Retrofitting Modern Safety Systems to Vintage Cars

[Peter S]

Some interesting developments are taking place with aftermarket safety systems that can be retrofitted to older cars. I have been interested in a wireless backup camera for my Hudson once I figure out how to adapt it to a 6 volt positive ground system. Today's NY Times has an article on a further step, the Mobileye Collision Avoidance System. I understand that these devices are not appealing for weekend drivers on backroads, but in any kind of traffic, they add a layer of security. See the article at  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/business/collision-warning-systems-aftermarket.html

 

Peter S.

[Peter S]

If you don't want to fab it yourself, there are 6 volt positive to 12 volt negative ground inverters for stereo systems that I think should work fine for cameras and other accessories. Looks like they can handle up to 3.5 amp and cost about $60. See https://www.classiccarstereos.com/positive-ground-6v-to-12v-converter.html

Edited April 21, 2019 by Peter S (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

Yet another band-aid for drivers who are texting.  Sorry, but I prioritize watching traffic around me rather than watching some electronic system that's supposed to be watching traffic around me. If you can't drive safely without one of these, you shouldn't be driving.

[Matt Harwood]

There's no doubt that deaths on the road have been going down even as the number of drivers goes up, and much of that is due to advancements in safety equipment. However, I can't help but agree with Joe that all these safety "upgrades" are really just downgrading the quality of the driver. I read an editorial in a car magazine recently where an editor admitted that he had recently backed into a parked car in a parking lot because he was driving a car without the back-up sensors that he'd come to rely on in his own car. He was just backing up waiting for the beep that never came and CRUNCH! And that's an experienced car guy! 

 

There is no substitute for a high-functioning brain when you're behind the wheel.  Look at those jet airliners recently falling out of the sky because the pilots were relying on safety systems that were giving them faulty information. Their asses were telling them one thing but they'd learned to trust the software and ignore their experience. Obviously that was a mistake.

 

Cars are no different. Instead of making safer cars, we should really focus on making safer drivers. And if you're goofing around in your old car such that you're not able to pay attention, perhaps you should find another hobby that can satisfy both your minuscule attention span and need for constant stimulation beyond the fun of driving an old car.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, joe_padavano said:

Yet another band-aid for drivers who are texting.  Sorry, but I prioritize watching traffic around me rather than watching some electronic system that's supposed to be watching traffic around me. If you can't drive safely without one of these, you shouldn't be driving.

People who drive and/or text should have a finger amputated each time they are caught.  Shaving, drinking, eating holding a pet should all have a thousand dollar fine and a years' suspension.  Second offence lifetime suspension.

[JamesR]

My son said most cars on the road will be self-driving by the year 2045. I reminded him that self-driving cars are also self-crashing cars.

[Locomobile]

Self driving cars will be around until they start seeing widespread use, As soon as the numbers are up and by the probability they have a few noteworthy accidents from vehicle and navigation malfunctions i.e. drive off a boat ramp, and drown the occupants or go haywire and blast through a group of kids waiting on a schoolbus, they will be outlawed. The companies that built them are going to get sued in to oblivion, and the technology will be shelved.

 

A 3-4000 pound vehicle navigating at high speeds around pedestrians is a very dangerous thing.

 

It's like the electronic throttle and Toyota, what could go wrong? Well we seen what could happen. Just recently here in Detroit there was a guy with a New Pickup going through a car wash, he said he went from Neutral to Drive and all of a sudden it just took off on it's own at full throttle and killed one of the people working in the car wash. The News poopoo'd it down immediately.  The original news story had an interview and statement from the man right after it happened who was visibly shaken and obviously so.

 

https://www.wxyz.com/news/police-employee-crushed-at-jax-kar-wash-in-troy

 

-Ron

 

[60FlatTop]

The article got a couple of chuckles out of me. 22 test cars, that reminds me of the brochure Cadillac put out in 1981 saying that the 4-6-8 system had been test in one million miles of driving. I owned an '81 that was a good car. I read the brochure and thought "What did you do with those ten cars when you got done?".

