to be said for that.

On the classics; my grandparents drove them, my great-grandparents drove them, my parents drove them and they're still here (except my great-grandparents who all passed in their late 80's-90's). The cars didn't kill them and if people like them and think they're better, they're entitled to their opinion as much as those who think their rolling metal death traps. I don't think older means better, I typically tend to think bigger is better. I'd rather have plenty of car around me to absorb the blow.

 

[John in Covina]

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.

See how the compartment folded - that is what does this truck in. There are some vehicles where there is a cage around a lot of the occupant section so it won't colapse. When i selected my Nissan PU 1997 I looked at Mitsubishi, Mazda , Ford etc. Crash tests showed the compartment was collapsing so I avoided them.

 

[MisterCairo]

You'll never get everyone on the same page.

I personally think unibody construction is a joke, a way to save costs is more or less what it is. I'd feel safer in a truck, which is Body-on-Frame, as all cars were once upon a time. That's why I stick with Ford Panther Platform vehicles for modern transport, my newest one so far being a 2003 Crown Victoria. It's built in the traditional sense B-o-F, RWD, V8, but also offers all the conveniences and modern amenities we're accustomed to, CD player, power everything, seat-belts, air bags. They're great cars that'll seat 6 and have room for groceries in the trunk.

They're also easy to work on compared to most new cars that you can't even hardly change the spark plugs on. They're not as easy as their fifties and sixties counterparts, true. I got along for years on Gumout, Duct Tape, a Screwdriver, and some Channel Locks. However, for as far as modern cars go, the Panthers have been easy on the pocket book.

I don't know enough about crumple zones or crash data to be an expert, I just know what my life has taught me and it's that these cars have remained unchanged for the most part since the Ford Downsize in 1979 and so many are still on the road, there's plenty to be said for that.

On the classics; my grandparents drove them, my great-grandparents drove them, my parents drove them and they're still here (except my great-grandparents who all passed in their late 80's-90's). The cars didn't kill them and if people like them and think they're better, they're entitled to their opinion as much as those who think their rolling metal death traps. I don't think older means better, I typically tend to think bigger is better. I'd rather have plenty of car around me to absorb the blow.

It's shame the Crown Vic, Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Car are done. They shut down the St. Thomas Ontario plant a few months ago.

 

[rue]

On the classics; my grandparents drove them, my great-grandparents drove them, my parents drove them and they're still here (except my great-grandparents who all passed in their late 80's-90's). The cars didn't kill them and if people like them and think they're better, they're entitled to their opinion as much as those who think their rolling metal death traps.

Bingo

The way I look at it... when it's your time to go, it's your time and since life is so short, you may as well enjoy life the way you want (as long as it's legal) and I want to drive a car that makes me happy. I'm very happy driving a classic car

 

[sheeplady]

The other benefit of driving an older car is that other drivers do tend to stay a bit away and slow down. They don't want to hit a classic car and get sued. Most people tend to think that classic cars are more costly to repair than newer cars, and a vintage car enthusiast is typically not driving a rust bucket that they're just going to total.

A couple years ago my husband met a couple who were touring the national parks in their Model A. That would be fantastic.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When seatbelts became compulsory, my grandfather was furious. When he bought the only post-1965 car he'd ever own, a 1971 Ford LTD, the first thing he did was cut the belts out with his pocket knife. "I ain't gonna be stuck in there if the thing catches fire or goes off a bridge," he fumed. Because of that we never wore them when I was a kid, and I've never gotten into the habit. I've *tried* but I find them so distracting and so uncomfortable that I just don't bother anymore. No crusade, just a personal preference. I also can't stand bicycle helmets for the same reason, and don't wear one. I do, however, ride my bike according to the rules of the road, stop at all stop signs and signals, signal all turns, and never, ever wear earphones or any other distraction while riding. Which is a lot more than I can say for most of the spandex-clad helmet-wearers around here.

