Are our Slants "Unsafe"?

[ValiantBandit]

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.

It's a seat belt dude. It's not like you're restricting horsepower. No, you shouldn't be forced to wear one...It's a personal choice. But it SHOULD be mandatory that EVERY car has seat belts. It's a proven fact that they're safer than NOT having them. Duh? lol

...So you're telling me that you don't care if someone you love doesn't wear a seat belt?

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.

I understand your point. However I live in an area where if you don't wear a seat belt, you're definitely going to die. Las Vegas has the craziest drivers of them all.

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and yes I always wear a helmet while riding my bike, in fact when they repealed the mandatory helmet law the first thing I did was go out and buy brand new helmets, why?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

You wouldn't want to ride a motorcycle out here...Trust me on that.
Again, I agree that it's a personal choice to wear a helmet or seat belt...But every car/truck should at LEAST have the OPTION of a seat belt.

 

[RustyRatRod]

That's right Dan. People lose sight of the fact that when they are not belted in they are holding onto the steering wheel to keep them in place.

 

[needsaresto]

Lets look at it from a logical prespective. Our cars were designed and build when there were WAAAY less cars on the road. Traffic was a lot less and the injury stats werent very high because of that.

But now your driving your old car in a modern envirnment,one where the other cars are vastly superior in the braking and handling departments. Not likely you'll be able to "drive" your way out of a predicament,and because your older car has what I'd call a "hard" interior your going to be VERY injured.

Not to mention your chances of staying aware through an accident are pretty low,because you will likely whack your head. Now it's likey while your passed out,your old car will continue without you and likely injure a third party. Who in all likelyhood will sue your *** off..

 

[slantsixdan]

Lets look at it from a logical prespective.

Excellent idea. There's a gross shortage of logic and a gross excess of magical thinking in this thread.

Our cars were designed and build when there were WAAAY less cars on the road.

Way fewer cars -- correct.

Traffic was a lot less

Also correct.

and the injury stats werent very high because of that.

INcorrect. Traffic injury and fatality rates were much higher back in the "good" ol' days, even though fewer people were driving fewer cars fewer miles.

But now your driving your old car in a modern envirnment,one where the other cars are vastly superior in the braking and handling departments.

...not to mention the crash-avoidance department (lights, mirrors, etc.)

Not likely you'll be able to "drive" your way out of a predicament,and because your older car has what I'd call a "hard" interior your going to be VERY injured.

Quite correct.

Not to mention your chances of staying aware through an accident are pretty low,because you will likely whack your head. Now it's likey while your passed out,your old car will continue without you and likely injure a third party. Who in all likelyhood will sue your *** off..

…if s/he survives. Exactly right.

 

[slantsixdan]

so riding in a car without a seat belt is still several thousand times safer then when I am on my bike

Yes, in exactly the same way as playing Russian Roulette with 2 rounds in the chamber is safer than playing Russian Roulette with 6 rounds in the chamber.

seat belts are good and I use them when I feel it is appropriate, perhaps 50% of the time

I'll pay ya two hunnerd dollars to park your car for a day so I can use your crystal ball. It sounds like a good one, able to forecast which car trip isn't going to be the one in which all the sudden you get hit. (I'm being sarcastic; the point is your "feeling" of when it's "appropriate" to wear a seat belt has zero relation to your actual risk of being hit. Believing otherwise is about as logical as believing in the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny, but the consequences are far greater.)

 

[ValiantBandit]

Lets look at it from a logical prespective. Our cars were designed and build when there were WAAAY less cars on the road. Traffic was a lot less and the injury stats werent very high because of that.

But now your driving your old car in a modern envirnment,one where the other cars are vastly superior in the braking and handling departments. Not likely you'll be able to "drive" your way out of a predicament,and because your older car has what I'd call a "hard" interior your going to be VERY injured.

I agree with everything except the injury stats weren't high.

