Are our Slants "Unsafe"?

-
"All other factors being equal" meaning what exactly?

It means that you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. You don't compare a 1961 unit-body car to a 2011 body-on-frame car. You don't compare a 5,000-pound body-on-frame car to an 1,800-pound unit-body car. That kind of thing. The correlations between vehicle design and construction and vehicle safety performance are anything but obvious. For example, it's popular to believe that you're definitely better off in a heavier vehicle than in a lighter one, but that's not necessarily true. There are much more significant factors in crashworthiness than vehicle size/mass. A great deal of real-world crash data, here in North America as well as abroad, demonstrates it very clearly. Take a look at this. See especially pages 7-11.

I'm involved with traffic safety research (and, in fact, a member of the National Academy of Science Transportation Research Board, which is the body that put out this report). The human mind is poorly equipped to consider odds, risks, and chances. I own three '60s-'70s cars which, for better and worse, lack a great deal of what is taken for granted as basic safety engineering in today's vehicles. For five years I drove a pickup truck every day (not because I needed to or liked to or especially wanted to), and the good-quality data represented by these charts show I was considerably less safe in the truck than if I were driving, say, a Honda Civic or something — in the real, practical terms of how likely I am to be killed or seriously injured in a crash.

The primary error of North American auto safety regulation is the almost singleminded focus on crashworthiness: Assuming a catastrophic crash is going to happen and designing the car as a crash cell, with relatively very little attention paid to crash avoidance. The safest, lowest-cost crash is the one that doesn't happen, but the American regulatory structure requires cost-benefit justification for every mandatory provision of every safety standard, and it is mathematically impossible to determine the cost of a crash that does not happen (means dividing by a zero, a mathematical impossibility). One can estimate or project such a cost, but the law requires calculation, so regulations based on risk analysis of projected cost savings are not allowed, so we're heavy on crashworthiness regs and lax on crash avoidance.

Crashworthiness engineering is important, of course, but other countries with a more balanced approach that includes more emphasis on crash avoidance have better highway safety stats than ours, per vehicle distance travelled and per vehicle registered. And they do it while getting between double and triple the overall vehicle on-road-fleet fuel economy.

Back to the question of vehicle size/mass vs. safety (and the study linked in this post): The safety hazards presented by pickup trucks to their occupants are largely because trucks have a high centre of gravity and are therefore tippy. The hazards trucks present to others are due primarily to mass and rigidity combined with poor maneuvrability.

What other factors can we look at and exclude? Well, how about the testosterone effect, showoffs doing dumb things in their trucks that cause crashes? These data don't support it (but neither do they refute it, specifically) as a cause of trucks' greater risk. Take another look at the chart: pickup trucks are outliers on the Y axis (high risk primarily to others), while sports cars with a known-high testosterone factor are outliers on the X axis (high risk primarily to their occupants). Trucks' risk to their occupants is right between that of compact and subcompact cars.

That said, if you take a look at pp. 13-14, there's an interesting comparison of the Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. These two cars are identical except for minor trim and decorative elements. Virtually all police cars are Crown Vics, and virtually all Grand Marquis buyers are grandmas and grandpas. Police duty serves as a workable proxy for the kinds of risky driving attributable to testosterone poisoning; look at its effect—it pushes the Crown Vic way up the Y axis! So, perhaps thoughtless behaviour behind the wheel does influence the real safety performance of trucks.

You begin to see how complex this all is…?
 
Cool,thanks for taking the time and explaining that to me,complex;yes? But I had no trouble understanding it. There was never a doubt in my mind that newer cars are safer than older cars. But I never knew that a 60's model unibody car would be safer than its 50's model full frame equal.Thanks again for the lesson:thumbrig:
 
That said, if you take a look at pp. 13-14, there's an interesting comparison of the Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis. These two cars are identical except for minor trim and decorative elements. Virtually all police cars are Crown Vics, and virtually all Grand Marquis buyers are grandmas and grandpas. Police duty serves as a workable proxy for the kinds of risky driving attributable to testosterone poisoning; look at its effect—it pushes the Crown Vic way up the Y axis! So, perhaps thoughtless behaviour behind the wheel does influence the real safety performance of trucks.

