Split thread: Older cars and safety

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Pretty sure that was a comment full of sarcasm and fueled by frustration. GeckoGT is one of the best safety advocates here.

Maybe just a little sarcasm. I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but I am comfortable with that.

[Kryton]

Give me brick wall......................

WATCH THE VIDEOS before you keep on about 'extra space' and the rest of the XXXX you hope is going to save your butt.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

I love it how some have mentioned about head and neck injuries as a result of an accident I had, where the head and neck has gone side ways etc etc.

Perhaps you should re-read this following comment.

The side ways movement in a side on prang causes more injury due many facts but one of them is simply hard internal structures are closer to your head (window, door frame, b pillar), which means you hit them with your head.

If your head is closer to internal structures of the car, perhaps your arms and chest are too when you get hit on the drivers door.

I feel strongly on this subject, that is obvious but perhaps I should outline how strong I feel.

My daughter is 13 years old, a license is only 4 years away. I have made a promise to her that I will not buy her a car but I will help, whatever she works for and saves to get her car, I will match as will her Grandparents. So if she can work hard and save $5000 for her car, she will end up with $15000. There is a condition on this though, I have to approve of the car that she buys. She will not be allowed to buy a car that is pre 2000, no matter how good the condition it is or what is done to it. The car she buys must have at least dual airbags, ABS, seatbelt pre-tensioners and preferably DSC. I would prefer a car with at least a 5 star safety rating and of course it must be in good mechanical condition. The good thing is that by the time she comes to buying, cars that are 1-2 years old now will be in her price range and I am sure we will find a suitable model in good condition, with the features she wants and the colour she likes. The reason for this is that I love her and want her to be safe, particularly in her novice years on the road when she is statistically more likely to be in an accident. The simple fact is she is more likely to survive the "average" crash (<70 km/h) in something like a 2006 Mini Cooper with dual airbags, side airbags, curtain airbags, seat belt pre-tensioners, ABS and DSC (they get a 5 star rating) than she is in any pre 2000 model car. If that means she can afford a Mini Cooper up to Subaru Impreza (non turbo) size car rather than a FG size car, I am comfortable with her being in a smaller car with a higher safety standard as she is less likely to be injured. Any pre 2000 car or car with less than 5 start ANCAP rating is out of the question.

Thats right, I have read a lot of evidence as well as seen a lot of evidence out on the road, enough to place the welfare of my family as well as my money where my mouth is.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Maybe just a little sarcasm. I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but I am comfortable with that.

That's torn it. Now I'm back.
Sarcasm is not the lowest form of wit. It requires intelligence and timing.
The lowest form of wit is the pun.
I bought an XB yesterday so please don't label me an old car hater, but if you really think older cars are safer, you're tripping balls.

[jmack]

whats more dangerous a person who has the misconception that they are safe in a late model car no matter what or a person who reconizes ther vehicles limitations and drives accordingly. no 2 accidents are the same so its hard to say that an older car is unsafe no matter what.people who have older cars generally have a lot more respct for the vehicles and wouldnt put it in that position and i am talking about classics not old pos .yes new cars have a lot of extra safety features but airbags dont always deploy in an accident trust me experienced this one with a head on .never rely on any safety feature is the safest way

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by jmack

whats more dangerous a person who has the misconception that they are safe in a late model car no matter what or a person who reconizes ther vehicles limitations and drives accordingly. no 2 accidents are the same so its hard to say that an older car is unsafe no matter what.people who have older cars generally have a lot more respct for the vehicles and wouldnt put it in that position and i am talking about classics not old pos .yes new cars have a lot of extra safety features but airbags dont always deploy in an accident trust me experienced this one with a head on .never rely on any safety feature is the safest way

Very true, but we are talking about safety features of the cars and their construction, not the safety features of the driver. Yes a person driving a very safe new car may take more risks as they believe they will be safe and walk out of a crash if it occurs. Just as a driver of an old car that believes their car is safe because it has space between the occupants and the object it hits, may take more risks because he feels safer in his "tank". That concept is a double edged sword. I safer driver that actively takes all possible measures to avoid a crash will always be safer than any driver who takes risks, end of story and type of car can not alter this.

