For those of you that profess how safe our old cars are.........

[Barry Wolk]

Watch this. I'm not saying we should stop driving them, I'm just saying......................

YouTube - 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS Offset

[boblichty]

Wow, but not surprising. I had a friend in a 38 Studebaker hit by a drunk in a late model pickup truck and my friends had a long hospital stay after being thrown from the car and then run over by it. They had seat belts installed but they pulled out of the floor of the old Studebaker.

[Guest ken bogren]

Yikes! Did they say what speed that crash was at? If the did, I missed it.

[alsancle]

Wow, but not surprising. I had a friend in a 38 Studebaker hit by a drunk in a late model pickup truck and my friends had a long hospital stay after being thrown from the car and then run over by it. They had seat belts installed but they pulled out of the floor of the old Studebaker.

That is truly a shame and I hope your friend makes a full recovery. However, it does illustrate why it's a laugh when people get high and mighty about installing belts in cars that were not designed for them. There are thousands of hours of engineering that goes into making a seatbelt lower your risk of injury in the vent of an accident. Simply bolting them into your car in the back yard could raise your risk of injury as much as lower it..

[keiser31]

I guess that the old thicker metal does not really matter in a wreck as much as some of us may have thought.

[Barry Wolk]

Yikes! Did they say what speed that crash was at? If the did, I missed it.

Yes, it was a typical offset collision with each vehicle doing 40mph. Please note that the 2009 vehicle's passenger compartment is fully intact.

[Guest palosfv3]

The video says quite a lot. Dont be afraid to use the pause button on the link to examine the damage as it progresses. Pay particular attention to the hood of the 59 in the overhead shot. If it were not for a stroke of luck where it hit the edge of the l/windshield pillar it would have gone right through the windshield of the Malibu.

There are two other pictures necessary to really give credibility to the new design. A shot of each car with the left door removed showing the occupants and the relationship of the dash and steering wheel to them.

While this is solid testimony about the cars themselves. There is one other fact that gives credence to the safety of our new cars. Ask any ER doctor or nurse that has been around since the late 60's about how many daily accident victims they treat today compared to number they treated back then. The numbers tell the story especially when you consider that there were less cars and miles driven.

Edited September 17, 2009 by palosfv3 (see edit history)

[Barry Wolk]

When the "A" pillar of the Chebbie-car entered the passenger compartment as the roof folded over it my heart sank.

[trimacar]

Really interesting video. I am not sure that there are that many people who say that old cars are safe, however. There have definitely been great strides in safety and creature comfort in newer cars. As the trade-off, new cars have progressively gotten more boring each year. ride down the road, look at all the cars which look alike, in their drab silvers and grays and dark colors.

I don't believe that the old cars I drive are anywhere near as safe as a new car. That said, I won't quit driving old cars for that reason, I'll just be very, very defensive, and hope the random non-preventable accident doesn't get me on the wrong side of the grass.

As the show said, be safe out there.......dc

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

I agree with Dave Coco...

While today's cars may be inherently more safe by design, thousands of people still die every year in auto accidents.

On my daily commute of 50 miles round-trip, most of it on I-81 through NE Penna, the majority of motorists are driving in excess of the speed limit by at least 15 to 20 MPH (I've clocked them), following too close, passing on the right, talking on the cel / texting while driving, fiddling with the GPS / Magellen, and so-on.

While I hate to sound like a frothing conspiracy theorist, that video test could have been designed to produce whatever result the sponsors desired.

No doubt that we've come a long way since 1959, incorporating energy-asbsorption zones, air-bags, lap & shoulder restraints, and so-on.

None of these safety devices are a subsitute for common sense, defensive driving, and respect for your fellow human being.

This past Sunday, a young woman was killed when the 1990's Honda Accord she was a PASSENGER in spun out of control on the southbound Scranton Expressway; the car hit the center concrete barrier, and flung pieces of itself into the northbound lanes. The scene was closed for investigation for over 8 hours.

No 50 year-old car involved in that incident, yet someone still died.

This brings to mind the incident of the restorer & his family who were killed in the Duesenberg by a reckless driver in a modern Volvo. Who's at fault - the reckless driver ? Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg ? Volvo ?

[MochetVelo]

On the other hand, I'd hate to run into the Bel Air in my Vespa 400!

