Pretty amazing to see how crash protection has come a long way from this.
My 914 or Opel, being so tiny would be a E36 M3 show.
Pretty amazing to see how crash protection has come a long way from this.
My 914 or Opel, being so tiny would be a E36 M3 show.
OTOH, getting a classic car can change a kid's life. Ellie's Garage
I've followed her progress from the beginning. An awkward, introverted girl that gains great confidence from learning to rebuild the car herself. Yeah, her dad helps, but she does most of the work. I'm sure her parents struggled with the safety aspect too. Chances are she won't be out hooning in a six cylinder Falcon, for one. They also have added some safety features and a disc brake conversion is coming.
"When the quest for safety gets in the way of the enjoyment of life, it is defeating it's own purpose."--Pat Ertel, Vintage Truck magazine publisher
Given that 2000 is almost 25 years ago. Classics are getting safer! Lol
There are all kinds of videos out there like that. There's a well known and used one from several years ago where a 1950s Chevy was crashed into a similar "class" (i.e. family sedan) Chevy from 50 years later. I've actually used that video many times in training classes. There's no doubt how far safety has come. Putting someone or yourself in a classic car is simply a personal choice everyone has to make. I absolutely won't get into a car from the '60s, '70s, etc...for safety concerns. I'm just not willing to accept the risk. It's also the reason I refuse to ride a motorcycle. However, I would never fault someone who does. I'm probably too conservative, but that's OK. There's no right or wrong.
It might be my age and the related caution but my spitfire terrifies me in traffic. Going over 50 mph is just not fun.
But as far as safety in old cars goes I will still take a volvo 240 or 740 any time. I know they don't have the crash tech but they just feel safe.
It is a matter of risk, but if you're going to think that way I hope you never walk or ride a bicycle on city streets either.
I did a quick calculation and my son's 1999 528 Touring we got him when he got his permit is only a year off of if I had my '59 Bugeye at 16. To him its a classic, to me its "a few years" old car.
Modern cars are safer without question, but still not always great. I just had a newer Chevy 1500 come across that hit a tree. Not 100% sure of the speed (yet) but from all accounts it wasn't wildly excessive. The cab folded like a tin can, driver is in the hospital 2+ weeks now.
stuart in mn said:It is a matter of risk, but if you're going to think that way I hope you never walk or ride a bicycle on city streets either.
I stopped riding on the street 20 years ago, too many distracted drivers. Only ride on bike paths now. Seven years ago I got hit by a car when walking in a crosswalk, he stopped then started without looking. Not about risk, about the unbelievable level of stupid out there. Still do some risky stuff, but not on the street.
That Vanagon double cab footage is staged to look worse than they are, It was done at a much higher speed and had a huge amount of weight in the bed. But, they still aren't safe by any means. Having your knees as the front bumper is never a good idea.
This is the reason I dont drive my Beetle anymore. Too many huge cars/trucks and stupid people. I'm in a tuna can.
Something like a Falcon is a much more substantial car, and I would be way less concerned in that than the Beetle.
Avoiding accidents is so important, we should get kids out to autocrosses to really learn car control. And keeping your eyes up to notice dangers.
Yep, being aware makes a huge difference, but still can't stop some. That said, I've avoided a lots accidents over the years just by correctly anticipating what folk are going to do/not do (including what's coming up behind)
It's funny, I never used to be concerned by the safety aspect, and I'm not sure if it was the move to South America or becoming a parent (our eldest was 5 months old when we moved) which sparked it.
I keep toying with the idea of getting an E36 as about the only option here in Peru for RWD and manual box that isn't upwards of five figures, but the safety aspect is what stops me, rather than being an old German car 
I'm reasonably confident of my ability to avoid prangs, but I can't do anything about drunk drivers crossing into oncoming traffic, the trucks from the 70s with very little brakes that hammer down the Pan Americana, the entitled rich kids in their SUVs texting and driving and running into the back of people, etc. That said, if one of those 70s trucks hits, I doubt they'll be much difference between an E36 and the Mazda 3 (1st gen, no side airbags)..
I know I overthink the safety aspect (and I am the butt of many jokes for it within the Peruvian family), but it is real..Several fatalities over the last week, one a drunk in an SUV swerved into oncoming traffic. Another, a car ran into a combi (minibus) that decided to overtake at the wrong moment....
I had a Vega exactly like the one they crashed.
The old vs new crash test that really impressed me was the Sentra vs Versa. With the Impalas, we expect a big change in safety and there was always the question of the effects of age on the classic.
But this is a new old Mexican market Sentra vs a new new Versa.
In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :
I grew up driving a 1953 MGTD . I don't think there is one safe thing about that car. 14 year old teenager?
When I drive that same car I've more than 2 million miles of experience and judgement to make sure I'm safe.
Traffic today is so much more intense . Seat belts, crush zones, airbags and tires!!!! They push the capability of cars yet fewer and fewer are dying in traffic accidents.
We are down to 1927 level fatalities in spite of population explosion. And increased miles driven.
I race 45 - 70 year old sports cars. 150+ mph. Yet in 58 years of racing. Not a scratch.
SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:Modern cars are safer without question, but still not always great. I just had a newer Chevy 1500 come across that hit a tree. Not 100% sure of the speed (yet) but from all accounts it wasn't wildly excessive. The cab folded like a tin can, driver is in the hospital 2+ weeks now.
Trees are not a good thing to hit. They're both immobile and their shape focuses the impact on a small area. I'm going to say they might actually be the worst thing to hit, especially sideways so you take it in the door where there's no crumple zone.
My son's first car was a '63 Buick Special, 215 aluminum V8 and a Fubaba exhaust. It may have sparked his love affair with cars, but as far as safety; I trust the driver. If something bad happens it doesn't matter whether you're in a Classic or a multi-air bagged Prius. It's gonna happen. If you drive like a jerk, doesn't matter there either.
Do you trust you kid's ability?
Keith Tanner said:SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:Modern cars are safer without question, but still not always great. I just had a newer Chevy 1500 come across that hit a tree. Not 100% sure of the speed (yet) but from all accounts it wasn't wildly excessive. The cab folded like a tin can, driver is in the hospital 2+ weeks now.
Trees are not a good thing to hit. They're both immobile and their shape focuses the impact on a small area. I'm going to say they might actually be the worst thing to hit, especially sideways so you take it in the door where there's no crumple zone.
if the choice is tree vs some other non-moving object, choose the other non-moving object. tree will berkeley you up.
You have to drive like everyone else is out to kill you, new car or old. I have my head on a swivel when I'm driving my Miata, but that's a 23 year old car now, too. If I stumbled onto a 1971 Datsun 510 I'd gladly drive it, just carefully. If safety were the only criteria I'd being looking for used Kenworths.
I was surprised at how badly this 1998 Corolla did:
The one I like to share is this clip from Fifth Gear, 2012 Modus vs. the Swedish brick Volvo 940:
Keith Tanner said:SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:Modern cars are safer without question, but still not always great. I just had a newer Chevy 1500 come across that hit a tree. Not 100% sure of the speed (yet) but from all accounts it wasn't wildly excessive. The cab folded like a tin can, driver is in the hospital 2+ weeks now.
Trees are not a good thing to hit. They're both immobile and their shape focuses the impact on a small area. I'm going to say they might actually be the worst thing to hit, especially sideways so you take it in the door where there's no crumple zone.
I was both unfortunate and fortunate having been in a classic when it hit a tree - Rover P6 3500, I was front seat passenger, driver was trying too hard, understeered off a right hander with a wide grass verge, I assume he kept his foot in, as the back came round to strike a (thankfully) glancing blow on a tree with the rear door, destroyed the door and bounced the back end the other way, tipping us into a roll, we think we went over twice, although it was never determined. Car was wrecked, roof over my seat folded down, rear door my side pretty much gone, whole frame twisted. Amazingly we mostly only had cuts and sprains (and one broken ankle from the rear passenger my side, foot went out the missing door..). Folk were surprised I got out mostly intact
Keith Tanner said:SKJSS (formerly Klayfish) said:Modern cars are safer without question, but still not always great. I just had a newer Chevy 1500 come across that hit a tree. Not 100% sure of the speed (yet) but from all accounts it wasn't wildly excessive. The cab folded like a tin can, driver is in the hospital 2+ weeks now.
Trees are not a good thing to hit. They're both immobile and their shape focuses the impact on a small area. I'm going to say they might actually be the worst thing to hit, especially sideways so you take it in the door where there's no crumple zone.
No doubt. I'm a bit jaded, since I look at so many crashed cars every day. This one hit the tree with the left front. I've seen countless tree hits and you're right, they'll mess you up big time. However, this pickup just crumbled far more than so many other cars I've seen.
No doubt modern cars are much safer. And speeds are much higher these days. Well, at least in Texas with 80 mph speed limits on some roads. Plus, drivers are more distracted and roads are more congested. All of that contributes to classic cars being less safe to drive.
However, I've often wondered if automobile safety might be making drivers less aware. For example, there's a commercial (I think it's for a Rogue) where they show the driver repeatedly backing into things. Only when they get a car with a backup camera do they stop. Are they promoting the right message by saying instead of looking behind you and being more aware, just buy a car with a backup camera so it can do the thinking for you? I've said before, adding nanny devices to cars, while great in theory, will make most drivers trust them more than intended and/or just assume the car will take care of it.
I'm itching to buy a classic car some time this year. Probably tiny with zero protection. Another Bugeye is on my short list and the doors are literally just a single sheet of steel. I wonder how I'll feel driving it on the roads today v. when I had mine in college 30+ years ago. I'm already planning on avoiding freeways and sticking to back roads. Maybe less dense roads will help me feel safer.
-Rob
You'll need to log in to post.
