Vintage Car Thread - Discussion and Parts Requests

[tonyb]

I'd say those people are just being silly.

Of course riding in your old car is safer -- by orders of magnitude, in many cases -- than those activities you cite: jogging alongside the road; motorcycling (especially without a helmet); skateboarding (ditto); et cetera. I'd go so far as to say your grandkids are likelier to suffer a serious injury at the playground than in your old automobile (a friend's kid broke his arm falling off the monkey bars just last week). But I suspect that if you were to present those people with unimpeachable evidence as to your car's safety relative to all those other things, it still wouldn't persuade them. It's essentially an article of faith, not subject to reason.

 

[Big Man]

... But I suspect that if you were to present those people with unimpeachable evidence as to your car's safety relative to all those other things, it still wouldn't persuade them. It's essentially an article of faith, not subject to reason.

I'm afraid you are right.

 

[2jakes]

I understand about the "limitations" of an older car and the need to drive accordingly. My question, though, is how to get across to others who "tremble in fear" because my "old car" doesn't have seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, On-Star, GPS systems, back-up cameras, yada, yada, yada, and therefore to them is unreasonably dangerous, that my driving an old car is no more unreasonably dangerous than their hunting, shooting, skate boarding, motorcycle riding, jogging along the side of the road, etc.

If others have no experience with older cars, it's very difficult to get
across that an old car is no more unreasonably dangerous than what you have mentioned.

 

[Big Man]

One of the people on Facebook who pointed out (in a nice way, I'll say) that I was putting my grandchildren at risk by not having seat belts in my '65 Ford was one of my aunts. Here, quite ironically, is a photo of her on the back of a motorcycle. She'll be 90 this year. But, she IS wearing a helmet.

I, of course, out of good taste and respect, did not remind her of this photo.

 

[2jakes]

One of the people on Facebook who pointed out (in a nice way, I'll say) that I was putting my grandchildren at risk by not having seat belts in my '65 Ford was one of my aunts. Here, quite ironically, is a photo of her on the back of a motorcycle. She'll be 90 this year. But, she IS wearing a helmet.

I, of course, out of good taste and respect, did not remind her of this photo.

Helmets....it's the illusion of feeling 100% safe".

I recall asking a mechanic that I was thinking of upgrading the straight six to a V8 on my '46 truck.
Not because I wanted to go faster, but rather so I could keep up with the traffic on the freeways.
I was also going to install seat belts.
He said. " you are aware that you have a non-collapsible steel shaft in the steering wheel which
is aimed at your chest not to mention a brake system that makes stopping a challenge ?"

 

[Fading Fast]

I understand about the "limitations" of an older car and the need to drive accordingly. My question, though, is how to get across to others who "tremble in fear" because my "old car" doesn't have seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, On-Star, GPS systems, back-up cameras, yada, yada, yada, and therefore to them is unreasonably dangerous, that my driving an old car is no more unreasonably dangerous than their hunting, shooting, skate boarding, motorcycle riding, jogging along the side of the road, etc.

Everything is a trade-off. Maybe your car is or is not safer than modern cars as discussed above. Wearing seat belts is demonstrably safer in most cases than not (but occasionally a set of events occur where the seatbelt is harmful - the odds, of course, are that you are safer wearing a seatbelt).

We, as a society, set certain laws and safety rules and regulations that we require all citizens to abide. My view is that as long as someone is following the laws / rules etc., then they are free to choose within those guidelines how to live / what choices to make about safety and others should mind their own business. You followed the rules / laws in your car with your grandkids; hence, in my mind, you are completely free and in the right to decide what is or isn't safe for them.

I will never ride a motorcycle for several reasons that make the risk-reward of doing so unappealing to me. That said, I not only will defend someone else's right to ride one, I respect that they have made a thoughtful risk-reward trade-off for themselves, that while different from mine, is right for them. I also drink - not heavily - but a couple of glasses of wine or a few drinks most nights (not every) and I completely understand that some think this is a crazy decision from a health perspective.

