Things You Learn as an Old Car Driver

[LizzieMaine]

That particular video's been discussed at length in another thread -- basically, it's a setup. They chose the most vulnerable model of the most vulnerable car of its era, and hit it at precisely the right point and precisely the right speed to cause it to dramatically fail.

 

[Stanley Doble]

If they used a 52 Chrysler instead of a 59 Chevy it would have destroyed the other car. I am not kidding, I have worked on both cars. The Chrysler bumper resembles a hunk of heavy duty guard rail and it takes a strong man to lift one. The Chev bumper is made of tinsel and can be tossed around by a 12 year old.

GM cars of that period were not very strong. There is a video on Youtube where car tester Tom McCahill tests new 1958 GM, Ford and Chrysler cars over rough roads. The Chrysler products with their torsion bar suspensions come off best, some very expensive GM cars (Buick and Cadillac) are reduced to complete wrecks without hitting anything. In some scenes you can see the bodies folding up and the doors popping open when they hit a big bump at speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBNWBHYp41w

 

[1930artdeco]

I will take my Model A on the freeway and I just stay in the right lane and cruise at 50-52 mph. People will wave and take movies of the car. BUT! I watch them to make sure they don't anything stupid. I also have become a better driver riding a motorcycle and driving the Barbara around. I now can tell what people will do before they do it and I usually can avoid certain situations. But I will take back roads when I can at all times. They are just more fun to drive. I just hate doing it around here as I go one block hit a red light, go to the next block hit another red light etc. Soon I have gone a mile in 20 minutes.

Mike

 

[scottyrocks]

If they used a 52 Chrysler instead of a 59 Chevy it would have destroyed the other car. I am not kidding, I have worked on both cars. The Chrysler bumper resembles a hunk of heavy duty guard rail and it takes a strong man to lift one. The Chev bumper is made of tinsel and can be tossed around by a 12 year old.

GM cars of that period were not very strong. There is a video on Youtube where car tester Tom McCahill tests new 1958 GM, Ford and Chrysler cars over rough roads. The Chrysler products with their torsion bar suspensions come off best, some very expensive GM cars (Buick and Cadillac) are reduced to complete wrecks without hitting anything. In some scenes you can see the bodies folding up and the doors popping open when they hit a big bump at speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBNWBHYp41w

The point of the discussion is, for me, that today's cars are indeed safer in crashes with each other, and not necessarily with a vehicle that predates in by 50+ years. How many of those are still around, anyway, and what are the chances of encountering one on the road, never mind a 'close encounter?' It is statistically insignificant.

In fact, today's cars safer in crashes with each other than old cars were in crashes with each other.

Physics is indeed the reason. Old(er) cars were not designed with any of what is known now in the field of energy absorption. I'll take the ability of my 2012 vehicle to keep its passenger cabin intact in a crash over the significant collapse of almost any pre-1970 car.

Of course, I still want to own and drive a number of pre-1970 automobiles, just as many of you do. Maybe we are all just a bunch of automotive masochists.

 

[LizzieMaine]

My goal is to avoid being in any kind of crash in any kind of car. I keep my eyes on the road at all times, I drive ultra-defensively, I avoid driving on freeways or interstates, I always yield the right of way, I don't frig around with gadgets when I'm driving, I don't own a cellphone or a GPS or a car DVD player, I never drive faster than conditions warrant, and I'm acutely aware that 90 percent of the cars on the road are being driven by idiots. This is true whether I'm driving the Plodge, the Toyota, or a golf cart in the Lobster Festival Parade.

If there's a big drawback to the modern safety-fetish cars, it's that they make a certain type of driver think they can get away with anything.

 

[tonyb]

Cell phones (especially the "smart" variety) and driving just don't mix. Alas, untold millions of drivers apparently believe themselves to be the exceptional folks who can use those things without introducing a significant level of risk to themselves are all the other people they encounter on the roads.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Cell phones (especially the "smart" variety) and driving just don't mix. Alas, untold millions of drivers apparently believe themselves to be the exceptional folks who can use those things without introducing a significant level of risk to themselves are all the other people they encounter on the roads.

As I say, idiots.

 

[tonyb]

Maybe, if idiocy and mindlessness are at least close to synonymous.

Otherwise passably intelligent people do unintelligent things not because they're mentally incapable but because their minds are not where they ought to be, for whatever reason -- laziness, selfishness, intoxication, rapture, whatever.