Interesting observation for you, I find that when I am in the F6 I have less trouble with people tailgating me or pulling out in front of me than I do when I am driving the Mini. The worst culprits in these problems are drivers of 4WD's and trucks, groups that often think they are safer in their large tank. They must think that if they hit me they will just push me out of the way and they will hardly get a scratch. Perhaps this demonstrates the "I am big, I am safe" attitude a bit, maybe not.

[vztrt]

If new cars weren't as safe why are car companies spending big R&D dollars on it?

The Falcon could have had its safety budget spelt on other areas.

[jmack]

yes new vehicles have more safety features but no car is safe in an accident
its all an odds game.seen cars that have had only minor damge and the occupant died and others that are a piece of scrap metal and they survived,not theory that anybody would prove/disprove.if everyone drove safely wouldnt have to worry about this argument

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by jmack

yes new vehicles have more safety features but no car is safe in an accident
its all an odds game.seen cars that have had only minor damage and the occupant died and others that are a piece of scrap metal and they survived,not theory that anybody would prove/disprove.if everyone drove safely wouldn't have to worry about this argument

and a person's odd's are better in a new car then an old car, which is what is trying to be said.

[geckoGT]

Check out this video, unfortunately the narrative is in german but the pictures speak a thousand words.
9 Family Car Crash Test

It looks like all 9 of these cars are from the 80's and apparently the speed is 56 km/h (40 mph). Notice in nearly all of them the shortening of the passenger cell (seen as a kink in the roof or floor) and the fact that the restrained dummies mostly strike the steering wheel hard either in the face or the chest. Both these impacts of either the chest or face would present life threatening injuries that I have mentioned earlier.

Now look at this one, speed is not known but it is interesting to see big old tanks going into lighter cars of the same era.

1970's crashes

Lets remember that the big old tanks there are probably weighing in under 1700 kg, the smaller cars under 1300 kgs. This is relevant to this thread because it is a good example of a big old tank hitting a car the mass of a newer small hatch. Note that in all the old tanks, the passengers hit the dash and steering column at a massive speed, not to mention the passenger cell deformation.

Now some modern cars, I have selected all smaller cars to keep OT.

Mini Cooper (previous model which was only 4 star, new model is 5 star)

Mini Cooper

Subaru Impreza

VW Golf

Ford Focus

Mazda 3

I think that will do, note that in nearly all these tests there is much less passenger cell deformation despite much more damage in front of the firewall. Also in some of these the occupant still moves forward greatly and strikes the steering wheel but an airbag does slow them down. If you look at some of the higher end cars and later models, the occupant stays in the seat and does not strike the wheel, that is the benefit of seat belt pre-tensioners and load limiting belts. These two items are truly the forgotten heroes of car safety, something most people do not even consider yet they are more effective than airbags.

But as has been said, safe driving and crash avoidance is the safest option of all, drive safe people, regardless of old or new car.

[xy500]

Originally Posted by vztrt

and a person's odd's are better in a new car then an old car, which is what is trying to be said.

but what was the main point of the previous thread.....
that they are not so unsafe that they need to be forcibly removed from the road by the government, or any of you new car-o-philes thank you very much.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by xy500

but what was the main point of the previous thread.....
that they are not so unsafe that they need to be forcibly removed from the road by the government, or any of you new car-o-philes thank you very much.

I do not like the idea that because I see the safety limitations of old cars, that puts me in the new "car-o-philes" and old car hater stereotype. I have said that I love old classics and intend on finding one to do up and have fun with, I know many on this thread that have the same opinion as myself feel the same way. I like pizza, I know it is bad for me but I still like it, just does not mean I have to believe it is healthy too.

But this is a new thread and the OP statement is that a big old car (1977) is safer than a new hatch. I also do not agree that old cars need to be forcibly removed from the roads, but that is not the intent of the subsidy scheme is it?

The intent of the scheme is to assist people to voluntarily get into a newer, safer and more fuel efficient car, it is not compulsory.

I think the myth of the old large car being safer than the new smaller car has been suitably busted.