Speaking of the Bel Air, I wonder where they got it. It looked like a nicely restored car.

Phil

[rocketraider]

On my daily commute of 50 miles round-trip, most of it on I-81 through NE Penna, the majority of motorists are driving in excess of the speed limit by at least 15 to 20 MPH (I've clocked them), following too close, passing on the right, talking on the cel / texting while driving, fiddling with the GPS / Magellen, and so-on.

Bingo.

It's not only on limited-access roads either. Over 2/3 of my work commute is on two-lane rural secondary roads and I see the same thing. It's unnerving in pre-dawn hours, and I'm in either a full-size GM wagon or Ford pickup, traveling speed limit or a couple over. Idiot drivers are way more to blame for injury accidents.

That said, what a total waste of what looked like a nice 59 Chevy. Yeah, there were hundreds of thousands of them on the road at one time, same as the newer Impala now. But NOW, there aren't many 59 Chevrolets on the road.

Dont these IIHS people stop to consider that the probability of encountering a 1959 or similar vintage vehicle in daily use on the road now is low? I can barely see their point, except to give the anti-old car crowd even more ammunition to push for outlawing us.

[Guest DeSoto Frank]

Having just read Rocketraider's post, and his comment about the likelihood of encountering a (any) 1959 vehicle on the road today, I reconsidered some of my feelings on the subject.

I think Barry had a good basic premise in his original post, that we old car lovers should not be lulled into a false sense of security, that our land-yachts are indestructible. RMS "Titanic" was supposed to be "unsinkable", until proved otherwise.

Rather than try to make a case for "how safe" our vintage cars may or may-not be in a collision situation, I think my irritation was more with how that video was staged, and it's basic premise.

I think it smacks more of a MadisonAv marketing ploy for the IIHS, than necessarily fair and balanced scientific reporting.

I think it would have been more revelatory to put two 1959 autos into the same crash scenario, and compare that to two 2009 autos in the same crash.

Or, crash the '59 and the '09 into the same brick wall at the same speed, and compare the results.

Better yet, why don't we stage the same crash as the youtube video, only using the 2009 Impala and a 2009 "Smart Car" ?

Or a 2009 Impala and a 2009 Ford Econoline E-350 cargo van, loaded to full GVW...

The '59 Chevy / '09 Chevy crash is a very improbable combination.

I do think it is a shame that an apparently nice '59 Chevy was destroyed for a media stunt; I would like to know more about the structural integrity of said Bel Air - how many miles were on it, etc... while it may have been "rust-free", if it were a high-mileage car, then one has to consider the effects of metal fatigue when evaluating its crash performance....

Yes, we've come a long way in designing safety features into our cars... laminated safety glass, four-wheel brakes, hydraulic brakes, dual-circuit braking systems, seat belts, telescoping steering columns, air-bags, anti-lock brakes, "collision avoidance systems", and so-on.

But ACCIDENT PREVENTION is still the best safety feature of all.

It starts and ends with defensive, legal driving habits.

Edited September 19, 2009 by DeSoto Frank (see edit history)

[keiser31]

Yep....it's all about the "nut behind the wheel" as my Dad used to say.

[Jim Rohn]

what HAS improved (at least since 1967) is the collapsing steering column

many of the GM cars of that period had the steering gear forward of the front crossmember

a frontal accident creates a spear (steering column/shaft) that comes at your chest

my dad was aware of this during the time I got my drivers license/1st car and I was forbidden to buy a car with the steering box located in front of the crossmember ...

[MCHinson]

DeSoto Frank,

Excellent post!

One other comparison that I would love to see is the 1959 collision with a brick wall at 5 mph or 10 mph, compared to the same collision in any 2009 car.

[Barry Wolk]

Really interesting video. I am not sure that there are that many people who say that old cars are safe, however.

You'd be surprised.

[Guest Skyking]

I do think it is a shame that an apparently nice '59 Chevy was destroyed for a media stunt; I would like to know more about the structural integrity of said Bel Air - how many miles were on it, etc... while it may have been "rust-free", if it were a high-mileage car, then one has to consider the effects of metal fatigue when evaluating its crash performance....

QUOTE]

That's exactly what I thought when I viewed the video when posted. What the condition of the '59 was in before the crash. I've seen plenty of restorations with half the bolts missing.