 

And I couldn't hold back the thought of the forward proximity sensor tied to a heads up display flashing the rear of a car on your windshield.

 

Vice president of the research center drives a five year old Passat and the scientist drives a 10 year old Saab. Does the head of security drive a Peugeot? I have the feeling the New York Times accidentally got their hands on a Sitcom script.

 

I am all for technology. Each little bit advances the field.

Bernie

[Spinneyhill]

2 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

Instead of making safer cars, we should really focus on making safer drivers.

In this country, we have realised that is a pipe dream. So, many roads are undergoing safety improvements so that drivers making a mistake or whatever don't kill themselves or anyone else. The usual things being done include removing obstacles (trees, light standards, power poles) from the road side; wide medians; wide shoulders; centre barriers and edge barriers. But the motorcyclists are complaining: they call the rope and post barriers cheese graters because they chop up motorcyclists who run into them.

[1912Staver]

1 hour ago, Tinindian said:

People who drive and/or text should have a finger amputated each time they are caught.  Shaving, drinking, eating holding a pet should all have a thousand dollar fine and a years' suspension.  Second offence lifetime suspension.

 

Eating and drinking might be going a little too far. As a 30 + year shift worker who often started night shift anywhere from 11:00 PM - 03:00 AM, Engineer on the same B.C. Ferry's you have no doubt rode on.  I was a lot more functional after my Tim's drive through. Literally 1000's of instances and no problems. Also many 0. 6:00 AM shift starts powered by Tim's.  You are beat into semi - consciousness by shiftwork, drive through coffee can be the difference between functional and non- functional.. Hard to get a decent sleep when your body is telling you to be wide awake at 3:00 AM on days off and to always be falling asleep while eating lunch. Way more impaired by the shiftwork than anything else, but people have to do it everyday. Several Ferry crew members have been killed or seriously injured in vehicle crashes over the years with body clock disruptions playing a significant role.

 

 

 

Greg

Edited April 21, 2019 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

3 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

Yet another band-aid for drivers who are texting.  Sorry, but I prioritize watching traffic around me rather than watching some electronic system that's supposed to be watching traffic around me. If you can't drive safely without one of these, you shouldn't be driving.

Here here!~ well said.

[Locomobile]

29 minutes ago, Spinneyhill said:

the motorcyclists are complaining: they call the rope and post barriers cheese graters because they chop up motorcyclists who run into them. 

 

And that is what the insurance companies want. It's cheaper to bury than it is to care for someone involved in a motorcycle accident. In the last few years here in Michigan they made it legal to ride without a helmet, it was the insurance companies that lobbied the state to repeal the helmet laws. And that is why. Nice folks..

 

-Ron

[joe_padavano]

2 hours ago, Matt Harwood said:

There's no doubt that deaths on the road have been going down even as the number of drivers goes up, and much of that is due to advancements in safety equipment.

 

I agree,. Matt, however the incorporation of seat belts, crush zones, and collapsible steering columns is very different from the incorporation of electronic safety aids. As you correctly point out, all these systems do is reduce driver proficiency. The FAA has shown repeatedly that excessive reliance on autopilot functions degrade pilot proficiency, and pilots are far better trained and tested than are US drivers. As for relying on automation for safety, well, how's that working out for Boeing?  Again, the aerospace industry has far more stringent requirements on the development, testing, and configuration control of safety-critical software than do any of the autonomous vehicle companies, and they still screwed up and killed people.

[erichill]

Can't help but feel like the guy who started the post got beat up on a little bit.  Nothing wrong with wanting a back up camera. I for one could use it as my depth perception up close like that sucks. I back into a spot and think I am 1 foot from the car behind me, and get out and have six feet to go.  Parallel parking is my worst nightmare. 

[zepher]

53 minutes ago, Locomobile said:

 

And that is what the insurance companies want. It's cheaper to bury than it is to care for someone involved in a motorcycle accident. In the last few years here in Michigan they made it legal to ride without a helmet, it was the insurance companies that lobbied the state to repeal the helmet laws. And that is why. Nice folks..