[WMD351]

C'mon xy500, lets not go and jack a jacked thread. That's just to much jack.
geckoGT, please take into consideration the fact that the op did not start this thread. I think he was trying to defend his way of life when some members stated that ALL old cars were deathtraps that couldn't be taken of the road soon enough.
geckoGT, kudos to you sir. The amount of time and effort you are putting into this is quite admirable and I would like to thank you for it.
I personally believe that you can teach people, but you can't make them learn, and also that you can't reason with an unreasonable person, but I will concede that you're a better person that me.
Keep up the good fight.

[Boosh Brus]

Agree with GeckoGT. I love old cars and want to see them on the road. My last car was 34 years old when I sold it.

The idea that old cars are safer because they are large chunks of steel or "they dont build them like they used to" is just plain wrong.

My 34 year old car was > 1800 kg and in a head on I would prefer to be in a new 5 star small car.

[Cooper69S]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The good thing is that by the time she comes to buying, cars that are 1-2 years old now will be in her price range and I am sure we will find a suitable model in good condition, with the features she wants and the colour she likes. The reason for this is that I love her and want her to be safe, particularly in her novice years on the road when she is statistically more likely to be in an accident

I was thinking about this idea a few weeks ago - I think it was after that Skaife TV report - that it's pretty common in a family for parents to drive around in a relatively new and safe car, while their teenager, with comparitively little driving experience, and who is statistically more likely to be involved in a crash, is driving around in a much older and less safe car. seems a bit back to front really. I'm not sure how many people would like to drive around an old bomb while their P plater kids drive their new car though...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Cooper69S

I was thinking about this idea a few weeks ago - I think it was after that Skaife TV report - that it's pretty common in a family for parents to drive around in a relatively new and safe car, while their teenager, with comparitively little driving experience, and who is statistically more likely to be involved in a crash, is driving around in a much older and less safe car. seems a bit back to front really. I'm not sure how many people would like to drive around an old bomb while their P plater kids drive their new car though...

Yeah seems weird but I can see both sides. Personally I can not insist on a certain type of car for her if she is self funding. I can however insist on the type of car if I am giving a large contribution to it, or I can choose to not contribute if I do not approve (her grandmother, my mother feels the same). I just hope she does work too hard and raise $20k+, it would be hard to keep up my end of the bargain, although she would have a nice car.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by xy500

but what was the main point of the previous thread.....
that they are not so unsafe that they need to be forcibly removed from the road by the government, or any of you new car-o-philes thank you very much.

Actually the whole debate has stemmed from a policy to get more 'environmentally friendly' cars on the road. The OP was concerned that it would become mandatory. A select few made the thread go off track and why we have a second thread, because if the other thread was on topic a second thread wouldn't have happened.

And seriously stop being so melodramatic, people are saying new cars have made wonderful leaps in safety and would fair better in a crash. The examples and info on here leans toward this, but naturally they are wrong...

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Perhaps you should re-read this following comment.



If your head is closer to internal structures of the car, perhaps your arms and chest are too when you get hit on the drivers door.

Now where did I say that I hit the AU in the drivers door? Where did I say that the AU driver got head injuries? This is where the whole misunderstanding has come about from you.

I to have kids. 6 to be precise. The youngest being 11 years old. The rest are old enough that they are driving. So I do care about their safety, but it doesn't mean I agree with a 5 star safety rating with their choice of cars. To me prevention of an accident is more important than the safety features of a car.

All this modern garbage incorporated in a cars driveability (like ABS, traction control, decent control, air bags and seat belt pre tensioners) doesn't teach a person to drive carefully. If anything it lures them into a false sense of security, so they rely on the car features more than learning properly from older drivers and their experiences.

All the you tube vids about crash testing can be posted until the cows come home. it's not going to change my opinions about modern cars and their safety features. I'll stick with my old unsafe cars, where I do feel more secure.

IMA. I own a 95 Fairlane, a Centura, a Valiant and a 1981 Commodore. The Commodore does have intrusion bars in the doors. The Fairlane has ABS brakes, airbag in the steering wheel and intrusion bars in the doors. The car I feel the safest in is the Valiant. So its pointless trying to sway my thoughts

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So if she can work hard and save $5000 for her car, she will end up with $15000.

I wish my parents and grandparents did that, I would have had $54,000!

Seriously though, best case scenario, she could get a brand new car for $15,000. Which is what I did on my parents advice (well, the two R34 Skylines fell threw, a Mazda 6 got sold on me 15 minutes before I got to the dealership, I couldn't fit in that E36 BMW 328i Coupe and I couldn't find a BA XR6 under $18,000 in manual at the time).