My car has manual brakes. How quickly do you think I'm going to be able to stop when someone pulls out in front of me? My wife always says to me "Think you can go a little faster?" Yeah I can. Yeah I can go faster than 55 on the highway. I don't feel safe and I don't feel comfortable going faster than that with a vehicle that essentially has technology from the 1950s in it.
I think I have a good comparison for this : Look at how houses in New England are built. They were built in a completely different era (Just like our cars.) . Yes a lower impact might not do anything to them, but when it comes to a high-impact like a hurricane (or a 70MPH crash.) , the house disintegrates with you in it. (Just like an old car.) Whereas newer houses like the ones in Florida are specifically built to handle high impacts. (Like new cars.)

I'll pay ya two hunnerd dollars to park your car for a day so I can use your crystal ball. It sounds like a good one, able to forecast which car trip isn't going to be the one in which all the sudden you get hit. (I'm being sarcastic; the point is your "feeling" of when it's "appropriate" to wear a seat belt has zero relation to your actual risk of being hit. Believing otherwise is about as logical as believing in the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny, but the consequences are far greater.)

+1. You can't predict an accident. Then again isn't that how "Psychics" make all their money? lol

 

[caferacerx]

while you cant predict an accident, there are time when it is more probable, and times when it is less probable,
high probability factors include but are not limited to
rush hour, and high traffic areas
high speed, highway, or other high speed limit roads
rain, snow or other inclement weather
night time or other low visibility situations
construction zones

low probability situations include but are not limited to
clear open roads with good visibility, and no traffic, at low to moderate speeds
(the type of driving I prefer with my 66)

and yes seat belts ARE a good idea
I just dont like them

 

[slantsixdan]

I agree with everything except the injury stats weren't high.

Eh? Yeah, they were. The injury and death rates per vehicle-mile travelled and per vehicle registered and per capita (in other words, however you want to look at it) used to be much worse than they presently are.

My car has manual brakes. How quickly do you think I'm going to be able to stop when someone pulls out in front of me?

If you're of normal leg strength, power brakes don't help you stop faster. They just make the pedal easier to press.

+1. You can't predict an accident. Then again isn't that how "Psychics" make all their money? lol

If they're so damn psychic, why do I need to make an appointment with them? Don't they, like, know I'm on my way???

 

[ValiantBandit]

Eh? Yeah, they were. The injury and death rates per vehicle-mile travelled and per vehicle registered and per capita (in other words, however you want to look at it) used to be much worse than they presently are.

Yeah that's what I meant. (That the injury stats were high.) I just have a horrible time forming comprehensive sentences lol.

If you're of normal leg strength, power brakes don't help you stop faster. They just make the pedal easier to press.

Hm...I didn't know that! I did notice my car stopped on a dime today saving me from rear-ending someone. I always thought that power brakes were more powerful because they're vacuum assisted!

If they're so damn psychic, why do I need to make an appointment with them? Don't they, like, know I'm on my way???

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! TRUE!

Anyways I'm glad I posted this question. Before I did, I was driving around like a dick thinking my car was "oh so safe" because she's heavy. Now I drive a crap-ton more carefully....And thank God I do now because I would've destroyed a Buick this afternoon.:cheers:

I wish there was a way to adjust my seat belt though. When it's buckled in, the top part of the damned thing is practically resting on my neck.:banghead:

 

[caferacerx]

yup the power assist on "power brakes" does nothing to help the brakes work better or make the car stop faster
it just makes it easier for the driver to push the brake pedal
(good for old ladies driving big cars)

 

[powerwagonpaul]

i can tell you this about the safety of these older cars, about 7 years ago i was hit by some dumbass running a redlight. i was driving a 99 Intrepid. the car was totaled, i went to the hospital and spent 8 weeks going to the chiropractor. i was turning left and was hit in the left front corner by a 93 geo, very small car. the guy ws going so fast i spun 360 degrees. if i had been driving my valiant i am quite sure i would be dead or seriously crippled. also: my truck is a tank 69 W200 powerwagon. i have been hit three times in it, still have a picture of a nissan minivan wrapped around the front bumper no damage to my truck. my take is this..... these old cars are like putting an egg in a coffe can and droping it from the roof, the can may be ok or have a dent but the egg is still scrambled in side.

