Old cars are less safe

[Gito]

Or the younger brother, Mercedes Benz w126 (1981-1991) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxMt7qmv9eU

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette

It seems like there is a mentality creeping in. A thinking that safe driving is less important with modern cars. Following too closely and someone panic stops? No problem the computer will sense it and brake for you. Screw up and t bone someone? No biggie, 3 airbags will protect you. Never mind the people in the old car you mame and kill.

Or text all you want, because the car will save the day.... An extra drink isn't a biggie either....

 

[Tahoe4Life]

Originally Posted By: ShotGun429

This is why i drive a Crown Victoria and feel somewhat safe: http://www.wbiw.com/state/archive/2017/0...ed-in-crash.php Shes gonna be ok

When the police agency in my neck of the woods had all Crown Vics most Leos walked away from most crashes. Now with their new Taurus and Explorer most go to the hospital with serious injuries. The Leos still using the older 2007-2014 Tahoe [they have a sprinkling of 15&16 Tahoe for unmarked vehicles] are walking away from the crashes just like the Crown Vic.

 

[DweezilAZ]

And still, AAA reports that well over 50% of traffic fatalities occur because the occupants are unrestrained when the accident occurs.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: DweezilAZ

And still, AAA reports that well over 50% of traffic fatalities occur because the occupants are unrestrained when the accident occurs.

I'm not surprised; you can't fix stupid. Just think of it as evolution in action.

 

[Shannow]

https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/medlow-bath/cars-vans-utes/1998-toyota-corolla-csx/1146538939 I can buy on anyone's behalf and arrange shipping...they are movie stars now...

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: MCompact

Originally Posted By: DweezilAZ

And still, AAA reports that well over 50% of traffic fatalities occur because the occupants are unrestrained when the accident occurs.

I'm not surprised; you can't fix stupid. Just think of it as evolution in action.

Exactly. On my way into work today I passed a young girl on the highway in a Rav4. Center lane doing 70-75mph, texting, looking down, no seat belt. I'm not sure how people can ignore wearing seat belts. Even if I didn't believe it helped, I'd still put it on to get rid of the annoying dinging noise.

 

[exranger06]

Well, this makes me feel better about driving my old car: http://www.thedrive.com/watch-this/10673...by-a-dump-truck That car is identical to mine, right down to the color. It's nice to know I can survive a dump truck to the driver's door. I suppose my car isn't as safe as a newer one, understandably so, but I never really felt it was "unsafe" or a death trap.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: supton

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 wouldn't fear a pre-2000s Takata airbag - back then almost everyone but Autoliv/Morton for Mercedes contracts used sodium azide and potassium nitrate as the propellant - KNO3 is much more stable than NH4NO3(ammonium nitrate). The reason why sodium azide isn't used anymore is that it doesn't produce as much N2 to inflate an airbag for the amount that needs to be detonated and that's it's pretty toxic - as much as cyanide. The automakers are concerned about EOL of a car when it does end up at a junkyard. However, Takata did have a rash of bad seatbelts that triggered recalls in the 1990s. The buckle was prone to either jamming or not engaging properly.

 

[bbhero]

Tremendously great post by turtlevette here. I agree that people are driving stupid because of all the "safety" features in these newer cars. I hate to break it to anybody but a "safe" car will not protect you if you hit a tree at 60 mph plus. You will be jacked up or killed. I saw a car who hit a pine tree at the Rte 30 exit with the tree resting against the firewall of the car. Ambulance sitting there. Driver already dead on scene. The motor went into the driver's compartment. No air bags, no seat belt will save you from high velocity impacts with an immoveable object. At least if you hit another vehicle head on there is some obvious give and dispersement of kinetic energy. When one makes contact with a tree or bridge support then ALL of the kinetic energy is transferred into the car and the driver. Even at 60 or 70 mph the sudden stopping of a vehicle and driver at 60 or 70 mph is absolutely tremendous.

 

[TiredTrucker]

It might be arguable that older cars are less safe from a mechanical standpoint. But given that drivers today are pretty bad in many ways, it is really a wash I think. What the auto companies have done to improve safety has almost been negated by the stupidity of the average driver. I rack up about 135,000 miles a year driving and see a lot of stupid stuff that people do and still have to be carted off to the hospital or the morgue. While older cars do not have all the safety features, I am not convinced that there was any higher mortality rate back then compared to now. People seemed to be more focused on their driving back then.