We all have to live within the laws of our society, but after that, we should all let others choose how to live.

 

[tonyb]

In my early driving days my "regular" cars were older than I was myself at the time. But they were just used cars then. (I'm still of a mindset that any car less than 20 years old that has covered fewer than 200,000 miles is a "new" car.)

That being the case, I'm left scratching my head by people harboring fears of old cars. That the car itself remains in a good, presentable, drivable condition after all those years can be taken as a sign that the person owning said car isn't the type to get into collisions.

 

[Big J]

Hey, never mind the safety aspect, I like to remind people that even if I drive my car for the rest of my life, putting out all those fumes from my giant engine, I will never be able to cause as much pollution as is created by making one new Toyota Prius.

 

[Big Man]

... I'm left scratching my head by people harboring fears of old cars ...

I've been driving that same '65 Ford since 1983. That's 32 YEARS of driving the same car. The funny thing to me was, some of the very people who "took me to task" about the car not being safe without seat belts have gone riding with me in that very same car on numerous occasions. It was never a problem before. Now, after having been stopped by the police (for something that, according to the law, was NOT a violation), I'm "putting my grandchildren at risk."

Go figure. [huh]

 

[LizzieMaine]

I simply tell such people that in driving a car like mine, you are at all times aware that you're a *driver,* not an "operator." You are always aware of what the car is doing on the road, and what other vehicles on the road are doing, because driving a car with no power steering, no power brakes, a standard transmission, high and skinny bias-ply tires, and an instrument panel consisting of nothing more than a speedometer, an ammeter, a oil pressure gauge, and a fuel gauge *requires* you to be aware at all times of what the car is doing. This, in turn, leads to a thoroughly defensive driving style -- a much safer sort of driving than is common among "aggressive" modern drivers in their automated, computerized, isolated, comfy cozy wheeled living rooms.

Sure, if I *am* in an accident, it won't be pleasant. But I submit that I'm far less likely to be *in* an accident in a well-maintained 74 year old car than I'd be in the latest technology-festooned "smart car," because the smarter the car, the dumber the driver can afford to be.

 

[Bamaboots]

Spent three years where my primary responsibility was investigating traffic accidents and on average about 40 accidents a month. I've racked my brain trying to remember a serious accident I worked involving vintage vehicles and can't come up with one, and this in a community that has a lot of vintage car enthusiasts. I know I issued a few citations but not many and none for the seatbelt "violation".

As Lizzy said, people who own and operate such vehicles tend to keep them maintained and don't overdrive them.

 

[Big J]

I simply tell such people that in driving a car like mine, you are at all times aware that you're a *driver,* not an "operator." You are always aware of what the car is doing on the road, and what other vehicles on the road are doing, because driving a car with no power steering, no power brakes, a standard transmission, high and skinny bias-ply tires, and an instrument panel consisting of nothing more than a speedometer, an ammeter, a oil pressure gauge, and a fuel gauge *requires* you to be aware at all times of what the car is doing. This, in turn, leads to a thoroughly defensive driving style -- a much safer sort of driving than is common among "aggressive" modern drivers in their automated, computerized, isolated, comfy cozy wheeled living rooms.

Sure, if I *am* in an accident, it won't be pleasant. But I submit that I'm far less likely to be *in* an accident in a well-maintained 74 year old car than I'd be in the latest technology-festooned "smart car," because the smarter the car, the dumber the driver can afford to be.

Lizzie, you are absolutely right. In fact (I'm sure you know) psychologists have studied why accidents continue to happen despite improvements in car safety and technology, and they have found that the safer people believe modern cars to be, the worse they drive. They call this effect 'risk compensation'.

 

[Big Man]

... because the smarter the car, the dumber the driver can afford to be.

Amen to that!