 

[slantsixdan]

I believe the pics in this thread right over here shed some light on the subject. Good thing nobody was in that Pontiac at the time.

 

[wjajr]

Yeah unattended acceleration… Just swell, buzzed out senior citizens raining terror on communities from coast to coast. Fortunately the powers to be have now almost figured out cars don’t suddenly surge forward or backward by themselves as Audi manufactured vehicles were once believed to be capable of, and now lay blame on the lame brain driving…

One exception, and it’s one of ours: a 58 Fury; Christine.

This wreck reminds me of trips to junk yards back in the early seventies seeing death cars all stove-in. No amount of air bags, and seat belts could have protected anyone on the passenger side of that Pontiac from death, and probably driver’s side occupants would have not fared too well also. Body by Fisher, or any other makes from pre safety standards are really death traps in side impacts, and not much better head on. Probably any of these old heaps we covert would not be able to earn one star in a crash test.

 

[slantsixdan]

Yeah unattended acceleration

Win. :cheers:

 

[6pakattack]

I believe the pics in this thread right over here shed some light on the subject. Good thing nobody was in that Pontiac at the time.

OMG !!!! That sent shivers up my arms !! And she probably wasn't too concerned for what just got damaged !! I wasn't "at" a car show,but was on my way home from Mopars with Big Daddy Don Garlits with my wife in Her '68 'Cuda,when someone decided they wanted the parcel of highway that we were ocupying. Fortunately for us I was paying attention to everything around us and had that little extra pavement towards the median to play with !The 'Cuda doesn't have the brakes that my SRT10 Ram had,but I was ever so thankful that despite being manual brakes they earned their keep in this situation !!Just as most Drivers Ed instructers try to teach everyone,you have to pay attention to EVERYONE AROUND you as well as yourself !!

 

[mattmatthew]

IMHO, this is what's wrong with the automotive world today. If airbags were filled with nails and broken glass and seat belts were designed solely for the restraint of small children, people may pay attention to driving instead of talking on the phone, playing with their entertainment centers and texting.

actually it's a simple case of physics. cars that crumple absorb and release kinetic energy, older cars tend to just bounce off whatever they hit. and the people inside suffer. ever see an insane accident at nascar? the body crumples, and the driver walks away. as much as i like our old cars i do believe that new cars are more inherently safe than the old ones.

however, you can invent the safest car in the world, and it still won't cure individual stupidity. that's a whole nother can of worms.

 

[Ken_B]

I work as a collision repair tech, I deal with this type of thing every day. If I had to pick a car to be in an accident in, hands down with would be a 90s or newer Volvo. Very safe cars. Newer cars are loaded with small features to save you! Example; hood hinges have built in "hooks" that prevent the hood from sliding back so in the event the car is invovled in a significant front end hit the hood is stoped from sliging back and bends up instead taking your head off. Engines and transmissions are mounted in a way that if the car suffers a severe frontal impact they go down and under the floor rather than just coming through the firewall and climbing into your lap. Instead of the steel bumper being mounted directly to a steel frame with rigid brackets, they have a plastic bumper cover, a foam impact absorber, and then a steel bumper bolted to fluid filled "shock" absorbers that are then bolted to the frame.

Those are just small examples, dont get me started on how much better quality the structual steel is, high stenght steels, ultra high strength steels, and the leaps and bonds better spot welding tech, etc...

Dont get me wrong, I abosolutely love my Valiant and old cars in general, but Id rather be un-injured and have my car totalled than be in a hospital and not able to got to work and pay my bills.

 

[64drtGt]

exactly what he SHOULD be getting back into!
you said yourself HE was fine, the car took ALL the damage
without modern crumple zones HE would have taken most of the impact and would most likely be in a hospital bed
ask your self one question "which would you RATHER replace, the car or your son?"

Having seen the fact that I have fell out of a moving car just had some road rash and flipped a ford ranger off the side of a mountain and walked away with just scratches and the fact that last year a guy was seriosly injured in a demolition derby when the airbag he thought he disabled went off and everyone who did not have airbags and was in 70's model cars never get hurt in them I'm going to stick to my pre 2000 cars.