I confess, I have been known to glance at an incoming text message on my iPhone whilst behind the wheel. I've even done it when not stopped at a light. Is that stupidity? Well, it ain't smart. But I would bet that most people reading this post have done the same. And we're all fools for doing it, just as we were fools to smoke cigarettes and to engage in any number of other "unintelligent" behaviors. We know this stuff is harmful, but, you know, bad things happen to other people.

I am congenitally slow to adopt new technologies. But once I discovered the wonders of Bluetooth, there was no turning back. It doesn't seem that long ago that cordless phones were the last word in comfort and convenience. (When was that? Thirty-five years ago or so?) Now I can't be troubled to hold a phone to my ear. Got me a Bluetooth headset -- a good one, the hundred-dollar unit. It's illegal to use a handheld device while driving. But yakking away via a Bluetooth headset remains kosher, for now. I have heard repeated reference made to studies concluding that even on a hands-free device the driver is still significantly distracted. But I'm stupid, or mindless, or whatever.

My own behavior notwithstanding, cell phones and driving is still a lousy mix.

 

[jamespowers]

The point of the discussion is, for me, that today's cars are indeed safer in crashes with each other, and not necessarily with a vehicle that predates in by 50+ years.

This is the most salient point---with each other---not a 53 Chrysler.

 

[2jakes]

...... cell phones and driving is still a lousy mix.

Was told that the reason some women apply make-up while behind the wheel
was that the daylight gave a truer color then indoor lights... [huh]

 

[jamespowers]

Was told that the reason some women apply make-up while behind the wheel
was that the daylight gave a truer color then indoor lights... [huh]

http://youtu.be/FBKXJnE_yqw

 

[2jakes]

http://youtu.be/FBKXJnE_yqw

When LM becomes dictator...I 'll ask her to ban all phones except for this one:

Has a bit of the old & new as well...:eusa_clap

 

[Stanley Doble]

Don't get me wrong, there is no question that today's cars are safer than ever. I was trying to back up Lizzie's assertion that the 2009 - 1959 Chev tussle does not tell the whole story.

If you were to repeat the head on crash test with a new Chevrolet and my old 1952 Chrysler New Yorker, I'd rather be driving the Chrysler, provided you let me equip it with seat belts, in addition to the padded dash and other safety features it came with.

 

[LizzieMaine]

As I mentioned in the other thread about that video, I was actually in a head-on crash in a Chevrolet of around that vintage as a child. My mother drove a 1961 Chevy Biscayne into the side of a house after the brakes let go, and I was sitting, unbelted, in the front seat. I ended up being thrown under the dash, which crumpled down over me, and except for a bruise on my chin I was uninjured. The car went thru the wall of the house, and the nose was in the living room. The car, understandably, was totalled.

 

[Big Man]

Some things I learn as an old car driver are people's "connections" to old cars. I took my '48 Plymouth to town to the grocery store today. While in the parking lot, an older couple (in their 80s) stopped by as I was getting out of the car and asked if it was a '48. I said yes, and the man said, "I thought so. When we got married, I borrowed my brother's '48 Plymouth to elope in." His wife was grinning as he was talking and looking at my car.

As I was coming out of the store, a man who looked to be around 60 or so, approached me and asked about my car. I told him it was a '48 and he said, "my mother got pregnant in the back seat of a '49 Plymouth." That was definitely more information than I wanted to know.

 

[2jakes]

Speaking of "too much info"...my first "date" was in the back seat of a '63 beetle ! :eusa_doh:

 

[Big Man]

Speaking of "too much info"...my first "date" was in the back seat of a '63 beetle ! :eusa_doh:

Must have been with a contortionist.

 

[2jakes]

[/B]

Must have been with a contortionist.

Ha-ha-ha-...Nothing was impossible for a skinny 6'2" "horny as beans" kid who had no idea
what life was all about. ( was over in less then a )

 

[jamespowers]

Must have been with a contortionist.

Definitely! At least I had the good sense to use a 57 Chevy. I still have it.

 

[Big Man]

Definitely! At least I had the good sense to use a 57 Chevy. I still have it.

For me, it was a four-door '62 Plymouth Belvadere. I remember it like it was yesterday. The car was gray, the cheerleader had on a maroon and white outfit, and Three Dog Night was on the 8 track tape player. Sadly, I no longer have the car, the tape player, or the cheerleader. [huh]