You begin to see how complex this all is…?
I use to work on cop cars.And you are correct on the similarities but they are different, driveshaft is aluminum ,computer are different,cop cars come only with steel rims,suspension and sway bars are HD.
Most cop cars have cages in them,which would seem to be safer in side collisions.Rear end on Crown Vic Police cars are strapped with rubber covering the shackles due to gas tank explosions from being rear ended.
I rather be in a cop car than a gran marquis....
Which did they say was safer the gran marquis due to the older generation of careful drivers as opposed to the rookie cop with a chip on his shoulder?
 
I'd always figured the biggest difference between old cars any new was survivability. I've heard dozens upon dozens of stories of rear endings, Fender benders, and the like where enormous damage was inflicted on the new car by the old car, where the old car just suffered very minor damage.

But I've also seen the leftovers of high speed wrecks involving old cars where you see the bodies fully separated from the frames, roofs caved in to below the steering wheel, fires, and utterly destroyed passenger compartments, the likes of which you don't see with newer cars.

Really, the way I figure it, An older car is what you wanna be driving if you get in a wreck that wouldn't be likely to result in death in the first place. A fender-bender, getting rear-ended, rear-ending someone else, anything under about 35-40 really . However, if I'm cruising the interstate and I lose a tire in the rain at 70mph, and I end up skidding to a stop nose-to-nose with oncoming traffic, I'd feel much safer in something actually DESIGNED to save your *** from that situation. (If that sounds a little specific it's because that's happened to me.)
 
The roads will never be safe, as a matter of fact life is NEVER safe, so with that being said. You could never leave your house and still die. You take a risk going down stairs to get coffee and have breakfast. You could trip and fall to your death. You can design the safest things in the world but the risk is in the use of the things. Cars are just tools to the everday person, a means from getting from A to B. I won't deny that cars designs are safer, but that is only because people are in a hurry, rude, imprudent and self centered. Back when our A-Bodies wer new people were still bad drivers just not as bad as they are today. My Dad said that ever since he got his license in 1962 (In a Valiant Signet) that he's noticed the amount of courtesy and repect drivers have for one another has dramatically decreased. IMHO, it is not the cars, it is the people. Let's face it, cars have changed in relatively few ways (ie fuel injection, crumple zones, radial tires, computers). We are not in cars like on the Jetsons. Even still they had crashes on the cartoon.
 
I won't deny that cars designs are safer, but that is only because people are in a hurry, rude, imprudent and self centered.

No, it's because every type of engineering has evolved based on more and more knowledge, better and better tools.

Back when our A-Bodies wer new people were still bad drivers just not as bad as they are today.

Disagree. Today's drivers are differently bad than yesterday's, is about all. Drunken driving was laughed off, nobody wore seatbelts, and carbon monoxide levels in any kind of dense traffic area were so high that everyone was operating while impaired.

cars have changed in relatively few ways

That is not a supportable statement unless you're pointing out the obvious fact that they're still metal boxes on four wheels, usually powered by a gasoline or diesel engine. Other than that, virtually everything in terms of technology and technique has changed, and if you make the comparison from the relevant angle (actual safety performance) then today's cars might as well be Jetsons items -- they are that different and that much better than yesterday's.

No amount of talespinning or handwaving makes yesterday's cars anywhere near as safe as today's, in any kind of crash. They just plain aren't. Not in the real world.
 
Originally Posted by 70DartSedan
I won't deny that cars designs are safer, but that is only because people are in a hurry, rude, imprudent and self centered.

Actually Dan,70Dartsedan is right. People have changed drastically since the 50-60's. Society used to care for thier sick,elderly nieghbours. Very few do this now,simply because they are more self centered,too busy thanks to both parents having to work or simply dont give a crap about anything but themselves.People have been desensitized to suffering thanks to seeing waaaaay too much via the media. I also feel the loss of religion has caused many folks to change thier morality,to the point where thier morals only suit thier personal needs and nothing else.New generations are drastically different from when I was raised.

