Saw this on AutoBlog today. Check it out.
http://blog.webridestv.com/2009/05/27/weve-come-a-long-way-dummy-1960s-gm-crash-test-video/
omg, that was hilarious.
I don't see what any of that has to do with Unsafe At Any Speed, but LOLOLOL
GM fought tooth-and-nail to prevent federally mandated seat belts in the 1960s. GM executives even went before Congress and testified under oath that passengers were safer being THROWN FROM THEIR CARS than using seat belts!!! They also tried to spread the myth that seat belts would trap people inside their cars in the event of an accident.
Sadly, many people believed these lies. One of them was my father. He adamantly refused to wear a seat belt his entire life, saying that he didn't want to be trapped inside the car or that he'd rather be thrown from the car in the event of an accident. Fortunately, he was never involved in a serious car crash, so he never had to put this hairbrained theory to the test. But what about all the people who died because they were foolish enough to believe these lies and did have a serious crash?
This is one of several reasons why I've tended to avoid GM products (besides the fact that most of their cars over the past 30 years just plain suck!). Any company who has such a blatant disregard for human life won't be getting any of my money!
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Quote from: Madman on May 28, 2009, 10:16:40 PM
GM fought tooth-and-nail to prevent federally mandated seat belts in the 1960s. GM executives even went before Congress and testified under oath that passengers were safer being THROWN FROM THEIR CARS than using seat belts!!! They also tried to spread the myth that seat belts would trap people inside their cars in the event of an accident.
Sadly, many people believed these lies. One of them was my father. He adamantly refused to wear a seat belt his entire life, saying that he didn't want to be trapped inside the car or that he'd rather be thrown from the car in the event of an accident. Fortunately, he was never involved in a serious car crash, so he never had to put this hairbrained theory to the test. But what about all the people who died because they were foolish enough to believe these lies and did have a serious crash?
This is one of several reasons why I've tended to avoid GM products (besides the fact that most of their cars over the past 30 years just plain suck!). Any company who has such a blatant disregard for human life won't be getting any of my money!
Cheers,
Madman of the People
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: 2o6 on May 28, 2009, 10:17:18 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Okay, Mr. Roll Eyes, what part of my post has your panties in a twist? Is it the summary of GM's well-documented 1960s opposition to federal safety requirements in regard to automobiles or is it my reasons as to why I don't generally find GM cars personally appealing to me?
Madman of the People
Wow. A lot of people scoff at crumple zones and airbags and talk about how there's nothing safer than acres of steel in front of you. I'll happily send them this link.
Quote from: Madman on May 28, 2009, 10:16:40 PM
GM fought tooth-and-nail to prevent federally mandated seat belts in the 1960s. GM executives even went before Congress and testified under oath that passengers were safer being THROWN FROM THEIR CARS than using seat belts!!! They also tried to spread the myth that seat belts would trap people inside their cars in the event of an accident.
Sadly, many people believed these lies. One of them was my father. He adamantly refused to wear a seat belt his entire life, saying that he didn't want to be trapped inside the car or that he'd rather be thrown from the car in the event of an accident. Fortunately, he was never involved in a serious car crash, so he never had to put this hairbrained theory to the test. But what about all the people who died because they were foolish enough to believe these lies and did have a serious crash?
This is one of several reasons why I've tended to avoid GM products (besides the fact that most of their cars over the past 30 years just plain suck!). Any company who has such a blatant disregard for human life won't be getting any of my money!
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Interesting thing, though, is that my folks have a 1964 Olds Cutlass F-85 Holiday Coupe that they bought brand new and it has lap belts in the front and back.
Did the feds require belts in '64?
And, saying that "most" of their cars over the last 30 years sucked is a bit harsh. Over the last 30 years they have had many good cars. Some cool ones to boot. Now, if you had said the last 10-15 years I would completely agree.
http://crashtestvideos.magnify.net/video/Chevy-Impala-Ford-LTD-Vs-Ford-P
Quote from: Laconian on May 29, 2009, 12:47:50 AM
Wow. A lot of people scoff at crumple zones and airbags and talk about how there's nothing safer than acres of steel in front of you. I'll happily send them this link.
