|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:33:29 GMT
|
Thanks Amazo, can have another beer now I'm soberer!
This is something I do think about having a young family myself, but I've also a man love for the retro. Drive a Scim most days and just bought a Crapi 2.8 special for the days in between. Her indoors needed new wheels a while back so I picked up a '87 420sel for her and the nipper to run about in as this satisfies 'The Urge' and hopefully would stand up ok if the worst happened. Accidents like the one above really are worst case, I would of thought a good dunt up the 4Rse is more likely day to day.
A video like this that sticks in my mind, was of a mk3 Escort in a row of more moderns getting hit from behind and it virtually disappearing, very scary!
Al
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:37:18 GMT
|
Yeah,car looks rotten.if you look at one of the shots on the opposite end to the crash (o/s ) as the wings ripping away the amount of rust coming out is chronic.
Granted,modern cars are far more safety conscious than older ones with crumple zones,safety cages etc but I think the test in the vid is a tad biased.
|
|
|
|
will
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,023
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:37:47 GMT
|
Ahem, ain't that retro in the vid an Impala?
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,784
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:38:07 GMT
|
pointless thread. youre not gunna get (m)any people on here jumping up and down in horror and selling their classics cos they're 'unsafe' and people die from crashing them. just as many people die from crashing new cars as old ones, decceleration trauma doesnt know how old your car is. for example, I drive the cars I do because they're not bristling with airbags, safelty belts, anti-accident guideance systems, and brakes, steering and suspension that 'know better' than I do. I like to drive a car, not pilot it. additionally there's so such thing as an unsafe car (how can an inanimate object be unsafe?), only unsafe drivers. modern cars are simply designed to be better equipped to protect the mobile phone using, coffee dringing, radio fiddling, makeup applying, babysitting retards that are busy crashing them into things cos they're too busy not paying attention to the task in hand. I preferred it when cars were dangerous, I think more than a few of these modern day 'drivers' might pay more attention next time they get in a car if when they got it wrong the get hit in the head with a steering wheel rather than an airbag. if not, we may as just leave it down to darwinism to thin them out. oh and will, a bel air is an impala with less trim in 58-60 the basic model range was 210, bel-air and impala, in order of trim spec.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 29, 2010 23:41:00 GMT by Dez
|
|
ThePollitt
Posted a lot
Fix up, look... at that car on eBay!
Posts: 4,696
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:45:38 GMT
|
I preferred it when cars were dangerous. In 50 years though, they might say that about our current cars. It's all relative. I do agree with your post though. The only problem with driving an old car these days is every other car, and the 'pilots' that you've described. Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:45:51 GMT
|
Based on this video, "the logical thing to do" would be to ban all motorcycles too. Because if you can get hurt "that bad" in a big Chev, then think "how much worse" it would be on a bike.
Gosh, if we can "just save one life".
Likewise, let us ban all mountain climbing, skydiving, bullfighting, scuba diving, race car driving, and............ "imagine all the people living life in pea-ea-ea-ce"
You may say I'm a dreamer......
;D
....but I'm not the only o-oo-one....
|
|
Team Blitz Ford Capri parts worldwide: Restoration, Road, or Race. Used, Repro, and NOS, ranging from scabby to perfect. Itching your Capri jones since 1979! Buy, sell, trade. www.teamblitz.com blitz@teamblitz.com
|
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:45:52 GMT
|
Urm, and the point of a ÂŁ250,000 dummy is to look pretty? Of course there is a way to know. Every advance (including the grim period in the 50s and 60s when they used cadavers) in vehicle safety goes hand in hand with every advance in crash test dummy technology. Chris I'm saying theres no way for me to know. Not the people testing it! I.e theres no way to know from looking at the vid if he would have lived or died . Here's some more info I've gleaned: www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4409.pdfAnd I grabbed these images from the PDF file:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:46:09 GMT
|
road deaths have fallen 78 % in 40 years, doesn't matter how good a driver you are there are many other factors involved,but the figures don't lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2010 23:47:37 GMT
|
it seems obvious to me the 2009 chevy malibu needs banning
its dangerous to REAL cars
|
|
Someone just shot the elephant in the room.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote from the NY Times article. don't shoot the messenger. "David Zuby, the senior vice president at the institute’s crash-test center in Virginia. He explained that when the institute went looking for a 1959 Bel Air to crash-test there was one thing the organization didn’t want and some things it did. “We didn’t want to crash a museum piece,” Mr. Zuby said. “We were not looking for one that had been restored for museum or show quality.” But the vehicle had to have a solid structure, although a little surface rust would be acceptable. They found what they wanted in Indiana. “The frame was sound and all the body panels were sound,” he said. It had a 3.9-liter 6-cylinder engine and was in driving condition. The car was bought for about $8,500 and had about 74,000 miles on the odometer, which was broken. It was trucked to the test center in Virginia. Mr. Zuby said the cloud that shows in the crash video wasn’t rust. “Most of that is road dirt that accumulates in nooks and crannies that you can’t get it,” he said."I disagree; it started a discussion. My point wasn't to scare the curse word out of people, it was to start a discussion amongst more enlightened car fans than the ones that frequent some forums. you can stop being defensive, that wasn't what I was trying to accomplish. Well, excuse me for posting an intelligent thread. Beats two pages of 'Oh, I forgot to put antifreeze in my car even though Winter turned up at the same time it has done for about the last 20,000 years'.
