Old cars are less safe

supton

Thread starter
Messages
17,759
Location
NH
I've looked a few times at the airbags in my '99 and wondered, what are the odds that these are still working properly? They should be, but one just never knows--until it's asked to do its job. In which case one then wonders if Takata got asked to make 'em. In which I don't want them to inflate. I have a few more years before my kids are driving. Not sure what I'll put them into. I mean, I motor them around in all three of them, so I can't view them as "unsafe". But will I pony up the money to put them into something newer than my '99? World's safest driver matters not one whit when it's the other guy's fault. That said, risk vs reward, or probability of having an accident. People still die in the newest vehicles, so I'll probably be ok with letting my kids driving my '99. Just because it's more unsafe does not mean they will have an accident.
 

Nick1994

$50 Site Donor
Messages
13,209
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
I drive an 84 Civic wagon and if I get into an accident the fire department will have to use a putty knife and a shop vac to get me out.
Oh my god that made me laugh so hard crackmeup My Jeep's design came out in 1984, it has an airbag being a 1996 but I'd hate to be in an accident in it. My Sonata is filled with airbags, I'll take an accident in it any day over the Jeep.
 
Messages
2,919
Location
Southeast
ABS is the biggest difference between new and old cars. If you have someone in a new Hyundai stand on the brakes at 55 MPH in front of your mid-year ('63-'67) Corvette, you might have a problem.
 
Messages
6,235
Location
Kalifornia Kollective
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
The good old days
Yeah Baby, that's the way to do it. Too many people. Lets build them like that and export them to (take your choice)... Seriously, the only cars I'm interested in building anymore are ones from that era. Air bags belong in air planes where the impact speeds mean near certain death. My sister was partially ejected by an air bag - out the passenger side window ... Still has the scaring from the glass frown
 
Messages
1,559
Location
US
I wonder what the difference would be if they'd tested a US market Corolla with a driver side airbag. Looking at the steering wheel flying apart, it looks to me like the car didn't have an airbag(not a case of it not deploying). Airbags are not the end all and be all of safety, but having one in the '98 would have prevented some of the driver movement that would cause so much injury. Granted the front offset test is one of the most brutal ones that can be done. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that it's now standard protocol, as the armchair quarterback in me says crashes approximating it are probably far more common in the real world than a standard head-on front collision. I see the fact that car makers now build their cars to perform well in this particular test as an overall good thing and likely leads to far less injury in serious accidents.
 

CKN

Messages
6,357
Location
Utah
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
...and in other news, water is wet. Seriously, weren't drivers airbags standard by 1998 for North America? Surely this would affect the crash test. Just another ploy to get the public to purchase newer cars for the young and old. Driving up national debt to astronomical levels. Coffee
The cynicism on this site never ceases to amaze me...... crazy
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,560
Location
MA
Originally Posted By: Donald
Go back to the original Mustang and other Fords with drop-in gas tanks. Get smashed from the rear and you have gas sloshed all over the occupants.
Yep, reminds me of this scene from the movie Top Secret: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9GGDOUDLhc I think my Mercedes has 8 airbags. Getting kinda crazy these days, the newer ones have even more.
Originally Posted By: CKN
The cynicism on this site never ceases to amaze me...... crazy
No matter how cynical you get, you just can't keep up!
 
Messages
820
Location
Romania
Originally Posted By: andyd
And the older the car, the greater the difference. I'm surprised I survived my child hood grin2
+1 on that Mee too laugh
 
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
State Farm certainly agrees that older is riskier. The component price for the '92 SE-R driven 50 miles per month is about $100 per month for liability. Although like all things-insurance it's hard to tease out accurately. No tickets since speeding in '99, no chargeable accidents (ever, knock on wood). I was hit once. That's a minor miracle all by itself. So I'll add some cynicism to others. Insurance is a necessary racket...but it's a racket nonetheless. The all time best safety suggestion (tongue in cheek): A big sharp spike where the horn button resides. People would be sooo careful both offensively and defensibly.
 

CKN

Messages
6,357
Location
Utah
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
State Farm certainly agrees that older is riskier. The component price for the '92 SE-R driven 50 miles per month is about $100 per month for liability. Although like all things-insurance it's hard to tease out accurately. No tickets since speeding in '99, no chargeable accidents (ever, knock on wood). I was hit once. That's a minor miracle all by itself. So I'll add some cynicism to others. Insurance is a necessary racket...but it's a racket nonetheless. The all time best safety suggestion (tongue in cheek): A big sharp spike where the horn button resides. People would be sooo careful both offensively and defensibly.
A LEGAL NUMBERS racket!!
 
Messages
189
Location
AZ
They cost about half as much also. I don't remember having any problems going down the road.The driver makes a big difference. I was just telling my kids about how those old Toyotas were perfectly fine cars and i knew people with very high miles on them with no problems. Same with old 8000 dollar pickups doing everything the new 50.000 dollar trucks do.I admit they might not have been as nice.But in some ways they were better.
 
Messages
658
Location
Jupiter, FL
Cars before 2000s were never really designed for the overlap crash test like cars today are. Starting around 2002/03 ish is when some cars were coming out and passing the overlap crash tests. So take a car that does well at minor overlap then an old car that not designed for it and you get what you see
 
Messages
17,301
Location
OH
Originally Posted By: Astro14
While newer cars have the improved safety features, the ANCAP CEO James Goodwin hints at what is probably the more salient point: The older cars are being operated by the most at-risk drivers: teens and the elderly. Teen drivers crash at a much higher rate, so I would like to see the crash data normalized for driver risk. Right now, you can't extract the change in operator risk with older cars from the safety system improvements.
^^^This The primary issue in comparing the fatal or serious injury rates of any two classes of vehicles is very much dependent on their driver populations. Older cars tend either to be driven by the young, a risky group of drivers who buy old because that's what they can afford or the elderly, who often bought their old cars new but don't do very many miles, so their cars last for many years. I would imagine that the fatality rates for any two classes of vehicles would be very similar if you normalized them by other driver risk factors. Guys of my age may still drive fast but have acquired the wisdom to do so safely. When most of us were younger, we probably also drove fast. I know I did, but I had not yet acquired the level of expertise in car control as well as reading traffic and possible conflicts that one gains in hundreds of thousands of miles over a number of decades. When I was young, I was lucky. Today, I have better judgment to help. Put me in an old Corolla and I'd have very little more exposure risk than I would in a new Tesla. Avoiding accidents is the primary method of avoiding fatal or serious injuries.
 
Messages
17,021
Location
...
"Avoiding accidents is the primary method of avoiding fatal or serious injuries." This 1000 times over.
 
Top