I also feel that folks KNOW thier cars are safer,handle better and take more risks based upon those facts than they did when our A bodies were new. After all back then folks also knew they would definitely be injured in a crash,and the cars were less capable of avoiding a crash so folks drove according to thier cars abilities.
 
I also feel that folks KNOW thier cars are safer,handle better and take more risks based upon those facts than they did when our A bodies were new. After all back then folks also knew they would definitely be injured in a crash,and the cars were less capable of avoiding a crash so folks drove according to thier cars abilities.

Definitely agree with this. New cars are being advertised as baloon-filled cocoons that will "ensure" your survival. Add that to the lax driving tests that dont even require that a new driver "locks them up" from 60mph to at least have an inkling of what to do in a real-world situation. Just watch the phone-totin, SUV driving, invincibles out there, who have no idea what car control is, or even how to back-up properly. It's sad.

Grant
 
[/QUOTE]
Actually Dan,70Dartsedan is right. People have changed drastically since the 50-60's. Society used to care for thier sick,elderly nieghbours. Very few do this now,simply because they are more self centered,too busy thanks to both parents having to work or simply dont give a crap about anything but themselves.People have been desensitized to suffering thanks to seeing waaaaay too much via the media. I also feel the loss of religion has caused many folks to change thier morality,to the point where thier morals only suit thier personal needs and nothing else.New generations are drastically different from when I was raised.

I also feel that folks KNOW thier cars are safer,handle better and take more risks based upon those facts than they did when our A bodies were new. After all back then folks also knew they would definitely be injured in a crash,and the cars were less capable of avoiding a crash so folks drove according to thier cars abilities.[/QUOTE]

That is the thing, you go to your local Wal-mart and you just walk up to any random person and wish them "Merry Christmas" they will either reply Merry Christmas back or they will give you a wierd look. Either way it would be awkward. It would not be so way back when.

No, it's because every type of engineering has evolved based on more and more knowledge, better and better tools.

I never said that it wasn't.

Disagree. Today's drivers are differently bad than yesterday's, is about all. Drunken driving was laughed off, nobody wore seatbelts, and carbon monoxide levels in any kind of dense traffic area were so high that everyone was operating while impaired.

Yeah, even so people these days will tailgate like you won't believe. Also they won't even be so nice as to wait 5 seconds to let someone in from a driveway. Last time I checked I'm the only one I;ve seen that waits until the lights at a RR crossing have stopped and the gate goes up (like you should)

That is not a supportable statement unless you're pointing out the obvious fact that they're still metal boxes on four wheels, usually powered by a gasoline or diesel engine. Other than that, virtually everything in terms of technology and technique has changed, and if you make the comparison from the relevant angle (actual safety performance) then today's cars might as well be Jetsons items -- they are that different and that much better than yesterday's.

They are, according to Bill Gates, if cars were computers they'd do everything, and they'd be super cheap. As the technology get's BETTER it gets CHEAPER, so why are cars more expensive today than before (that's another subject). Again, I wasn't denying that cars are safer. Infact, I've noticed that with the last ten years cars are DRAMATICALLY safer. I know crumple zones, air bags, better seat belts, door bars, overall purpose-built construction, and countless other things. Something that is undeniable, is MOPAR was onto something with unibodies, if they were not SAFER than cars of the ERA then why is it that almost ALL cars have this body construction?

No amount of talespinning or handwaving makes yesterday's cars anywhere near as safe as today's, in any kind of crash. They just plain aren't. Not in the real world.


If you are driving an old car it is not PRIMARILY because of safety. Personally I like the simplicity and ease of DIY. I also like the looks and the unrestricted engine performance. As long as I am a safe driver and I have a well maintained vehicle I should very likely never crash. and don't start on "unpredictable circumstances" those factors are just there, that's why they're unpredicatble factors.
 
I keep hearing about how "safe" new cars are and I saw a crash test of a 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs. a new Chevy Malibu.

I just have a real hard time believing that a Chrysler Newport isn't as safe as a Scion xB. What would you rather get T-Boned in? I'm picking the Newport.

The issue in the crash tests is survivability. The test answers the question, here's what happens when you get hit in prescribed manner by a "known" object. In the test mentioned, the two vehicles are close to the same weight.