Then welcome to struggle town, with the insurance repayments on a new car, which is quite close to the quotes for the Skylines. I could only pay 6 months, because my rego and insurance come up at the same time, which with me driving my own car at only 50% of the time, with Dad who is a rating 1, cost me just over $1000, for 6 months.

You might want your daughter in a nice, safe near new car, but the insurance companies are going to try their hardest to stop your good idea.

Lets be realistic here, because of insurance companies, EA Falcon with 3rd party fire and theft is pretty much all an 18 year old can afford without help from family.

In my case, I'm a first year apprentice, which means I'm on $7.33 an hour (which went up to just over $8 an hour now because of job change). Thats like $14,000 a year. You cant even afford to live on this wage if you didn't live at home. Let alone pay for fuel, rego, insurance and maintenence on a car.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

So its pointless trying to sway my thoughts

No joke, all the proof and reasons in the world could not do that, that is why I won't bother. Believe what you want, you are going to anyway. I believe I can fit an 18' tyre on a 19' wheel with enough force, nothing you can say will change my mind because that is my opinion and it is right in my mind.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Why is it, I hit an AU Falcon in the left front door, with the front of my 1979 model Valiant and I walked away, with a bump on my head and the AU driver ended up with an overnight stay in hospital, with rib injuries?

Sorry, I was wrong it was the left front door. It is still the weakest part of a car and the most likely impact to cause injury, that is a fact and my point still stands.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I wish my parents and grandparents did that, I would have had $54,000!

Seriously though, best case scenario, she could get a brand new car for $15,000. Which is what I did on my parents advice (well, the two R34 Skylines fell threw, a Mazda 6 got sold on me 15 minutes before I got to the dealership, I couldn't fit in that E36 BMW 328i Coupe and I couldn't find a BA XR6 under $18,000 in manual at the time).

Then welcome to struggle town, with the insurance repayments on a new car, which is quite close to the quotes for the Skylines. I could only pay 6 months, because my rego and insurance come up at the same time, which with me driving my own car at only 50% of the time, with Dad who is a rating 1, cost me just over $1000, for 6 months.

You might want your daughter in a nice, safe near new car, but the insurance companies are going to try their hardest to stop your good idea.

Lets be realistic here, because of insurance companies, EA Falcon with 3rd party fire and theft is pretty much all an 18 year old can afford without help from family.

In my case, I'm a first year apprentice, which means I'm on $7.33 an hour (which went up to just over $8 an hour now because of job change). Thats like $14,000 a year. You cant even afford to live on this wage if you didn't live at home. Let alone pay for fuel, rego, insurance and maintenence on a car.

Out of her funds she has to pay the first year insurance, third party fire and theft at the minimum.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Out of her funds she has to pay the first year insurance, third party fire and theft at the minimum.

Best case scenario (lets say $15,000, $5000 would be easy to save from 15-18) and say she is 18 today, that already puts her out of a new car.

Now add these requirements onto it:

She will not be allowed to buy a car that is pre 2000, no matter how good the condition it is or what is done to it. The car she buys must have at least dual airbags, ABS, seatbelt pre-tensioners and preferably DSC. I would prefer a car with at least a 5 star safety rating and of course it must be in good mechanical condition.

Find a car that she can have insured for the first year and rego paid with dual airbags, ABS, seatbelt pre-tensioners, DSC and a 5 star safety rating in good mechanical condition for all within $15,000.

You save money on the 3rd party fire and theft, but if she stacks the car (and I'm not saying she will), because she doesn't have comprehensive insurance, she'll end up with no car and no money to buy a new one. I reckon for cars over $10,000 comprehensive is a must, well it is for me.

Today, in 2010, I reckon that is impossible, 2014, probably not.

Probably wouldn't be impossible if you aren't a 1st year apprentice.

[prydey]

Gecko - how many times have you come accross and accident involving an older car, and thought,'oh this isn't too bad', but then found the injuries to the occupants have been quite severe.

i've heard of a few cases where people wonder how someone got so injured because 'the car didn't look that bad'!!


going off topic for a bit - crumple zones and safety features only get you so far. the 89yr old driver of this merc tried overtaking a truck with another truck coming the other way. no engineer in the world can save you from yourself in that situation.

