head-on collision: old car vs new

[LizzieMaine]

True. And no doubt some of us will then only turn and whine on about them using "computer fakes" instead of "real" vintage cars...

To say nothing of all those scenes in offices where they blow up computers. Use the real thing, or nothing at all. (I have my ex's Mac Classic in a box down cellar I'd be happy to donate.)

 

[scottyrocks]

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.

As I have repeatedly stated views here that coincide with yours. I am not for the government telling me what to do for 'my own good.' I am perfectly capable of doing that on my own.

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:

Not at all. I was simply surprised at the difference in damage between a smaller new and a larger old car, especially when all I hear is how superior old cars are in accidents. I thought it was an interesting video.

And I will agree with you about vehicle damage when there is a large disparity in vehicle size and weight. Larger vehicles have more mass to absorb impact, and newer cars are built to absorb impact with less damage to the passenger compartment than older vehicles of the same mass. One of the earlier videos I posted shows some older smaller cars that disintegrated upon impact. That was a fair comparison to the Mini or new Fiat 500, and even the Smart. The newer cars, in the same type of controlled crash, do much better. If if that Audi SUV was run into an original Beetle, for instance, the front seat occupants would probably be good as marmalade. That was the point. For any given car size, today's cars are safer than their forebears.

 

[scottyrocks]

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.

Yeah, we should all know better by now. How do you know when a politician is lying? When he is talking. Forgetting the supposed monetary benefits, though, seatbelt use is a good idea.

 

[scottyrocks]

Life is a thing you don't walk away from alive. How many people just drop dead and never see thier children as it is? Clarke Gable never saw his son. He died before he was even born. Tragedies happen every day to innocent people with even adding traffic accidents.
I'll take my deathtrap over this one:
View attachment 262

I'm not sure what the Clark Gable thing has to do with auto safety.

That picture could have been picked by the same people who put together those recent anti-smoking commercials - amongst the absolute worst case scenario. I don't know how this vehicle wound up in that situation, but any car ending up in the same place is going to put serious consequences on its occupants.

 

[rue]

Wow... I can't believe the disrespect to the bartenders going on in this thread.

 

[scottyrocks]

As the OP, I'm going to ask that this thread be closed. It has gotten too far away from the original intended purpose.

 

[rue]

You know I wasn't speaking of you Scotty, right?

 

[jamespowers]

I'm not sure what the Clark Gable thing has to do with auto safety.

That picture could have been picked by the same people who put together those recent anti-smoking commercials - amongst the absolute worst case scenario. I don't know how this vehicle wound up in that situation, but any car ending up in the same place is going to put serious consequences on its occupants.

I didn't bring up people dying before they have a chance to be with their children someone else did. I was just answering him.

The difference is: Do you think a larger car would even be capable of that kind of flight into a pole? Weight has its advantages. Staying ont he ground is one of them.

 

[jamespowers]

As I have repeatedly stated views here that coincide with yours. I am not for the government telling me what to do for 'my own good.' I am perfectly capable of doing that on my own.



Not at all. I was simply surprised at the difference in damage between a smaller new and a larger old car, especially when all I hear is how superior old cars are in accidents. I thought it was an interesting video.

And I will agree with you about vehicle damage when there is a large disparity in vehicle size and weight. Larger vehicles have more mass to absorb impact, and newer cars are built to absorb impact with less damage to the passenger compartment than older vehicles of the same mass. One of the earlier videos I posted shows some older smaller cars that disintegrated upon impact. That was a fair comparison to the Mini or new Fiat 500, and even the Smart. The newer cars, in the same type of controlled crash, do much better. If if that Audi SUV was run into an original Beetle, for instance, the front seat occupants would probably be good as marmalade. That was the point. For any given car size, today's cars are safer than their forebears.

Yet you are all for forced helmet and seat belt wearing. Hmmmmmm.....
Interestingly faked with a car know for being weak in that area.