In the Newport/Scion example, the Newport is about 1500 lbs heavier. I'd probably choose a 68 or later Newport over the Scion for that reason

Safety involves much more than just survivabilty as others have stated. Collision avoidance factors of the car and driver are far more important components in the safety equation. A /6 maintained properly and operated in a prudent manner can actually be safer than any other vehicle being operated recklessly by a distracted madman.
 
Dan,

C'mon. Carbon monoxide levels made people "impaired"?

If you feel that way, why do you drive a slant 6? It should be banned.

Also....... "No amount of talespinning or handwaving makes yesterday's cars anywhere near as safe as today's, in any kind of crash. They just plain aren't. Not in the real world."

Any kind of crash? Really? Dan....

You may be aware of the engineering, but have you ever been a first responder at auto crashes? REAL world? Puh-lease.

You want to make this a left wing/right wing Al Goreish Political thread then fine I'll move the whole lot to the Political forum. State your case, no need to get personal.
 
Dan,

C'mon. Carbon monoxide levels made people "impaired"?

If you feel that way, why do you drive a slant 6? It should be banned.

Also....... "No amount of talespinning or handwaving makes yesterday's cars anywhere near as safe as today's, in any kind of crash. They just plain aren't. Not in the real world."

Any kind of crash? Really? Dan....

You may be aware of the engineering, but have you ever been a first responder at auto crashes? REAL world? Puh-lease.

I agree fully! I was thinking the same things about those responses to my comments. What is this fumes crap. CO may be reduced by the cat but once it's out of the tail pipe, the car may as well not have one. Close the vent on your car, it helps.

And, it's not talespinning, or handwaving, to rip on old cars it's blowing smoke up ppls arses, quit it. Go buy a Prius if you haven't already then if you hate old cars. Be like my neighbors: 1971 Olds 442 the next day a Prius the same color.
 
A Prius is killing the planet far faster than your old hotrod. The pollution created just making the batteries for a prius is more than your hotrod is gonna make in your entire lifespan.

Stupid prius..
 
No, it's because every type of engineering has evolved based on more and more knowledge, better and better tools.



Disagree. Today's drivers are differently bad than yesterday's, is about all. Drunken driving was laughed off, nobody wore seatbelts, and carbon monoxide levels in any kind of dense traffic area were so high that everyone was operating while impaired.



That is not a supportable statement unless you're pointing out the obvious fact that they're still metal boxes on four wheels, usually powered by a gasoline or diesel engine. Other than that, virtually everything in terms of technology and technique has changed, and if you make the comparison from the relevant angle (actual safety performance) then today's cars might as well be Jetsons items -- they are that different and that much better than yesterday's.

No amount of talespinning or handwaving makes yesterday's cars anywhere near as safe as today's, in any kind of crash. They just plain aren't. Not in the real world.

Gotta agree- yesterdays cars and todays cars in most comparisons are an apples-to-kiwis comparison. Not that the old A-bodies are rolling death traps (hey nice '66 Mustang- is that the gas tank top that is serving as your trunk floor? WTH?), they were quite well designed for their era...okay, I am not a fan of some of the electrical system 'ideas' they used, but it is easy to remedy.
If you don't believe me (or Dan), look at the deaths per miles driven figures for whatever year you choose and today's data. It's impartial and it definitely shows remarkable improvements.
 
Quick note on the enviro-crap:

There was a thing in Hot Rod that said, if you find a good clean old car and drive it in lieu of ordering a Prius and driving it you will be, miles, and dollars ahead of the eco-freak. You crush an old car and melt it into a new car, said old loses all its value it HAD and COULD have. It takes electricity or some form of making heat to melt the car, it takes diesel to run the loader, the train, the shredder, the crusher, and the people running it gotta get paid. Then the plastic and trim doesn't come out of thin air, they gotta be manufactured in a similar "energy consuming" process. So the little A-body sedan with a 225 is putting along on the highway putting out X amount of pollutants, and then eco-freak is waiting a week or two for a factory order, the pollution caused by a new car is contributing to the problem they claim to be helping to "fix". So while the pollution of manufacturing the Dart Sedan happened it has been fixed, and is null. While the Prius puts out X pollutants aswell, arguably in less tailpipe emissions, it causes the same, if not more air pollution than the Dart.