 

[cklos]

Seatbelts should be a personal choice.......Nobody (Government or otherwise) should tell you what to do with your life, as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others....... But when I was a passenger in my brother's 1986 Old's Cutless Supreme, traveling beltless, we got rear-ended....real bad. We were stopped at a light, and it was no fault of my brother. I was smashed into the dash, and rendered unconscious. (got a nice gash in the head too). By luck (or physics...lol) I wasn't thrown through the windshield. That was in 1997. I've worn my seatbelt since then......You can't count on "the other guy" to follow the rules of the road, even if you are. I'm aware an 86 Olds was not a "tank" compared to vintage cars, but it was still a solid automobile compared to today's offerings. I wouldn't, think to let my son travel without a belt, even though me and my brothers never wore them in my Dad's 1971 Continental, his sister's 1968 Camaro, my maternal Grandfather's 1965 Ambassador, or paternal Grandfather's 1962 Impala.....plenty of people died in those cars. Ever see "Blood on the Highway?" lol

 

[Angus Forbes]

I remember about 1963 seeing a row of big Pontiacs awaiting front-end repair at the Chieftain Pontiac shop on York Road in Baltimore County. Each car had his-and-hers holes through the front windshield, each hole the approximate size of a human head. Convinced me forever to wear my seatbelt. But that's just me.....

 

[scottyrocks]

Bingo

The way I look at it... when it's your time to go, it's your time and since life is so short, you may as well enjoy life the way you want (as long as it's legal) and I want to drive a car that makes me happy. I'm very happy driving a classic car

That was the general attitude of the guys I used to ride with regarding helmets. They didn't want to be told what to do and when it was their time to go, then so be it.

I agree with the not being told what to do thing, but the freedom to make choices that may unnecessarily lead to injury or fatality are foolish, pride be d@mned. That's why there are laws.

Many years ago, I used to ride into Connecticut so I could legally ride sans helmet. As the years passed, I found that my desire to pull over after crossing the border to remove my lid diminished to nothing. Was it because I was getting older? Smarter? Definitely the second, as far as I'm concerned.

I never rode without a helmet in NY mainly because it was illegal. In later years, I didn't ride without a helmet in places I could because I thought it was better decision to wear one. I realized I didn't need a law to make me do the smarter thing.

It was around that time that I began to wear seat belts on a regular basis, as well. I no longer felt put upon by the law to 'do the right thing.' I guess I had grown up in that regard, and my pride had taken a back seat to common sense.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The day I'm riding my bicycle along the highway at 55 mph -- or even 20mph -- I'll wear a helmet. But my bicycle isn't capable of going that fast unless you drop it off the roof of a six story building, in which case I hope the people out for a walk on the sidewalk below are wearing helmets.

You're more likely to crack your head open falling down a flight of stairs than you are riding a bicycle down a side street at 5mph. And I'm not about to wear a helmet on the stairs, even if they pass a law about it.

 

[cklos]

A man after my own heart......

That was the general attitude of the guys I used to ride with regarding helmets. They didn't want to be told what to do and when it was their time to go, then so be it.

I agree with the not being told what to do thing, but the freedom to make choices that may unnecessarily lead to injury or fatality are foolish, pride be d@mned. That's why there are laws.

Many years ago, I used to ride into Connecticut so I could legally ride sans helmet. As the years passed, I found that my desire to pull over after crossing the border to remove my lid diminished to nothing. Was it because I was getting older? Smarter? Definitely the second, as far as I'm concerned.

I never rode without a helmet in NY mainly because it was illegal. In later years, I didn't ride without a helmet in places I could because I thought it was better decision to wear one. I realized I didn't need a law to make me do the smarter thing.

It was around that time that I began to wear seat belts on a regular basis, as well. I no longer felt put upon by the law to 'do the right thing.' I guess I had grown up in that regard, and my pride had taken a back seat to common sense.

 

[cklos]

True enough....and I respect your right NOT to wear a helmet.... I never wore one when I rode a bicycle. You may not be riding along the highway at 55 mph, but just pedalling down a quiet road may end in disaster. The old lady may nod off behind the wheel while traveling 25 mph, the drunk may not see you, the youngster may be texting on his phone or you may hit a rock and lose control.....if you take a fall, the helmet may save your life. I'm just trying to say certain laws were enacted because of the experience/data gathered over the last 60 years....... not to destroy the past life we are all fond of.

The day I'm riding my bicycle along the highway at 55 mph -- or even 20mph -- I'll wear a helmet. But my bicycle isn't capable of going that fast unless you drop it off the roof of a six story building, in which case I hope the people out for a walk on the sidewalk below are wearing helmets.

You're more likely to crack your head open falling down a flight of stairs than you are riding a bicycle down a side street at 5mph. And I'm not about to wear a helmet on the stairs, even if they pass a law about it.