It is NOT necessarily size but composition. A car made of fibreglas and very little real steel will not afford as much protection as a vehicle that is made largely of steel. It just isn't possible unless we make cars out of titanium but that would be far too expensive.
Where were these videos that show a Nash Metropolitan hitting a Smart car at 40mph? Failing that any evidence that says that similar car sizes from the 1950s tested in the exact same manner as these cars would be nice.
If that Audi were run into even a 1958 Holden it would be toast.

The VWs were always deathtraps no matter when they were made.:rofl:

 

[jamespowers]

Thanks, but I was asking him, not you.

 

[jamespowers]

You're also over twice my age

You can't do half of the things I have already because most of them have been made impossible because some of the things I did them with are no longer available. The Nanny state wins again.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The VWs were always deathtraps no matter when they were made.:rofl:

I dunno, I had a friend who hit a deer in a 70s-vintage Beetle and the poor creature was actually flipped over the car and landed in the road behind it -- other than a mashed front trunk lid, the car was undamaged, and my friend was more upset about the damage to the deer than to the car. I had a few minor accidents in my own Beetle, sliding into poles on winter roads and such, but never anything where I couldn't push the car back into the road and drive away. Driver skill in a Beetle was very very important -- if you knew how it handled, which was unlike any big car then on the road, and were paying close attention, you could often avoid crashes that you couldn't avoid with the momentum of a bigger car.

The real danger with a Beetle, so far as my own experience was concerned, was poor visibility in stormy weather -- the windshield tended to ice up very easily, and the wipers were not particularly effective in keeping sleet off. It helped to keep a scraper in the front seat, and to be ready to pull over every few miles to do a scrape job if you wanted to get home in one piece.

I enjoyed every minute of mine, and would own another without the slightest bit of fear.

 

[jamespowers]

I dunno, I had a friend who hit a deer in a 70s-vintage Beetle and the poor creature was actually flipped over the car and landed in the road behind it -- other than a mashed front trunk lid, the car was undamaged, and my friend was more upset about the damage to the deer than to the car. I had a few minor accidents in my own Beetle, sliding into poles on winter roads and such, but never anything where I couldn't push the car back into the road and drive away. Driver skill in a Beetle was very very important -- if you knew how it handled, which was unlike any big car then on the road, and were paying close attention, you could often avoid crashes that you couldn't avoid with the momentum of a bigger car.

The real danger with a Beetle, so far as my own experience was concerned, was poor visibility in stormy weather -- the windshield tended to ice up very easily, and the wipers were not particularly effective in keeping sleet off. It helped to keep a scraper in the front seat, and to be ready to pull over every few miles to do a scrape job if you wanted to get home in one piece.

Sounds kind of like the old Corvair.
You ran into a pole and the car didn't fall apart? You friend hit a deer and the car didn't explode? Wow! The VWs didn't know they were usafe as opposed to a modern Audi.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If it had been a moose, the car would likely have gone *under* it instead of hitting it. Few other cars on the road could make that claim.

In my own accidents, in each case -- I think there were three of them, my memory ain't what it used to be -- I was able to steer the car into hitting the pole a glancing blow rather than piling into it head on -- when a VW went into a skid, you could get it back under control pretty easily if you had a feel for the car and knew what you were doing. My fenders got pretty messed up, and I lost a running board somewhere along the way, but the car was still driveable. I pounded out the dents and kept on going. It was driver skill rather than the inherent safeness/unsafeness of the car that was the real factor there.

My mother was terrified of that car and refused to ever ride in it, and was certain I was going to die a horrible death. I reminded her that I survived her driving the Chevy into the side of a house, so I wasn't too scared of what might happen in a VW.

 

[Rathdown]

Posting from memory -- I'm not a Keaton specialist, but given his known reverence for machinery I'd be surprised if he destroyed a perfectly functional antique locomotive. It might have been a switch-engine or some other type of machine that had been modified to look passably Civil War-vintage from a distance.

(Addendum) -- According to this specialist on the real-life raid that served as the basis for The General, the locomotive Buster dropped into Culp Creek was an 1890's-vintage lumber hauler, suitably modified to pass for Civil War vintage. Which means it was only about thirty years old when it was sacrificed, and not especially rare or antique.