The Dart is obviously a basic car and requires only conventional maintenance, the Prius requires batterys every 4-5 years which adds $3000-$5000 to the bill, and no these are not pollution free smart batteries as they want you to think, it's a bigger version of what sits in the front of the engine compartments of all our Mopars. Then the electric motor maintenance. It is more environmental responsible to drive an old car. It is not sitting around leaking oil into the ground, and tainting water with antifreeze, or causing an eye-sore. We, brothers (and sisters) driving the Mopars of the past are the TRUE environmentalists (who actaully do something other than complain).
That's right, each old car saved from the crusher, or pulled out of the woods-field, or started up after 15 years is the greatest act of recycling, no, not condemning and ripping on old cars.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On topic:

Well, you know, why even debate the safety of an old car. If you had 10,000 ppl, all of whom smoked, according to the "all powerful" gov't they'd all be dead from that before they got into a fatal car crash. The only reason they don't raise cain about smoking is becuase your not taxed according to the miles you drive (yet) but you are taxed by how many packs you buy.
 
If you don't believe me (or Dan), look at the deaths per miles driven figures for whatever year you choose and today's data. It's impartial and it definitely shows remarkable improvements.

Umm........ Many, many, many, many more drivers today WEAR A SEATBELT. In fact, a lot of places have seatbelt laws.
Fewer fatalities just because of the cars? Or because of more people being belted in? ......Kinda blows up your argument.

I don't buy into the argument that ALL newer cars are safer than ALL older cars...

Example: a driver in the proper seated position wearing a seatbelt -
1974 Imperial vs 1998 Neon - a rollover accident, I would rather be in the Imperial.
 
Umm........

Example: a driver in the proper seated position wearing a seatbelt -
1974 Imperial vs 1998 Neon - a rollover accident, I would rather be in the Imperial.
I would rather be in the neon since it is more rounded and would roll more times !!!
lol
It would be more fun
 
...each old car saved from the crusher, or pulled out of the woods-field, or started up after 15 years is the greatest act of recycling...
Amen. That's really is looking at the big picture.
Fixing what you already have is a lot better than trashing it all and replacing it with something new. If you don't throw it away, you don't have to replace it.
Go back a couple of generations when they had to conserve just to survive instead of it just being a 'good thing to do', and you'll see what it really means to be a 'friend of the earth'.
It was also smart, because in the end you 'tread lighter on the earth". Isn't that what environmentalism is all about?
 
One of the safest types of cars are mid 70's fullsize luxory barges.

Agree. For a time, maybe 1973 to 1978, new cars had to pass a higher impact standard - 15 mph into a solid wall w/ no damage, I recall. They did this by making the front bumper supports serve as impact absorbers. That is why they look ugly with the extended front bumper, but it worked. The main reason was to decrease growing repair costs, plus increased safety. That only helps if you run into something (idiot driver). The Pinto was good for that, but not for rear impacts (other idiots). The law was dropped. Many opinions on why - lobbying by manufacturers and/or body shops.

New cars have done a lot to design-in crumple zones for front and rear impact, but have done little for side impacts. I would much rather be in my 65 Newport 4 door in a side collision (have been) than a new car with thin doors. They did add a side brace and side air bags to the latest cars, but minor help. There is a reason that demolition derby drivers like the Chrysler C-bodies.

What injures or kills passengers is - deceleration, protrusion of objects like the steering shaft, and impact with the interior. Crumple zones and absorbers decrease the acceleration, but being in a massive vehicle is best for impacts with other vehicles. However, we can't all drive dump trucks. The protrusion issue was helped by collapsible steering columns (~1968?) and transverse engines. Impacting the interior was helped by padded dashes and softer steering wheels, however that is an issue only if the driver is too stupid to wear seat and shoulder belts.
 
Agree. For a time, maybe 1973 to 1978, new cars had to pass a higher impact standard - 15 mph into a solid wall w/ no damage, I recall. They did this by making the front bumper supports serve as impact absorbers. That is why they look ugly with the extended front bumper, but it worked. The main reason was to decrease growing repair costs, plus increased safety. That only helps if you run into something (idiot driver). The Pinto was good for that, but not for rear impacts (other idiots). The law was dropped. Many opinions on why - lobbying by manufacturers and/or body shops.