 

[Big Man]

So, with all this discussion about safety, or the perceived lack thereof, I decided to ask my insurance carrier what they thought. According to them, there are no statistical comparisons between the relative safety of seat belts vs no seat belts in classic cars vs "modern" cars. Understand, we're not talking about driving a classic car down the interstate in bumper-to-bumber traffic at 75 mph, but in a "normal" manner consistent with driving a classic car. Additionally, there is the possibility that adding after-market seat belts to a vehicle that was not designed for seat belts could actually reduce safety, as the anchor points for attaching seat belts are not present on cars that were not designed to have seat belts.

Seeing that the insurance company, who would be the one to have to pay out $$ in the event of an accident, is not overly concerned about the seat belt absence in a classic car, then I think it should put the issue to rest. Thanks for all the comments and views on my initial post on this matter. I will continue to drive my old classic cars as safely and responsibly as I possibly can, and will not be overly concerned with any lack of "safety" just because my classic cars don't have seat belts.

 

[jamespowers]

Interesting to find a thread where the term "flatfoot" is used. Must've been pretty quick on those flatfeet to run down that Olds.

Not that quick. I was going through a school zone so the flatfoot was there fairly easily.

 

[jamespowers]

Not the same at all. I had long hair and rode a motorcycle but never missed a day's work. I may never be a big shot but I will never quite be a bum.

Beatnik?

 

[1930artdeco]

When I take people for rides I tell them about the two pieces of safety equipment in my Model A. The safety glass and the grey matter in between their ears. People have not been to overly upset about it.

Mike

 

[Big Man]

When I take people for rides I tell them about the two pieces of safety equipment in my Model A. The safety glass and the grey matter in between their ears. People have not been to overly upset about it.

Mike

Interesting (and true) story that has a connection to safety glass:

Back in the 1930s, Mr. R.V. McGimsey was the Register of Deeds for McDowell County, NC (the county where I live). Prior to the time cars had safety glass, Mr. McGimsey had been involved in an automobile accident and had lost one of his ears as a result. He had a prosthetic ear, held on by some sort of rubberized gum. One day, during the heat of Summer, Mr. McGimsey was giving a political speech. As he was talking, the heat of the day caused the rubberized gum holding his prosthetic ear on to start giving away. As he talked, the ear would slip down the side of his head and he would, without missing a beat in his speech, push it back up into place. After about three or four times doing this, he finally just took the ear and put it in his pocket.

My grandmother used to tell this story in a way that I could actually "see" Mr. McGimsey's ear sliding down his head. Only in local back-country politics of the 1930s could you have seen such a sight as that.

 

[GHT]

You are always aware of what the car is doing on the road, and what other vehicles on the road are doing, because driving a car with no power steering, no power brakes, a standard transmission, high and skinny bias-ply tires, and an instrument panel consisting of nothing more than a speedometer, an ammeter, a oil pressure gauge, and a fuel gauge .

Speedo, ammeter, oil pressure & fuel are all I have too, oh, and a clock. No water temperature gauge, no warning light to advise me whether the headlights are dipped or main beam. Drum brakes of course and although I have synchro on the top three gears, I still double declutch. To do that I need a second or two more than if I were to just hit the brakes, and to gain those few seconds, I have to be alert to oncoming hazards. Which is what you are saying Lizzie. Drivers of vintage cars do just that, drive it. Biggest hazard I face on the road are rubber neckers, gawking at my car.

 

[fashion frank]

When I take people for rides I tell them about the two pieces of safety equipment in my Model A. The safety glass and the grey matter in between their ears. People have not been to overly upset about it.

Mike

Amen to that brother ,my windshield at least now has safety glass ,imagine back in the day with plate glass windows, no wonder why they called them "crash boxes" .



Talk about paying attention ,I got a "bobblehead " cork for a gas gauge ,an ammeter a nonsynchronized tranny, drum brakes, no power steering, the gas tank is in my lap right there in front of me !



All the Best,Fashion Frank