It depends on what you hit. If you hit a small and light modern car, you get one of those stories where one is totaled and the other drives away. But as the videos show, heaven help you if you hit something just as big.
The actual passenger compartments actually seemed to hold up pretty well.... in the 60's its seems they just didn't know squat about proper seatbealt design (it was a pretty newly developed item) and how to properly bolt down a seat
And yet, there are many cars from that era that are still on the roads today, having never killed or injured anyone.
Active safety, the kind that sits right behind the driver's eyes, is the only important safety feature. And it's the only one that no one really addresses.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 07:41:09 AM
And yet, there are many cars from that era that are still on the roads today, having never killed or injured anyone.
Active safety, the kind that sits right behind the driver's eyes, is the only important safety feature. And it's the only one that no one really addresses.
Obviously if you never get in an accident you won't be hurt in a car. And I agree that the driver is the most important safety feature. But to not think poorly of GM's stances on safety back then is silly. If nothing else, having unsafe cars was bad for business on many levels.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 28, 2009, 10:17:18 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Monkey-in-a-cage crazy.
Those cars held up a lot better than I would have thought; especially look to the higher speed rear end tests toward the end of the video. Also note that the two black cars in the beginning of the video, and featured prominently throughout, are from the
1950s.
To cut on GM or Detroit is disingenuous. Though these cars pale in comparison to the safety of a modern car, Detroit was building not only the best but the safest cars in the world in the '50s and '60s.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 29, 2009, 08:00:48 AM
Obviously if you never get in an accident you won't be hurt in a car. And I agree that the driver is the most important safety feature. But to not think poorly of GM's stances on safety back then is silly. If nothing else, having unsafe cars was bad for business on many levels.
I can't think that way. If you have to have your car save you, you can't drive and need to get off the road. Hell, if cars were noticeably dangerous, people would be a LOT more careful in them, and not drive like morons that think they can't be hurt. ;) And then maybe we'd blame the driver for driving badly, not the car for not saving them.
But it's all part of the victimization of the world. People have to be protected from themselves, 'cause it's not their fault they are stupid and incompetent, and they should never be held responsible for their own actions...
Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 08:26:54 AM
If you have to have your car save you, you can't drive and need to get off the road.
While I can't disagree with the overall message of your post, there are instances where someone gets their car totally destroyed and there was nothing they could have reasonably done to prevent it.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on May 29, 2009, 08:58:51 AM
While I can't disagree with the overall message of your post, there are instances where someone gets their car totally destroyed and there was nothing they could have reasonably done to prevent it.
And they get killed in modern cars with 5 star crash ratings. You can what-if that scenario to death (literally). If there's nothing you can do to prevent it, then there's nothing you can do to prevent it. Worrying about whether your CAR will save you, however, is pointless, as you can die in a modern car just as easily if the conditions are met.
Pay attention to what's around you and you can minimize the effects of an accident in ANY car, including avoiding potential accidents long before they actually become potential accidents, even from stupid people around you.
But we shouldn't mince words about the safety of the modern automobile; it is infinitely safer than cars of 30, 40, or 50 years ago.
Oh, quite true. But really only noticeable if you fail in your primary duty. For me, the brand new cars I've had were exactly as safe as my 30+ year old cars in actual practice. Sure, it's like buying insurance that you hope you'll never use. But the overwhelming mentality about it is that you WILL die or get injured simply by driving the older (or worse rated) car. And that's patently false.
I drove a 1960 Morris Minor last year. It had retrofitted seat belts but even so, I remember thinking, "If somebody hits me in this thing, I'm dead."
Modern cars are light years ahead of the primitive contraptions our ancestors had.
And if you get hit by a bus in a modern Mercedes, or drive into a bridge abutment at 90 mph, you'll get just as dead.
When you were driving that morris, you were conscious of your surroundings and were careful, right? otherwise you'd have been dead, right? And you're not dead or injured or even got into a crash, so that tactic paid off.
Cars are crash tested at 35-50 mph, then people go out and drive 75-90 mph as if the 35 mph crash test is gonna have meaning.