[Barry Wolk]

It was an unrestored car.

[TG57Roadmaster]

Half way through, in the first frames of the passenger side, the right front fender comes off

(at the front door) like an old Crashmobile toy. You may remember them;

when "crashed" into a wall or another object, the fenders, hood, trunk. doors and roof

blew off in all directions, to the great enjoyment of many a young owner.

It appears that nothing is holding the '59's front fender to the cowl/firewall which, for me,

makes the whole shebang smell.

TG

Edited September 18, 2009 by TG57Roadmaster (see edit history)

[Guest Skyking]

It was an unrestored car.

Then that makes it more disturbing using that particular car.

[Barry Wolk]

It's not about the car. It's about the occupants. It's about survival.

[Guest Skyking]

So what does the test suppose to prove? We all know that new cars with the lastest technology are safer by far. The test proves nothing.............

They wasted a car!

[Dave@Moon]

It's not about the car. It's about the occupants. It's about survival.

Barry, did you really think you could get very many of these guys to admit that Raph Nader was right?

BTW, for the people calling this test "unfair", the IIHS "offset" impact test is the best test for evaluating a vehicle's structural integrity. The NHSTA full frontal barrier tests are designed to test restraint systems, not integrity. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So when you ask "So what does the test suppose to prove?", it proves that today's cars are ultimately better built than those of 1959.

How many times have you heard that one questioned? Especially here?

Edited September 19, 2009 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[rocketraider]

Moon, do you even OWN an old car anymore? If not, you don't have a dog in this fight.

I suspect some "liberties" were taken with the 59 to achieve the desired results, same as with GM pickup exploding gas tanks several years back. Is the 2009 car inherently safer? yes, undeniably. Is the 1959 car a total deathtrap? I doubt it. People simply didn't know any better back then, and product liability lawyers were still a figment of law schools' imagination.

And from a historian's viewpoint, the intentional destruction of that 1959 Chevrolet was criminal.

[MCHinson]

In general, modern cars are much safer for occupants in traffic crashes. With that said, this was designed to "demonstrate" the position of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Their agenda is well demonstrated by this video. I am not ready to quite buy their video as proof of much. I would have to know more about the actual condition of the 1959 Chevrolet prior to the impact. I have 28 years experience investigating traffic crashes and I see some things in this video that cause me to view it as more advertisement that scientific experiment. I don't believe every advertisement that I see on TV and without more evidence, I am not willing to give this much more credibility.

Anybody else notice the rust colored dust billowing out of the passenger side of the 1959 Chevrolet? That is one very questionable thing about the video to me. I wonder where that came from if the 1959 Chevrolet was not compromised by rust.

Edited September 19, 2009 by MCHinson (see edit history)

[Barry Wolk]

Barry, did you really think you could get very many of these guys to admit that Raph Nader was right?

Nope, can't teach an old dog new tricks.

[keiser31]

Can you believe that they call it a "Celebration" of 50 years? Anyone ever see anyone else celebrate 50 years by wrecking a perfectly good (looking) '59 Chevy?

[R Walling]

In looking at the video very carefully, I noticed that the placement of the center line of the cars were not even, (the Chevy was off to the right about 5" due to the different widths)making the Chevy hit the crumple zone of the newer car.

This in turn placed the front of the new car into a position to enter the door of the Chevy and drivers compartment as they rotated around. Note that the front of the Chevy never hit the side of the door on the other car.

While this placement may have been to compensate for the center line of the masses of the vehicles, it did cause the newer car to rotate into the Chevy door and enter the drivers space.

The moral of the story could be said that the new car designs are a hazard to older cars.

I guess it all depends on who is selling what.

[Barry Wolk]

The moral of the story could be said that the new car designs are a hazard to older cars.

Once again, the video was about the occupants, not the car. Why is that so difficult to understand?

5" off-center? Who cares? Do you get to choose where you get hit???????????

[Guest Trunk Rack]

. . . . .

But ACCIDENT PREVENTION is still the best safety feature of all.

It starts and ends with defensive, legal driving habits.

. . . .

THANK HEAVEN WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE GUY WHO RECOGNIZES WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT !

[Barry Wolk]

Really? How do you prevent an accident when someone turns in front of you, or crosses the center line?

Wish I could see into the future.