 

-Ron

 

If you want to ride without a helmet and remove yourself from the gene pool, more power to you.

As someone who has ridden motorcycles for almost 40 years I do not like mandatory helmet laws, but I would never throw a leg over a bike without a helmet and proper riding gear.

Same with seat belts.  If you don't want to wear one, fine.

Just don't ask me to pay your medical costs or help support your family after you get severely injured in an accident.

People should have the freedom to make bad choices and everyone else should have the freedom to not have to pay for their stupidity.

 

[trimacar]

We have continuous vehicular deaths in our area, and almost without exception, the dead person was not wearing a seat belt.

 

I'd bet that nationwide it's the same thing.  In fact, I just Googled it, right at 50% of people who die driving aren't wearing belts at the time of the accident.  Any way you cut it, it's just dumb not to wear one....

 

I, too, believe that all these warning signal devices dumb down the driver.  Learn how to drive correctly, don't depend on technology to replace bad driving habits.

Edited April 21, 2019 by trimacar (see edit history)

[39BuickEight]

Cars have simply gotten too easy to drive. They are more reliable and faster than ever.  You don’t even have to take the keys out of your pocket anymore, much less reach for the radio or, god forbid, shift gears with more than a button.  They require less and less attention to use, therefore the attention has gone everywhere else.

[1912Staver]

1 hour ago, zepher said:

 

If you want to ride without a helmet and remove yourself from the gene pool, more power to you.

As someone who has ridden motorcycles for almost 40 years I do not like mandatory helmet laws, but I would never throw a leg over a bike without a helmet and proper riding gear.

Same with seat belts.  If you don't want to wear one, fine.

Just don't ask me to pay your medical costs or help support your family after you get severely injured in an accident.

People should have the freedom to make bad choices and everyone else should have the freedom to not have to pay for their stupidity.

 

 

Unfortunately the human body has quite a few more potentially life altering components than just the cranium. I like bikes very much. I have owned several vintage bikes. I have had several friends and acquaintance's either die or be seriously injured on motorcycles. Sometimes their riding was a contributing factor but often just the wrong place at the wrong time.

 I have been at a number of very tragic accident scenes moments after disaster. Long commute, lots of miles each year. Usually the driver of the car in shock, the rider of the bike far, far worse. One by one my bikes are finding new owners.

 

Greg

Edited April 21, 2019 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[Peter S]

I don't feel beat up on, since so much of what was said was irrelevant. The key fact in the NYT article is that “Fifty-six percent of owners experienced at least one of the advanced driving assistance systems helping them avoid a crash in the first 90 days of ownership.” The advanced systems help even a great driver cope with other driver's errors. But the special issue here is that our vintage cars were designed for road environments with much less traffic than today. There is no way that the driver of the average 1930s or '40s car can see their rear bumper from the driver's seat, so how do you know there isn't a kid back there? I'll use any technology that gives me an edge.

[joe_padavano]

2 hours ago, erichill said:

Can't help but feel like the guy who started the post got beat up on a little bit.  Nothing wrong with wanting a back up camera.

 

The article cited by the OP talks about an electronic impending collision monitoring system.

[joe_padavano]

29 minutes ago, Peter S said:

 “Fifty-six percent of owners experienced at least one of the advanced driving assistance systems helping them avoid a crash in the first 90 days of ownership.” T

 

There are two possible reasons for this. First, today's drivers really DO suck. Second, it's the "butt dyno" phenomena.  Whenever someone installs a piece of hot rod equipment, their "butt dyno" ALWAYS indicates an increase in performance - if you paid that much for the item, then by definition it was worth it.  Same goes for people overpaying for these rolling wifi hot spots.

[Peter S]

actually there's a third. the system actually helped them avoid a collision, observer biases besides.

[vermontboy]

1 hour ago, Peter S said:

“Fifty-six percent of owners experienced at least one of the advanced driving assistance systems helping them avoid a crash in the first 90 days of ownership.”