The problem is not in thinking when you drive that old car that "if someone hits me i'll be dead." The problem is in NOT thinking that when driving a modern car at highway speeds.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 10:25:49 AM
Oh, quite true. But really only noticeable if you fail in your primary duty. For me, the brand new cars I've had were exactly as safe as my 30+ year old cars in actual practice. Sure, it's like buying insurance that you hope you'll never use. But the overwhelming mentality about it is that you WILL die or get injured simply by driving the older (or worse rated) car. And that's patently false.
Not simply be driving the older car in and of itself, but there is far, far greater risk driving that car older
as it has an accident.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 29, 2009, 11:13:35 AM
Not simply be driving the older car, but there is far greater risk during an accident being in that older car.
Since all accidents are different, assesing that particular risk beforehand is pointless because you can what if that scenario to death. "What if" it's someone hitting you at 5 mph in a parking lot? What if it's the scenario in the picture I posted? What if you get hit by a Hyundai Accent? What if you get hit by a bus? What if you are driving 40 instead of 80? What if you are driving 80 instead of 40? What if you simply paid attention instead of searching around on the floor for that french fry? If you prepare for one, what if the other happens?
Simply put, with a mere 3% of registered drivers getting into accidents annually, and only 1.5% involved in injury accidents, the risk while driving an old car is exxaggerated to the point of fear to even get in one.
The fear was partly irrational, I admit. But it was fueled by my awareness of the paper-thin doors, the almost non-existent brakes, and all the sharp edges ready to crank my skull like an egg.
Yes I drove very carefully.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 29, 2009, 08:20:23 AM
Monkey-in-a-cage crazy.
Those cars held up a lot better than I would have thought; especially look to the higher speed rear end tests toward the end of the video. Also note that the two black cars in the beginning of the video, and featured prominently throughout, are from the 1950s.
To cut on GM or Detroit is disingenuous. Though these cars pale in comparison to the safety of a modern car, Detroit was building not only the best but the safest cars in the world in the '50s and '60s.
Didn't that last car kind of...explode...in the rear collision test? That seems like an odd safety feature.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 11:22:47 AM
Since all accidents are different, assesing that particular risk beforehand is pointless because you can what if that scenario to death. "What if" it's someone hitting you at 5 mph in a parking lot? What if it's the scenario in the picture I posted? What if you get hit by a Hyundai Accent? What if you get hit by a bus? What if you are driving 40 instead of 80? What if you are driving 80 instead of 40? What if you simply paid attention instead of searching around on the floor for that french fry? If you prepare for one, what if the other happens?
Simply put, with a mere 3% of registered drivers getting into accidents annually, and only 1.5% involved in injury accidents, the risk while driving an old car is exxaggerated to the point of fear to even get in one.
Actually, yes, you can access a particular risk before hand. Automakers employ computer modeling to test thousands of scenarios and otherwise design for myriad failure scenarios, micro and macro. In any scenario you can imagine, people will fare better in an '09 Accord than in a '71 Dart as a result.
As to putting numbers to it, given that there are 200MM registered drivers in the US, 1.5% of injury accidents is 3MM people per year. Given an average driving lifetime of ~55 years, there's a good chance that the
majority of drivers will be involved in an injury accident at some point in their driving lifetimes. Thus, safety ain't chicken feed.
Quote from: Morris Minor on May 29, 2009, 10:51:38 AM
I drove a 1960 Morris Minor last year. It had retrofitted seat belts but even so, I remember thinking, "If somebody hits me in this thing, I'm dead."
Modern cars are light years ahead of the primitive contraptions our ancestors had.
A friend owned one for a year or so, and that was always quite an experience when going places. You could probably sit everyone on the bonnet and not have it give an inch, but you could also be blown into the next suburb when anything larger than a family sedan attempted an overtaking manoeuvre.
ChrisV again nobody is arguing that drivers themselves aren't the primary safety device. But let's be realistic. God forbid it, but if you were hit by an idiot driver, I would imagine you would want to be in the safer car.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on May 29, 2009, 11:58:46 AM
ChrisV again nobody is arguing that drivers themselves aren't the primary safety device. But let's be realistic. God forbid it, but if you were hit by an idiot driver, I would imagine you would want to be in the safer car.