[Guest Skyking]

So when you ask "So what does the test suppose to prove?", it proves that today's cars are ultimately better built than those of 1959.

Sooooo, here we go again. I said that Dave, you would have to be a dummy to think old cars are safer, they didn't have to prove it to us!

If you read most of the comments at the bottom of the video, most viewers think the engine and trans were removed. If that was the case, they probably pulled most of the front supports out too. NEVER BELIEVE WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE IN PICTURES.

In the end results, they destroyed a very nice Chevrolet. It was no worst than rodding one, wouldn't you be the first to say that Dave?

[rocketraider]

You show us, a group of automotive historians and old-car enthusiasts, a video of an old car being intentionally destroyed to prove what should be a moot point, and are surprised at our "thick-headed" reaction to it?

Yes, the concern is for occupants of an older car involved in a crash with a newer vehicle with more safety features designed in. Never mind most automotive mayhem is caused by idiot drivers who are simply not paying attention to driving. Lot of difference in a crash caused by a loose nut on a vehicle vs a loose nut behind the wheel.

Would that MKII of yours fare any better in a similarly staged crash with a 2009 MKZ?

[Barry Wolk]

No, and if you had actually read what my first post was, you'd see that I'm not advocating not driving our vehicles, now did I?

It's really a crying shame that a post that raises questions about the safety of our bodies in our vehicles has been infused with arguments that are so off-topic as to be ridiculous, IMO.

Once gain, with fanfare, IT'S ABOUT THE OCCUPANTS, NOT THE CAR.

The car has no feelings, people do.

[Guest Skyking]

Barry, the video is the same as showing someone a loaded gun and saying, "THIS KILLS", then pointing it at that person and firing it...........same thing.

The insurance institute should be promoting cell phone/texting problems. This is what is going to save lives.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Skyking
spelling (see edit history)

[Barry Wolk]

Once again, another off-topic remark. Focus, please.

If this test had been done by the AACA, what would your reaction have been?

[TG57Roadmaster]

If it is really about the occupants, then that's different altogether.

The occupants care not about the car being doctored, as some have posited.

They could care less about a 5"-off-center variation due to car body sizes.

And their feelings definitely won't be hurt from the conclusions drawn here...

'Cause they're crash-test dummies!

TG

[MCHinson]

Watch this. I'm not saying we should stop driving them, I'm just saying......................

YouTube - 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS Offset

So you want us to re-read your first post? Here it is.... So, what is it that you are "just saying"?

Barry, as I have said before, there is no debating that occupant protection is far greater in modern cars than in antique cars.

Others may be offended by the destruction of an antique car without any perceived redeeming value. I personally don't buy the argument that the video proves much because the actual condition of the 1959 car is not known. You posted that the car is an unrestored original car. I have no idea where you got that "fact" it is not in the video, it is not anywhere on their website that I could find. Do you know something more about this video than you are posting?

The video is designed to advertise the strides made in occupant protection in the past 50 years. It does that very effectively.

The physics involved in a traffic crash are very predictable. Based on my experience investigating traffic crashes, I have some doubt about the condition of the 1959 Chevrolet. How do you describe the source of the rust colored dust expelled from the 1959 Chevrolet that is very clearly seen coming from the 1959 Chevrolet? (It is very clear from the passenger side view.)

Posting a video of the destruction of a nice looking antique car on this forum is a very predictable way to start a vigorous debate. Some people like that type of debate or argument. If that is your purpose, I guess you succeeded.

Luckily, This particular type of impact is a rather rare impact in the real world. Angle impacts are much more prevalent. Modern cars are designed to crumple on impact, absorbing the energy of the crash, thus protecting the occupants. Antique cars were designed to be rigid thinking that stronger meant better. In low speed impacts, the antique cars generally survive with perhaps a scratch on the chrome bumper, or perhaps no damage at all. High speed impacts in an antique car are not normally very pretty, but they are luckily, quite rare today. High speed impacts in a modern car generally result in lots of property damage and relatively little personal injury. Low speed impacts in a modern car generally result in surprisingly expensive repairs.

Times have changed. Cars have changed. People still seem to want to argue. Why can't we all just get along?

[Guest Skyking]

Matthew, I think you are the most qualified person on this forum to debate such a video. Your post was well stated and I think it should end here.........