 

And that is proof positive that drivers today are lousy. I admit that I don't drive a lot anymore, but over the years I have had many long commutes (Rochester to Buffalo, Syracuse to Utica). When I worked for the government I put over 50,000 miles a year on rental vehicles for over 12 years - much of it in large cities (Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta, San Juan, Detroit, St Louis, etc.).The last accident I was involved in was in1965. I run 5 to 8 mph over the limit on highways. I probably spent a total of over 2 years running the twisty back roads of West Virginia at a speed fast enough to make it interesting.

 

I honestly don't think in all that over the last 50 years I have made over a dozen panic stops - I only remember 3 (all my fault from lack of attention or once reaching for a dropped cigarette).

 

People need to stop tailgating, stop talking on their cell phones and stop getting ticked off at some of the idiots on the road - road rage is an accident waiting to happen.

[joe_padavano]

1 minute ago, vermontboy said:

 

And that is proof positive that drivers today are lousy.

 

It's also self-fulfilling. If you know the car has these electronics, you're less likely to be paying attention, so it becomes more likely that the system is triggered. The feedback loop tells you that this just saved your bacon and you need a newer car with MORE of this nanny crap, at which point you pay even less attention to driving, etc, etc.

 

[Peter S]

Weight of evidence from statistical studies strongly supports that these systems are effective. 

 

"A 2009 study conducted by the IIHS found a 7 percent reduction in crashes for vehicles with a basic forward-collision warning system, and a 14 to 15 percent reduction for those with automatic braking."(Consumer Reports)

 

If it were true that these systems simply breed inattention that causes accidents, we would see no improvement.

 

My point is that such systems would be particularly valuable on vintage cars with their more limited visibility, braking, and manuverability.

 

Peter S. 

[zepher]

3 hours ago, 1912Staver said:

 

Unfortunately the human body has quite a few more potentially life altering components than just the cranium. I like bikes very much. I have owned several vintage bikes. I have had several friends and acquaintance's either die or be seriously injured on motorcycles. Sometimes their riding was a contributing factor but often just the wrong place at the wrong time.

 I have been at a number of very tragic accident scenes moments after disaster. Long commute, lots of miles each year. Usually the driver of the car in shock, the rider of the bike far, far worse. One by one my bikes are finding new owners.

 

Greg

 

In car vs motorcycle, the car driver will always win over the motorcycle rider.

But you can help to mitigate damage by being fully geared up.

I am one of the lucky ones that has never been down on the street.  Been down in the dirt more times than I can count but I firmly believe that dirt riding greatly improved my street skills.

I commuted 140 miles round trip on my bike for about 6 years when it wasn't raining but that was before every last person had a cell phone and infotainement systems in their cars.

A few years ago I rode to work a handful of times and decided against doing that any longer.  Just too dangerous to commute on a bike in So Cal these days.

If you want to survive on a bike you need to ride like every last car is out to get you.

But these days, even with years of experience I find myself apprehensive about riding in city and suburban areas and I head out to middle of nowhere to enjoy a ride.

[1912Staver]

Doesn't hurt to wear good riding gear. But most of the riders I have seen die were wearing full riding gear.  Our climate here is often cool and damp, most riders have decent gear. The human body is very fragile once the speed of impact hits 40 MPH or so.  At the least broken bones. A good friend died from internal bleeding, he didn't think he had anything worse than a few scrapes and bruises, 3 young kids, a very sad funeral . He was wearing the best helmet on the market and full tour gear. The bike wasn't even badly damaged.

 

Greg  

[trimacar]

10 hours ago, Peter S said:

Weight of evidence from statistical studies strongly supports that these systems are effective. 

 

"A 2009 study conducted by the IIHS found a 7 percent reduction in crashes for vehicles with a basic forward-collision warning system, and a 14 to 15 percent reduction for those with automatic braking."(Consumer Reports)

 

If it were true that these systems simply breed inattention that causes accidents, we would see no improvement.

 

My point is that such systems would be particularly valuable on vintage cars with their more limited visibility, braking, and manuverability.

 

Peter S. 

I understand the point you're trying to make.