New cars have done a lot to design-in crumple zones for front and rear impact, but have done little for side impacts. I would much rather be in my 65 Newport 4 door in a side collision (have been) than a new car with thin doors. They did add a side brace and side air bags to the latest cars, but minor help. There is a reason that demolition derby drivers like the Chrysler C-bodies.

What injures or kills passengers is - deceleration, protrusion of objects like the steering shaft, and impact with the interior. Crumple zones and absorbers decrease the acceleration, but being in a massive vehicle is best for impacts with other vehicles. However, we can't all drive dump trucks. The protrusion issue was helped by collapsible steering columns (~1968?) and transverse engines. Impacting the interior was helped by padded dashes and softer steering wheels, however that is an issue only if the driver is too stupid to wear seat and shoulder belts.

Work in a body shop and you will quickly realize that little of this is accurate.
 
Umm........ Many, many, many, many more drivers today WEAR A SEATBELT. In fact, a lot of places have seatbelt laws.
Fewer fatalities just because of the cars? Or because of more people being belted in? ......Kinda blows up your argument.

I don't buy into the argument that ALL newer cars are safer than ALL older cars...

Example: a driver in the proper seated position wearing a seatbelt -
1974 Imperial vs 1998 Neon - a rollover accident, I would rather be in the Imperial.

Never said 'all'- statement was a generalization, just like the overall figures given in fatalities per miles driven. 30 MPH offset frontal crash, I would rather be it a '69 Newport as opposed to a '92 Metro. No sh@t. But my '69 Valiant versus my '99 Regal in the same crash? Buick, everytime.
That is not to say I feel unsafe in my old Valiant or Gran Fury, I don't. But knowledge, safety, et al does move forward and IN GENERAL the cars of today are more survivable in collisions.
 
A Prius is killing the planet far faster than your old hotrod. The pollution created just making the batteries for a prius is more than your hotrod is gonna make in your entire lifespan.

Stupid prius..

You and 70Dart are correct- a Prius does far more environmental damage dure to all the 'non-standard' production procedures and materials contained within. Modern vehicles tailpipe emissions yearly equates to a few MICROgrams. And for every mile you go over 100K, the environment impact rolls back on the manufacturing equity of said vehicle. Only idiots buy into the notion that the emissions only come from the tailpipe. The manufacturing figures into over half the pollution impact each vehicle creates.
I finally junked my '89 Turbo Caravan-after stripping all the usable parts (like later suspension, Koni struts, T3 turbo, etc.) and putting them on a buddy's Caravan- after over 300K on the odometer
 
Caravans arent bad at all. Fairly reliable. The 00 I have has 224 000 km's on the dial and the 3.8 runs very well. A bit more noise from fuel inj and rocker rattle on start up,but that can be fixed.It still runs and drives very well. The only real complaint I have is the AC system. It just plain sucks,or the mechs suck or both! Stupid AC...
 
A few things: Those were 5 MPH bumpers in the 70s allegedly to control costs of parking lot accidents. Later found to cause a higher cost in repairs, not lower. Well documented in the magazines of the day. There was no 15 MPH crash standard.

The Pinto, statistically, was no more prone to exploding in rear end collisions than Vegas, Dodge Colts, Gremlins or other sub compact cars of the period. Also well documented. And entered into evidence in some of the Pinto trials.

The 09 Malibu/59 Impala crash "test" was sheer show business. One can look at that and say, "Well, DUH !"Funny that Impala went 50 years without ever getting into an accident of that sort and millions of other cars drove billions of miles with their passengers unbelted, airbagged, ABSed etc etc etc. An entire generation was raised in cars just such as that 59 Impala and the public did survive. Many of the people on this forum, I would suspect were ferried to baseball practice, the scouts, school, cross country trips and all the common trips cars do on a daily basis. And are still here to tell the tale.

But that's not the point: we can't compare our standards today with those of 50 years ago because an 09 Malibu is not the same thing as a 59 Impala. The world has changed.