Sorry, but I'd rather be in a car that appeals to me. I wasn't scared at all to be in my Falcon in modern traffic or in this car:
(http://home.comcast.net/~cvetters3/fiat05.jpg)
And I got rear ended in that by an idiot driver. BFD (well, it pissed me off as I had to do some bodywork to fix it)
If it's so goddamn important, wrap yourself up in bubble wrap and stay home.
You can die at highway speeds in a modern car. People do. But you don't say OH MY GOD I better drive 20 mph so I won't die! You simply ignore the risk and drive, hoping that the CAR will save you from the idiots.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 29, 2009, 11:51:54 AM
In any scenario you can imagine, people will fare better in an '09 Accord than in a '71 Dart as a result.
And in any scenario you will fare better at 20 mph than at 70 mph, But you aren't driving 20 mph all the time, are you?
Again, you can what-if it to death. I spend my time making sure *I* am what keeps me from dying, so that I can drive anything without fear. I'm simply not scared that someone is going to kill me in my '63 Comet when I get it together.
Crash tests look horrible enough at 35 mph. At 75 mph, the equipment does this:
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40160000/jpg/_40160055_crashpa203.jpg)
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/01/22/PM_crash_wideweb__470x294,0.jpg)
(http://www.car-accidents.com/2005-Car-pics/1-23-05_c.jpg)
But you still think you're more safe than in an older car. No, you're just as dead.
No one is disputing that a modern car design cannot change the laws of physics; if the forces are high enough, any car is going to get vaporized. But I have no problem raising the design bar to give the average Joe a fighting chance in a wreck. By today's standards old cars, which were perfectly acceptable in their day, are dangerous.
Also, you have decent survival chances even at a high-speed collision, and even when the car is totally flattened. This was a head-on and rollover (another car was on the wrong side of the road), and the driver survived:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Malibucrash.JPG/800px-Malibucrash.JPG)
ChrisV obviously no crash is better than any crash but for the average person considerations like safety, practicality, reliability trump whatever criterion you use to choose cars.
Quote from: Madman on May 28, 2009, 10:16:40 PM
Sadly, many people believed these lies. One of them was my father. He adamantly refused to wear a seat belt his entire life, saying that he didn't want to be trapped inside the car or that he'd rather be thrown from the car in the event of an accident. Fortunately, he was never involved in a serious car crash, so he never had to put this hairbrained theory to the test. But what about all the people who died because they were foolish enough to believe these lies and did have a serious crash?
I don't see how it's GM's fault that your dad was too stupid to wear a seatbelt.
Quote from: ChrisV on May 29, 2009, 12:19:50 PM
And in any scenario you will fare better at 20 mph than at 70 mph, But you aren't driving 20 mph all the time, are you?
Again, you can what-if it to death. I spend my time making sure *I* am what keeps me from dying, so that I can drive anything without fear. I'm simply not scared that someone is going to kill me in my '63 Comet when I get it together.
Crash tests look horrible enough at 35 mph. At 75 mph, the equipment does this:
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40160000/jpg/_40160055_crashpa203.jpg)
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/01/22/PM_crash_wideweb__470x294,0.jpg)
(http://www.car-accidents.com/2005-Car-pics/1-23-05_c.jpg)
But you still think you're more safe than in an older car. No, you're just as dead.
The vast majority of crashes are not fatal however; 6MM accidents yet only ~31,000 deaths, or 0.5%. Further "injury" is not a binary situation; there is a continuous scale of severity.
You may be AJ Foyt, but you have zero control over 50% of the equation - the other driver.
I don't know where the energy is coming from. Drive what you like, but I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that you aren't far safer in a newer car when in an accident.
On the other hand... small, lightweight unsafe cars emit far less CO2 because they don't have to drag around all that armor.
So we have a choice: die a hideous death wrecking a little lightweight car, or drive a safe car and die anyway when it causes Mother Earth to shrivel into a prune.
;)
Quote from: GoCougs on May 29, 2009, 02:16:04 PM
The vast majority of crashes are not fatal however; 6MM accidents yet only ~31,000 deaths, or 0.5%. Further "injury" is not a binary situation; there is a continuous scale of severity.
You may be AJ Foyt, but you have zero control over 50% of the equation - the other driver.
I don't know where the energy is coming from. Drive what you like, but I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that you aren't far safer in a newer car when in an accident.
As much as it pains me to say it, Cougs is right on this one.