 

The facts are, though, that most accidents involving antique cars have nothing to do with the driver of said car.  They're almost always caused by a modern car driver's impatience, ignorance, or inattentativeness. 

 

Thus, I think a study of antique car accidents would show that new electronics on the antique car would not have prevented the very large majority of the accidents.

 

I still believe that the more crutches a person uses, the less he's able to walk on his own.  At some point, kids will say they don't need to go to school, because Google knows everything.....

[Peter S]

Doubtful that anyone thinks collision avoidance systems would prevent the majority of accidents. The stats I quoted suggest 7 to 15%, but even that amount is significant. Also, the systems mitigate the effects of other driver's mistakes/folly, so the question of whether antique car drivers cause most accidents involving antique cars isn't that important. As for the "crurches" argument, does turning on your headlights make you less attentive? Do you drivr faster and take more chances because you have airbags? 

[vermontboy]

42 minutes ago, Peter S said:

 Also, the systems mitigate the effects of other driver's mistakes/folly, so the question of whether antique car drivers cause most accidents involving antique cars isn't that important.

 

The topic was the use of collision avoidance systems in antique cars, not modern cars. And after a near miss in a rental car CAUSED by the collision avoidance system applying the brakes when I pulled out to pass while accelerating I can tell you that I would never buy a car where the system could not be turned off - period. The "system" has no idea of the drivers intent. It only deals in absolutes and there is very little about driving in todays traffic that is "absolute" - it is all shades of grey that requires interpretation - not rigid conformity to imaginary "absolutes"..

[Peter S]

Right - but that includes the interactions of antique cars with modern ones. And I brlieve all CASes can be turned off, probably even to specific modules.

 

The 2 systems I would be most interested in having for the Hudson are cross-traffic back up monitoring and blind spot monitoring. Automatic braking would be OK, too, but that's likely to be complicated. The others ought to be pretty doable. Backup camera is already happening.

 

Peter S.

 

 

[60FlatTop]

15 hours ago, Peter S said:

I don't feel beat up on, since so much of what was said was irrelevant.

 

If it wasn't for irreverence I would have any reverence at all. I think it is genetic.

 

All this anti-Darwinist technology is going to make things tougher in the future.

Bernie

[60FlatTop]

18 minutes ago, Peter S said:

And I brlieve all CASes can be turned off, probably even to specific modules.

 

 

The stuff works about as good as spell checker.

 

[Matt Harwood]

2 hours ago, trimacar said:

I understand the point you're trying to make.

 

The facts are, though, that most accidents involving antique cars have nothing to do with the driver of said car.  They're almost always caused by a modern car driver's impatience, ignorance, or inattentativeness. 

 

Thus, I think a study of antique car accidents would show that new electronics on the antique car would not have prevented the very large majority of the accidents.

 

I still believe that the more crutches a person uses, the less he's able to walk on his own.  At some point, kids will say they don't need to go to school, because Google knows everything.....

 

This.

 

I can't think of a single time I've heard of someone in an old car getting into an accident and being the cause. I can't say it never happens, but it's far, far less common than someone in a modern car crashing into an old car through inattention. I have never had a close call in an old car in traffic that was my fault but plenty that were someone else either not paying attention or just not processing the way an old car looks or acts on the road (little taillights, hand signals, whatever).

[Peter S]

right -- all reasons to have CAS on your antique as a matter of self-defense. I want to see them coming!

[joe_padavano]

2 hours ago, Peter S said:

right -- all reasons to have CAS on your antique as a matter of self-defense. I want to see them coming!

 

You've clearly made up your mind, so I don't understand the purpose of this thread other than to get affirmation of your decision.  Frankly, if you think you need augmentation to be safe, then YOU probably do. FYI, I also drive in Northern VA, and the total lack of driver attentiveness scares the poo out of me. Back when I learned to drive, we were taught "defensive driving". I'm constantly scanning around me, using all mirrors and view angles, and I anticipate the worst thing the bonehead next to me will do and how I will respond. It's pretty easy to tell when a driver is going to cut you off if you have been watching him try to line up with the hole in front of you for the last few minutes. And if you are stopped at a light, the fact that your CAS tells you that you are about to be rear-ended (the most likely scenario here in the Metro DC area) won't help you avoid it.  I will have already noted that the SUV behind me isn't slowing down.