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 30, 2010 0:08:40 GMT by e21meister
|
|
|
will
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,023
|
|
|
Thanks dez, I haz been edumacated As for the topic at hand I feel my kids are safe enough in the Cortina. They could be riding pillion on the Honda or in chair of my Ural outfit or on their QR50 winging round the trail park after all.
|
|
|
|
skinnylew
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 5,606
Club RR Member Number: 11
|
|
|
The fault really lies with the drivers of modern euroboxes. They drive around not knowing how to avoid accidents (oversteer/understeer all greek to them!) safe in the knowledge that a gazillion airbags and pretensioned seat belts will go off and prevent serious injury. Therefore they potentially take things for granted. The driver of an older car knows full well that their car is old, has less safety features and less structural integrity. And drive accordingly. When was the last time a retro car was being driven inches from your bumper at 90mph on the outside lane of a motorway? How about the last time a 'new' BMW was Drivers of older cars are (the majority of) car enthusiasts who care about their vehicles and avoid undue risk.
|
|
|
|
will
Posted a lot
Posts: 4,023
|
|
|
True that. Compulsory year on underpowered motorbike/ped should teach all about vulnerability on the road. Let's face it, we don't want everybody driving a retro as it would make ours less special
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe these days people with older cars know that they are less safe than modern vehicles, but when they were built you still had the same clueless muppets such as ourselves driving them.
I don't think 'I'm just going to forget to check my blind spot properly because I'm in a car with a 5star NCAP rating'. I do however like the fact that should i not check the blindspot properly, worst comes to worst I am likely to escape with bruises and a sore neck rather than pieces of my body scattered down the motorway.
|
|
1997 TVR Chimaera 2009 Westfield Megabusa
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rather die in a Bel Air than die in that hideous Malibu.
Thought the furry dice on the mirror was a nice touch!
|
|
Last Edit: Nov 30, 2010 1:33:33 GMT by DavidB
|
|
|
|
|
It all comes down to this - classics are not as safe as moderns, but are a heck of a lot more fun ;D
|
|
1993 Fiat Panda Selecta 2003 Vauxhall Combo 1.7DI van 2006 Mercedes Kompressor Evolution-S AMG SportCoupé
"You think you hate it now, wait til you drive it"
|
|
|
|
|
I was watching one of the many reality filler shows on TV while surfing channels and they had a real life instance of classic versus modern. A Mk 3 Fiesta crossed the road and hit a Type 2 VW camper in the same scenario. Despite airbags , and crumple zones, the driver of the Fiesta died and the driver of the camper 'only' lost a lower leg.
I suspect the height of the camper had a lot to do with it though.
In many ways the older the car the safer it is , not inherently , but that other drivers actually notice it . Having said that a few years back there was a guy driving a De Dion Buton killed on the roads around Goodwood when a woman drove over him from the rear as she "wasn't expecting it to be moving that slow".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I was little I fell backwards off a chair and broke my wrist. I clearly remember the doctor telling my mother that it's how you fall and not distance so you could fall off a house and walk away. Surely the same applies to vehicle accident ? ie the variables means rarely are two the same so in another test the newer car could have come out worse.
Paul H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the new cars on the road are biased towards safety that they have become unsafe not the people in them but to other road users. people go out get a new car and get encap this and safety that thrown at them from the minuet they star inquiring about a car when you add that to fact that most modern car drivers have no interest what so ever in how a car works they just want it to as much of work for them as they can get it to do so they don't have to put any of the effort in . it no wonder that they get the new car and expect it to do 99% of the work . my daily is a 98 Audi A4 its a great car for a long journey and general driving around BUT when I'm in that car the first thing i'll do is put my seat belt on not because its the law but because i don't feel as safe in that car when your driving it it has no real feed back from the road you can be doing 80mph in and think its only about 50mph the steering is very light and has no feel ect . newer cars give even less feedback and the average driver of said car couldn't care less as its just tranport to them and they have been told if they crash they will be fine maybe so but what about where or who they crash into the latest blurb tells them its ok to crash into things the front of the car is pedestrian friendly they know no better
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it difficult to explain why the knowledge that in a bad accident I'll likely end up dead isn't an issue. The emphasis seems to be on keeping oneself safe (and then one's passengers) so driving an old car is apparently inherently dangerous.
Mind you, the same people I have difficulty explaining the above to don't understand why I drive with massive stopping distances and am quite nervous around town (though the latter is probably a lack of driving experience on my part).
|
|
|
|
|