Why didn't they crash a 59 Impala into a 1909 model ? Well the result would be obvious. That would be stupid. We already know the result. Yes. Like we did before these fools did the carnival stunt with the 2009 and 1959 Chevrolets.

Fatalities were going down every year from the 1920s on, cars were evolving on the safety front for decades, because of improvements to tires, brakes, construction, etc. The cars of the 60s were considered light years away from products even 25 years prior. It is foolish taking them out of the context of their time and place in automotive history and blasting them as "death traps" today. That's what makes the comparisons dubious. Not apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

They were the best that was available in their time [notwithstanding the European makes, but 8-10% of the market in 1959 was not significant enough to prompt manufacturers to change their designs because of consumer demands.]

I have never felt unsafe in my 63 Valiant. I have seat belts in it and know the limitations of it's non power [and slow] steering and it's drum brakes. It takes a conscious effort to engage in the driving of it. I also know it wouldn't do well in an accident with a later model car. It's a hardtop and structurally as willowy as a convertible. It wasn't built with door guard beams, crush zones, air bags or padded surfaces.

Given the AAA stat that claims that nearly 60% of driving fatalities can be attributed to the driver and passengers being too stupid to put their seat belts on, it also makes clear that even the most "idiot proof" of modern vehicles can't protect the ignorant.

And also: please, lets call stop calling it distracted driving when someone is texting talking or eating while trying to drive. Driving IS multitasking. Being "distracted" is a sneeze or looking in your mirror at the wrong time. Preoccupied is engaging in another activity totally unrelated to the piloting of a motor vehicle.

I am not suggesting we go back to the beltless days of the 50s and sixties and single belted bias ply tires, but would like to suggest that it's still the "nut behind the wheel" that will never be engineered out of the passive safety question.

For instance: I went from my Valiant to an 84 Citation, then an 86 Olds Calais which had all the safety equipment available at the time. Then I went to a new 99 Cavalier [with poor crash tests in the lab I later found out] with ABS, air bags, traction control, disc brakes, power steering etc. By what factor was I "safer" than in the X and N Body products ?By what percentage ?

It was totalled in a rear end accident where I was in a left hand turn lane, at a red arrow fully stopped when some fool in a BMW rear ended me.

Replacement was an 05 Saturn ION without ABS and traction control mediocre side crash ratings and 5 star front. How much less safe am I now ? NHTSA changed it's testing rules last year. Now how much "less safe am I simply because they changed their testing parameters? By a factor of what ? Am I less "safe" in the ION than I was in the Cavalier ? Or more safe ?

What if I travel outside the weight class under which these crash tests are conducted ? Ot in inclement weather with bigger and smaller cars on the road and an ever changing split second by split second combination of speed, weather, road surfaces, mix of vehicles in the traffic and x factor by x factor by x factor ?

Point being: life is a crap shoot and one cannot live it playing "what if" all the time.

I do know that my life would be less full, provide less enjoyment and be far less interesting without being able to own and drive my 63 Valiant. It's worth the risk to me.

It's been worth it to make room in my budget to keep and maintain it for the past 30 years. It provides me with pleasure and happiness and great memories everytime I drive it.

And it's never been involved in a side show stunt like the IIHS performed with that 59 Impala. The majority of cars of that era weren't and never were.

Just my 2c. Life is way too short to stand on the sidelines and wring your hands worrying about something that may or may not happen. Sorry to have gone on like that but you can't protect yourself from every unfortunate thing that might happen and trying to do anything but make your best call short of confining yourself to a padded cell is all you can really do.

Best of the holidays to everyone.
 
A few things: Those were 5 MPH bumpers in the 70s allegedly to control costs of parking lot accidents. Later found to cause a higher cost in repairs, not lower. Well documented in the magazines of the day. There was no 15 MPH crash standard.

The Pinto, statistically, was no more prone to exploding in rear end collisions than Vegas, Dodge Colts, Gremlins or other sub compact cars of the period. Also well documented. And entered into evidence in some of the Pinto trials.

