Jump to content

Is this safe to drive???


nick8086

Recommended Posts

LOL.. Sure, good to go. What, You say you need to stop??? And there's a semi behind you with no brakes... :confused: Boom! :P... Look, Thay's full of beer Erbin. Get on the ground and lick it up aforn it washes down the storm drain. ;) Dandy Dave!

Edited by Dandy Dave (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love driving my old cars. I know I do not have air bags, colapsiable steering column, remote fuel shut off switch, seat belts, side safty glass, colapsible bumpers, padded dash, traction control, ABS, or disk brakes. That said I have yet to see a rat rod I would drive, I think 95% of them are death traps. I guess if you build a car from scratch today I would want all that technology has to offer. Not only to protect me, but the poor soccer mom who rearends this thing, trying to get her kids to McDonalds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If safety is a prime concern then most pre- war cars are pretty questionable. I don't think the rat rod in question would be any worse than something like a Ford T speedster. Many of the 50's and 60's British sports cars I have driven over the years would not fare well in a serious collision. Safety is a choice we all must make. The Volvo 240's that were my daily drivers of choice for much of the last 20 years were a great combination of safety and practicality. Unfortunately they quit making them in 93 so when my last one reached 400,000 I had to replace it with a Hyundai. {Sticker price and fuel economy forced my hand}. Many today feel vulnerable unless they are in a SUV or full size Pick up. Motorcycles are still quite popular but we all know how unsafe they are. It all depends on your personal comfort zone.

Greg in Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that the lights can only be seen from directly behind.

If those are like black out tail lights, they were designed not to be seen at a distance.

For safety the fuel tanks are held on with hose clamps will not rupture if hit, they will just fall off. The right one maybe will just sit on top of the battery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that the lights can only be seen from directly behind.

If those are like black out tail lights, they were designed not to be seen at a distance.

For safety the fuel tanks are held on with hose clamps will not rupture if hit, they will just fall off. The right one maybe will just sit on top of the battery.

That equals this --->tumblr_l88hdt4piP1qa1xnko1_500.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If safety is a prime concern then most pre- war cars are pretty questionable. I don't think the rat rod in question would be any worse than something like a Ford T speedster. Many of the 50's and 60's British sports cars I have driven over the years would not fare well in a serious collision. Safety is a choice we all must make. The Volvo 240's that were my daily drivers of choice for much of the last 20 years were a great combination of safety and practicality. Unfortunately they quit making them in 93 so when my last one reached 400,000 I had to replace it with a Hyundai. {Sticker price and fuel economy forced my hand}. Many today feel vulnerable unless they are in a SUV or full size Pick up. Motorcycles are still quite popular but we all know how unsafe they are. It all depends on your personal comfort zone.

Greg in Canada

This may be the most rational and intelligent post I've read on this topic. post-48036-143142898211_thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safety is a relative concept: there is "more safe" and "less safe", but there is no absolute safety in reality. With that said, I drive old cars, the least safe of which (in my opinion), is my 1950 Crosley. I drive it like I'd ride a motorcycle, very defensively. With respect to the vehicle which is the subject of this thread, it is well into the "less safe" zone due to the location of the fuel tanks. The ends of the fuel tanks extend aft of the structure of the vehicle and would be the first things hit in a rear end collision (anyone remember the Ford Pinto?). I'm also not sure that the location of the tail lights and third stop light would be legal in most states. I believe if these two things were taken into account, the vehicle could be made much "more safe" with little cost in time, money and effort.

I like the looks of the vehicle, and the bomb fuel tanks are definitely cool. I've always liked the creativity seen in many Rat Rods and hope to one day build one myself. I agree with Graham Man in that most of the Rat Rods I've seen are needlessly "less safe" and are not something I'd willingly drive in traffic.

Just my opinion,

Grog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 1915 Buick is about in the same category. No rear bumper and the fuel tank is as far back as it can be. ( As fitted originally.) That's just the way it was in the early years. Every time I drive it, I pays my money, and takes my chances. If someone rear ends me. They better hope I'm not able to get up and beat there texting butt. Dandy Dave!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only as safe as the person behind it paying attention or not.

That is provided the person behind is not texting or on the phone and not paying attention. :(

Also agree with DD when driving my truck. I drive it VERY DEFENSIVELY. I believe that you can not drive the old cars with enough caution for the idiots on the road.

I live near a school and can not believe the number of persons that pass in the no passing zone & speed in the school zone along with other areas.

Edited by Larry Schramm (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...