Edited April 22, 2019 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[Peter S]

Unlike some, I'm interested in a reality check on my perceptions;  the process for this is called rational discussion, not argument. Purpose is simply to explore reasons whether these systems are, like seatbelts, a non-vintage addition of benefit. Like any other tool that enhances human capabilities, they seem compliments rather than substitutes for innate abilities. I have to say that most of the negative arguments seem off-point, like the being rear-ended example above. No one is suggesting that a CAS prevents all accidents, but I would still rather have cross-traffic detection when backing my 1960s Olds or 1950's Hudson out of a parking space between 2 SUVs  than put my trust in the driver of the SUV barreling down the lane to grab the space I'm vacating.

[Matt Harwood]

2 hours ago, Peter S said:

Unlike some, I'm interested in a reality check on my perceptions;  the process for this is called rational discussion, not argument. Purpose is simply to explore reasons whether these systems are, like seatbelts, a non-vintage addition of benefit. Like any other tool that enhances human capabilities, they seem compliments rather than substitutes for innate abilities. I have to say that most of the negative arguments seem off-point, like the being rear-ended example above. No one is suggesting that a CAS prevents all accidents, but I would still rather have cross-traffic detection when backing my 1960s Olds or 1950's Hudson out of a parking space between 2 SUVs  than put my trust in the driver of the SUV barreling down the lane to grab the space I'm vacating.

 

I think that kind of situation would boil down to how the system works. Most of these are "line of sight" systems that use either ultrasonic sensors or some kind of optical sensor--neither would help in a situation where you're backing out and someone is coming too fast. If you can't see them in that situation, it's unlikely that a sensor system would, either--particularly one that was retrofitted to an old car.

 

I certainly understand the desire to have an extra layer of safety on an old car, that only makes sense, but I think what many folks are saying is that a majority of these systems are designed to keep distracted drivers from crashing into stuff around them, not to keep you out of the way of distracted drivers. By the time any of these systems would notice that someone is barreling down on you, it's much too late to do anything about it anyway. Backing out of a space between two SUVs is a great example, but by the time the sensor is able to detect someone going fast enough to do real damage, he's already too close (range on most sensor systems is less than 20 feet) and at any speed over a crawl, he's hitting you no matter what you (or the safety system) do.

 

In practice, these safety systems are designed for marginal drivers in order to protect the rest of us from them. If you're texting and inadvertently drifting out of your lane and are about to hit the car next to you, or you're backing up and about to hit a wall, such systems can sound an alert to make you pay attention. They won't give you any extra seconds if you're about to rear-end someone--by the time the system notices that stopped car, you're close enough that nothing you do will prevent an accident and, quite honestly, if you're close enough for the system to intervene, you've screwed up pretty badly at doing the job of driving--you should have seen it coming long before the intervention system did. Same for someone coming at you too fast--if you're stopped and the system tells you that someone is about to hit you, what can you do? Brace for impact? It's probably already too late for that, too.

 

Again, the intent of these systems is to make marginal drivers less hazardous to the rest of us, not to give good drivers an extra level of safety against bad ones.

 

EDIT: By "you" in this post, I don't mean the OP or anyone else, just the general "you" (which should probably be "one" but you know what I mean).

Edited April 22, 2019 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

14 minutes ago, Peter S said:

 I have to say that most of the negative arguments seem off-point, like the being rear-ended example above.

 

Let's try this again.  When I approach an intersection with a green light, I ASSUME some knucklehead will run the light or right-on-red in front of me, and I plan both my speed and my potential exit strategies accordingly. That's being proactive. If instead I'm relying on an electronic system to inform me that there's a problem, I'd be reactive and it's already too late. 

[A. Ballard 35R]

Peter S, were your ancestors responsible for the Red Flag Act in the UK or the similar one in Vermont?