I think that the 59v09 chevy test is kind of inaccurate anyway because I feel cars did not because really strong until the mid 60's to 70's.

 

[64drtGt]

On another note tho I will say I would not have wanted to be in this cuda when it hit this light pole at 100+ mph

 

[66plyValiant]

IMHO, this is what's wrong with the automotive world today. If airbags were filled with nails and broken glass and seat belts were designed solely for the restraint of small children, people may pay attention to driving instead of talking on the phone, playing with their entertainment centers and texting.

:sign3:well thats great, we will fill the airbags up with glass and nails then when the driver coming towards you hits you dead on because the roads are slippery or he hydroplaned then your family can pay the cost of losing a loved one because the car manufacturer did exactly as you suggested

 

[slantsixdan]

actually it's a simple case of physics.

Yup. And the laws of physics stubbornly remain in effect despite any amount of dim and wishful thinking and anecdotal my-cousin's-brother's-housemate-survived-in-a-1966-Cadillac-so-obviously-old-cars-are-safer babbling.

however, you can invent the safest car in the world, and it still won't cure individual stupidity. that's a whole nother can of worms.

Yup! Check out this crapmess. At least he had the completely unintentional decency not to drag anyone else along with him when he ejected himself from the gene pool. The cognitive dissonance in the article is utterly predictable but astounding nonetheless: You could not find a greater person than Adam Rosenthal (…) It can happen to anybody (…) Rosenthal was married and a father of four. None of these assertions can be reconciled. If he was such a great person, then why was he so carelessly, willfully and deliberately slack in his duty to remain alive to be there for his wife and four kids? It's either/or, not both. And no, this could not "happen to anybody". It could happen only to someone so suicidally, deliberately careless as Mr. Rosenthal doing 70 in a 45, no seatbelt, futzing with his computer. :roll: Willful stupidity doesn't have consequences nearly as often as it should, it's just a shame it's his poor family who have to pay the consequences instead of the perpetrator of the willful stupidity.

 

[Blue87D100]

Having seen the fact that I have fell out of a moving car just had some road rash and flipped a ford ranger off the side of a mountain and walked away with just scratches and the fact that last year a guy was seriosly injured in a demolition derby when the airbag he thought he disabled went off and everyone who did not have airbags and was in 70's model cars never get hurt in them I'm going to stick to my pre 2000 cars.


I think that the 59v09 chevy test is kind of inaccurate anyway because I feel cars did not because really strong until the mid 60's to 70's.

Really? You think a unibody car is safer than a full frame car?

 

[slantsixdan]

Really? You think a unibody car is safer than a full frame car?

All other factors being equal, yes, unit-body construction is safer than body-on-frame. No question about it, based on real-world safety performance. Facts and science and data trump guesses and opinions and assumptions, every time.

 

[Blue87D100]

All other factors being equal, yes, unit-body construction is safer than body-on-frame. No question about it, based on real-world safety performance. Facts and science and data trump guesses and opinions and assumptions, every time.

"All other factors being equal" meaning what exactly?

 

[yellowdartdave]

This brand new Camry was on a demo ride when a F-150 blew a red light and Camry hit it in the driver door.

Result: Pick up driver in hospital in serious condition.
Camry driver and passenger checked at scene and waited for a ride back to dealership with a stop at local bar on the way.

I drove it onto my trailer. No A/C or P/S because of a sheared belt.

Another Camry. Was backed on above cab of transporter when a 42 ft RV pulled out of a campground and driver had no time to do anything. Went right thru the RV breaking it in half.

Drove it onto my trailer but could not open the left rear door more than 2 inches because the 1/4 panel was wrapped around it.

And on the Smart car into the cement barrier at 70...

The doors may have opened but I bet the people in it would be scrambled eggs.....no crush space at all. ops:

Why do the Indy cars and NASCAR have safer barriers covering the cement walls even though they have massive cages?? :violent1: