Are our Slants "Unsafe"?

-
you shouldn't feel horribly unsafe driving your valiant, just use a little extra caution
an ounce of prevention and all that, I believe that classic car owners are safer because they drive more carefully than the average person, for the simple reason that they are worried about damaging their car,
we cant just go down to the car lot and pick up another one,
crumple zones, air bags, and other safety devices don't mater if you avoid the accident in the first place
and if your going to say "what about the other guy" people are killed by bad/drunk drivers while driving modern safe vehicles, while walking down the street, even sitting in a restaurant, or their own living room watching TV,
so look twice while driving, get takeout, and put the TV upstairs in the bedroom


oh and I always wondered if volvo's were really safer if it was just marketing hype?
 
caferacerx said:
crumple zones, air bags, and other safety devices don't mater if you avoid the accident in the first place
Click to expand...

That is a very good and important point. Most of us don't drive our old cars the 12,000 or 15,000 or more miles in a year that are racked up on more recent vehicles. Risk is thus controlled by limited exposure. Make sure your tires, brakes, lights, and seat belts are as good and as safe as you can afford to make them, folks!
 
caferacerx said:
oh and I always wondered if volvo's were really safer if it was just marketing hype?
Click to expand...


My first Volvo was a 1984 Volvo 240. I was driving home late one night and a deer jumped right out in front of me and scared the crap out of me. I swerved off the road and hit a big oak tree going 45 MPH. I dented the bumper, but besides that the car (and myself) was fine. I swore by those cars for years because of that.

I really don't worry about myself driving and getting into an accident - I worry about my wife. I have freakishly good quick judgement skills that I worked incredibly hard on after I swerved off the road and hit that tree.
 
caferacerx said:
I always wondered if volvo's were really safer if it was just marketing hype?
Click to expand...

The rear-drive Volvos (544, 122, 140, 164, 240/260, 740/760, 940/960, etc.) were especially safe cars. Later Volvos are still safe cars, but there's no longer a big gap between the safety performance of a Volvo and that of other cars as there used to be, and now Volvos are not necessarily the safest cars.
 
sireland67 said:
In older vehicles, your body absorbs most of the impact.
Hit black ice on the interstate.
The truck was lowered so the bumper went under the gaurd rail at aboout 60 mph.
My chest bent the steering column, my wife did not have a seat belt on and she bent the dash, and broke the windshield with her head.
A very bad day.

wreck4.jpg
Click to expand...


seatbelts didnt exsist pre 67 in dodge trucks, ive got a 1964 short box fargo.. no belts.. :(
 
challengerboy said:
seatbelts didnt exsist pre 67 in dodge trucks, ive got a 1964 short box fargo.. no belts.. :(
Click to expand...

Wow really? Would you get a seat belt violation in a pre '67 Dodge truck?
Damn talk about unsafe.

slantsixdan said:
The rear-drive Volvos (544, 122, 140, 164, 240/260, 740/760, 940/960, etc.) were especially safe cars. Later Volvos are still safe cars, but there's no longer a big gap between the safety performance of a Volvo and that of other cars as there used to be, and now Volvos are not necessarily the safest cars.
Click to expand...


I would imagine a later Volvo with a driver's side air-bag would be quite safe?
 
ValiantBandit said:
Wow really? Would you get a seat belt violation in a pre '67 Dodge truck?
Click to expand...

Unlikely. Most state and provincial laws in North America require that seat belts be present if the vehicle was originally equipped (or if the vehicle was made in or after a certain year, usually 1967). I can't think of any that require retrofitment of belts to vehicles not originally so equipped. But anyone who wouldn't retrofit belts in an older vehicle just because the law doesn't require them is a moron who should eject him- or herself from the gene pool as quickly and efficiently as possible.

I would imagine a later Volvo with a driver's side air-bag would be quite safe?
Click to expand...

Sure, but so is a later non-Volvo with airbags.
 
I even reposted that link about the bel-air getting shattered. Now that was a framed car, nothing but a shell for a body. Many Mopars are unibody from long ago. They are better in a crash as they crumple more evenly, but we still have rigid steering columns and no bags, etc. My choice for surviveablity would be the Simon and Simon Power Wagon.
[ame="http://youtu.be/kgWkVDtxY2U"]302 Found[/ame]
 
I think we all have to agree that for the most part with the most common accidents, sure, we are safer in the newer vehicles.
In low speed impacts, I would rather be in my old cars. Neither of us will be that bad off. I was in a couple with my 72 Monaco Station Wagon, front and rear impacts. Nothing very visible in either case, never bothered to take out the scratches. And yes, I drove that car way too fast. :D
My Duster feels like a tin can compared to that car and I hope to never be in an accident with it again, I am glad we both survived my teenage years.

In anything high speed I want to be in my 08 Suburban. Yes my 93 CTD 4x4 with lots of trail armor would survive best of anything I have, but the 08 would fold where needed yet it still has enough mass to protect me. In some cases the laws of physics must prevail that that is when Mass matters.

72 Demo Derby classic Vs. Scion = I win.
08 Suburban vs either of the above = I win.

I want a new Dodge Cummins 9 passenger 4x4 Suburban-like vehicle!!!!!

But to reply to the original thread..... Yes our /6 - A body cars are unsafe tin cans. Live with it and drive accordingly.

The most important aspect of "safe vs. unsafe" is in your own head.
 
slantsixdan said:
Unlikely. Most state and provincial laws in North America require that seat belts be present if the vehicle was originally equipped (or if the vehicle was made in or after a certain year, usually 1967). I can't think of any that require retrofitment of belts to vehicles not originally so equipped. But anyone who wouldn't retrofit belts in an older vehicle just because the law doesn't require them is a moron who should eject him- or herself from the gene pool as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Click to expand...


That is so stupid. It should be a law that you have to retrofit your vehicle with seatbelts.

You've also never experienced pain until you hit your head on the lip of weather-stripping (Right above where the door closes.) on a Volvo 240.

Those cars do not give at..all...
 
ValiantBandit said:
That is so stupid. It should be a law that you have to retrofit your vehicle with seatbelts.
Click to expand...

How many pre-67 cars do you think are on the road that people use as daily drivers? Those that are out there are typically driven by people who care for and love these cars. They are driven carefully, not by some sleepy commuter eating breakfast and texting on their way to work.

We have enough nanny laws thank you very much. Adding another would be stupid, expensive and show no measurable gains in reducing injuries or saving lives. However, this type of thinking could lead to outlawing older cars without crumple zones and airbags.
 
ValiantBandit said:
That is so stupid. It should be a law that you have to retrofit your vehicle with seatbelts.
Click to expand...

That's how it is in most of Australia, and they have a thriving old-car hobby, so that puts paid to the bogus "nanny state" thing. Certainly cars that are ever driven in traffic on public roads, no matter how infrequently, ought to be fitted with good belts—law or no law.
 
The nanny state isn't bogus. This isn't Australia. It's a slippery slope that leads to less freedom to do what you want with your ride.
 
fzmax said:
The nanny state isn't bogus.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The big, bad "nanny state" is gonna come and tell you that you don't get to do whatever you want because you're not the only person in the world. Guess what? That only happens if you fail to behave like a responsible grownup on your own. If you make a mess and fail to clean it up, it doesn't just go away; someone has to come and clean up after you. You may not like the way they do it, though, so behave like a responsible adult and the boogeyman...oops, I mean the "nanny state"...won't come and getchya.

(…and what if frogs had claws and teeth and lived in toilets?!!!)

:roll:
 
You're kidding me right? The government needs to step in and create more laws to address a nonexistent 'mess' that I leave when I do what exactly?
 
fzmax said:
You're kidding me right?
Click to expand...

Nope. When people act like selfish little cryabies ("I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH MY CAR! YOU CAN'T STOP ME! YOU CAN'T MAKE ME! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!") in a sparsely-populated rural setting with not many people or cars or traffic around, it's not of particularly great consequence. As population and traffic density increases, everyone's decisions and everyone's behavior affects everyone else more and more and more. Sooner than later, the selfish little crybabies begin to pose a serious hazard to those around them, and if they can't be persuaded to grow the hell up and behave like adults, laws get written to constrain the harm and hazard they can threaten others with.

Think about it for a minute: One person eating, farting, and crapping in the forest doesn't do much of any harm to anything. A hundred people eating, farting, and crapping in that forest is very unpleasant. A thousand is a health hazard. Ten thousand and the forest is trashed and everybody's very sick. It works the same whether we're talking about cars not adequately equipped to participate in modern traffic or any kind of pollution or pretty much anything else.

But srsly, dØØd: Relax. Take a breath. No big, bad guvmint man's going to come take away your car or say you can't drive it. People have been babbling about the "nanny state" forcing old cars off American roads for as long as I've been paying attention (well over 20 years now) and it hasn't yet happened. Every single day, there are fewer and fewer old cars on the road, which means every single day it's a lower and lower regulatory priority, which means it's not going to happen.
 
ValiantBandit said:
That is so stupid. It should be a law that you have to retrofit your vehicle with seatbelts.

Why, that is a personal choice. If someone doesn't want to wear or have one it will not kill you. Same as an alcoholic (non driver), smoker, sex addict and abortions. It effects the one making the choice. If you don't agree with it you don't have to smoke or drink. Become a priest. You can have as many babies as you want and you don't have to ride in the damn car.

Nanny state or not I believe the bottom line for most laws in the 20th and 21st century is the generation of revenue.
Click to expand...
 
Good God! It's just common sense that a seat belt improves your chances of survival in a car wreck,so why the hell would you not install them?

I wouldnt let my kids ride in a vehicle with no belts. Would you?
 
Well Paul, some people see it as an "infringement of rights" to wear a seat belt. Hay yall, the bottom line is, anything is dangerous if your stupid *** does the wrong thing with it.
 
I retrofitted a set of 740 Turbo buckets (on pedestals out of a custom van, captains chairs anybody? Really groovy,baby) in and belts into a '72 F250- know why? Cause I don't want to eat the steering wheel. Same reason I put good tires, brakes, and suspension improvements into my vehicles.
 
my take on seat belts is this
I ride a motorcycle as my main mode of transportation year round weather permitting
so riding in a car without a seat belt is still several thousand times safer then when I am on my bike, yes seat belts are good and I use them when I feel it is appropriate, perhaps 50% of the time, but it is MY choice NOT the goverment! I am against any legislation that restricts the freedom of individuals to make decisions, even stupid decisions for themselves, as long as they DON'T effect anyone else,
and yes I always wear a helmet while riding my bike, in fact when they repealed the mandatory helmet law the first thing I did was go out and buy brand new helmets, why? because it was MY choice to wear one ! no one was forcing me
 
Valiantsignet20 said:
If someone doesn't want to wear or have one it will not kill you
Click to expand...

But it very well might. Y'see, belted drivers tend to remain conscious and in position to control the vehicle after the first impact (which may be relatively minor), so they have a chance to control where the car's going to prevent or at least mitigate the second, third, and subsequent impacts. Unbelted drivers tend to get knocked out of control position and/or unconscious so they can't control the car after the first impact, which means a much higher likelihood of their car causing additional injury, death, and/or property damage. Even the driver who is not knocked out of position and/or unconscious is much less able to control the car if he's not belted in, because he's putting most of his effort into clutching the steering wheel fighting to stay in position.

You may not like it because it spoils your "My choice not to wear a seatbelt doesn't affect anyone but me!" argument, but it is how things work in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top