Most of the other rail stock in the film, according to Keaton biographer Marion Meade, was mocked up from junked Los Angeles trolley cars. Meade confirms, on page 165, that Keaton's crew did indeed build the bridge across the Creek, expressly for the purpose of destroying it in the film.

Thanks! You have finally settled the argument that has raged across the partners' desk here at my office for the last three years. I will savor the fruits of my victory and think of you as I raise a martini glass after work on Monday!

 

[scotrace]

Wow... I can't believe the disrespect to the bartenders going on in this thread.

Fastest way to be shown the door.

When I saw Barbigirl's modern Beetle that took a glancing blow at speed, crumpled up completely, and yet allowed her (precarious) survival, I became a believer in air bags. My car has ten. The photos of that thing post-crash were a shocker.
I used to have a 52 Olds. I always figured that any crash that caused the occupants to become a trajectory would be 100% fatal. The dash was solid, unpadded steel. Even at a fairly low speed, your brains would have to be dashed out.
Lizzie makes an excellent point about driver skill. It's a good idea to constantly be aware of improving your driving abilities. And I think most folks just get in and point it.

 

[J.W.]

Still, airbags won't necessarily save our life: a year ago, friend's of my father's were driving their brand new Mercedes Benz, with every airbag you can have and both died, after a car crashed into the driver's side of their car. So it's not just about a driver's skill, but also about his eye on the traffic around him.
Yes, airbags are a blessing, as are all other safety technologies. Yet I believe that when your time is up, it's up.

 

[scottyrocks]

Yet you are all for forced helmet and seat belt wearing. Hmmmmmm.....
Interestingly faked with a car know for being weak in that area.

It is NOT necessarily size but composition. A car made of fibreglas and very little real steel will not afford as much protection as a vehicle that is made largely of steel. It just isn't possible unless we make cars out of titanium but that would be far too expensive.
Where were these videos that show a Nash Metropolitan hitting a Smart car at 40mph? Failing that any evidence that says that similar car sizes from the 1950s tested in the exact same manner as these cars would be nice.
If that Audi were run into even a 1958 Holden it would be toast.

The VWs were always deathtraps no matter when they were made.:rofl:

All right, since my request to close my own thread was not honored, I will just say that it is very frustrating to write something very straight forward more than once and have it misinterpreted.

Again, I am NOT for laws that protect us from ourselves, including things like seat belts, helmets, and sure, why not, even guns. I am for choice. I, that means me, just choose to use the seat belts, and helmets. The only way to prove this at this point is probably to ride into Connecticut and keep my helmet on.

I learned how to drive a stick in my dad's '71 Beetle. I loved that car, useless forced-air windshield defrosting and all. I would buy one today if I could. '67 is my favorite year. That was the last year of the two-piece bumpers, and the first year with 12 volt electrics, and the most powerful engine to that point. Other than that, I would actually like an earlier one with the larger headlights and convert it to 12 volts.

 

[scottyrocks]

I didn't bring up people dying before they have a chance to be with their children someone else did. I was just answering him.

The difference is: Do you think a larger car would even be capable of that kind of flight into a pole? Weight has its advantages. Staying ont he ground is one of them.

I can fit this into the 'you get what you deserve' category. I can honestly say that I would not be driving at at the speeds required to land my car in that position and level of damage. Maybe if I was caught in a hurricane it would be a different story, but then again, houses, as well as '57 Chevys, can be uprooted in hurricanes. A little common sense while driving goes a long way.

 

[scotrace]

Yes, airbags are a blessing, as are all other safety technologies. Yet I believe that when your time is up, it's up.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Recently, in my area, a young Amish girl Arrived home alone in her open, two-passenger, horse-drawn vehicle one early evening. The horse had gotten home unaided, and the wagon was making circles outside the house for awhile before family noticed and came outside to look. She was unconscious, and bleeding badly. Off to the hospital.
There, they found a head injury, which proved to be a bullet wound in the top of her head. She died soon after arrival.
In a few days, all became clear. A man more than a mile away had discharged a rifle into the air before cleaning it. The bullet came down in such a way as to kill the girl as she drove her horse along a quiet, country road in the middle of Amish farm lands.

When your time is up, your time is up.