The 09 Malibu/59 Impala crash "test" was sheer show business. One can look at that and say, "Well, DUH !"Funny that Impala went 50 years without ever getting into an accident of that sort and millions of other cars drove billions of miles with their passengers unbelted, airbagged, ABSed etc etc etc. An entire generation was raised in cars just such as that 59 Impala and the public did survive.

But that's not the point: we can't compare our standards today with those of 50 years ago because an 09 Malibu is not the same thing as a 59 Impala. The world has changed.

Why didn't they crash a 59 Impala into a 1909 model ? Well the result would be obvious. That would be stupid we already know the result. Yes. Like we did before these fools did the carnival stunt with the Chevrolets.

Fatalities were going down every year from the 1920s on, cars were evolving on the safety front for decades, because of improvements to tires, brakes, construction, etc. The cars of the 60s were considered light years away from products even 25 years prior. It is taking them out of the context of their time and place in automotive history and blasting them as "death traps" today. That's what makes the comparisons dubious. Not apples and oranges.

They were the best that was available in their time [notwithstanding the European makes, but 8-10% of the market in 1959 was not significant enough to prompt manufacturers to change their designs because of consumer demands.]

I have never felt unsafe in my 63 Valiant. I have seat belts in it and know the limitations of it's non power [and slow] steering and it's drum brakes. It takes a concious effort to engage in the driving of it. I also know it wouldn't do well in an accident with a later model car. It's a hardtop and structurally as willowy as a convertible. It wasn't built with door guard beams, crush zones, air bags or padded surfaces.

Given the AAA stat that claims that nearly 60% of driving fatalities can be attributed to the driver and passengers being too stupid to put their seat belts on, it also makes clear that even the most "idiot proof" of modern vehicles can't protect the ignorant.

And also: please, lets call stop calling it distracted driving when someone is texting talking or eating while trying to drive. Driving IS multitasking. Being "distracted" is a sneeze or looking in your mirror at the wrong time. Preoccupied is engaging in another activity totally unrelated to the piloting of a motor vehicle.

I am not suggesting we go back to the beltless days of the 50s and sixties and single belted bias ply tires, but would like to suggest that it's still the "nut behind the wheel" that will never engineered out of the passive safety question.

For instance: I went from my Valiant to an 84 Citation, then an 86 Olds Calais which had all the safety equipment available at the time. Then I went to a new 99 Cavalier [with poor crash tests in the lab I later found out] with ABS, air bags, traction control, disc brakes, power steering etc. By what factor was I "safer" than in the X and N Body products ?By what percentage ?

It was totalled in a rear end accident where I was in a left hand turn lane, at a red arrow fully stopped when some fool in a BMW rear ended me.

Replacement was an 05 Saturn ION without ABS and traction control mediocre side crash ratings and 5 star front. How much less safe am I now ? NHTSA changed it's testing rules last year. Now how much "less safe am I simply because they changed their testing parameters? By a factor of what ? Am I less "safe" in the ION than I was in the Cavalier ? Or more safe ?

What if I travel outside the weight class under which these crash tests are conducted ? Ot in inclement weather with bigger and smaller cars on the road and an ever changing split second by split second combination of speed, weather, road surfaces, mix of vehicles in the traffic and x factor by x factor by x factor ?

Point being: life is a crap shoot and one cannot live it playing "what if" all the time.

I do know that my life would be less full, provide less enjoyment and be far less interesting without being able to own and drive my 63 Valiant. It's worth the risk to me.

It's been worth it to make room in my budget to keep and maintain it for the past 30 years. It provides me with pleasure and happiness and great memories everytime I drive it.

And it's never been involved in a side show stunt like the IIHS performed with that 59 Impala. The majority of cars of that era weren't and never were.

Just my 2c. Life is way to short to stand on the sidelines and wring your hands worrying about something that may or may not happen. Sorry to have gone on like that but you can't protect yourself from every unfortunate thing that might happen and trying to do anything but make your best call short of confining yourself to a padded cell is all you can really do.

Best of the holidays to everyone.

Finally someone whos smarter than all of us! Duh, it's a publicity stunt, and if you fall for the crap Chebby puts out you deserve to drive one.
 
-
Back
Top