[AussieAV]

Too tired to debate any more, but here is an interesting YouTube link to an FG Falcon ANCAP test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3DGo3eqlZY

Made me feel good about our recent purchase, but doesn't make me overconfident and want to take risks on the road.

I would think most people here love their cars new or old. Even if you told me my car was so safe I could never die in a crash, I wouldn't drive stupidly, and would still try avoiding crashes -- why?? -- because I wouldn't want to scratch the paintwork, let alone get a ding !!!!!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Best case scenario (lets say $15,000, $5000 would be easy to save from 15-18) and say she is 18 today, that already puts her out of a new car.

Now add these requirements onto it:



Find a car that she can have insured for the first year and rego paid with dual airbags, ABS, seatbelt pre-tensioners, DSC and a 5 star safety rating in good mechanical condition for all within $15,000.

You save money on the 3rd party fire and theft, but if she stacks the car (and I'm not saying she will), because she doesn't have comprehensive insurance, she'll end up with no car and no money to buy a new one. I reckon for cars over $10,000 comprehensive is a must, well it is for me.

Today, in 2010, I reckon that is impossible, 2014, probably not.

Probably wouldn't be impossible if you aren't a 1st year apprentice.

I know what you are saying and see your point completely.

What I won't tell her (because I want her to learn the lesson of having to work for something) is that if the difference between getting a 5 star rating or a 4 star rating car is the cost of insurance, family will cover the insurance.

At the moment buying a 5 star rating car would be impossible, but cars improve over time and it has only been in the last few years that a lot of smaller cars have achieved a 5 star rating. In the next 4 years those cars will depreciate to a point where they will be in her price range. Here a few example of cars that at the moment are out of her price range if she had $15k today, but in 4 years they will be affordable.

Hyundai I30

VW Golf TDI

Ford Fiesta

Mitsubishi Lancer

Mazda 3

There are a lot more, 997 matches on 5 star rated cars on car sales that in 4 years are highly likely to be in the price range. Added to that, 4 years is a lot of development time in road safety. Think of it this way, 5 years ago you had to spend $60k plus to get a 5 star rated car, now you can get it with $25k, in another 5 years it will be the standard for all cars. Perhaps brand new may be an option for her. When you look at it that way, it will be a good time for her to get into a safe car that is more likely to protect her from one of the leading causes of teenage death and disability. She will have it a lot better than our generations ever had it.

As for the idea of a "false sense of security from safety and driving attitudes are more important" that some have mentioned. You are preaching to the choir here, I could not agree more and that is why I am already working on that one.

I have a reputation around here as being a bit of a road safety freak and obviously have a lot of opinions regarding this topic which I am quite vocal about. The thing is if you think I talk about it a lot here, you should see me at home. My daughter gets protected from the gory details of what I see at work, she does not need those images in her head, but she knows when I go to serious crashes and fatals. I tell here about the crash, how it happened and how it could have been avoided. I also talk to her about road safety when we are driving places now, things like following distance, headlights, covering the brake through intersections and scanning etc. She is 13 years old but she already has a better understanding of road safety awareness than some 30 year olds. Will this ensure she does not become a victim of road trauma, not 100% but I am giving it a go.

One of the down sides of my job is I sometimes have to scrape someone's child out of a hunk of twisted metal. Occasionally I am one of the last people that they see before they die and there is nothing I can do about it. All that makes me a bit paranoid I suppose, I don't want some paramedic having to do that with my child. Because of the way I feel about it, I am a bit of a nazi about this topic with my family, but I am comfortable with that and most of the time they are too because they understand why. My attitudes are not out of some desire to hold some form of high moral ground, it is out of a genuine desire to promote public safety and prevent other colleagues from having to attend road trauma. Most health workers have some form of thing that they hate seeing people do due to the needless waste of life it causes. For me it is road safety and that probably stems from the fact that I am a genuine motoring enthusiast and always have been, it is where my work and the trauma I see in it intertwines with my hobby and passion.

As for the photo of the merc, there are some crashes that are not survivable no matter what car you are in. Unfortunately I am not allowed to take photos of the cars I go to and post them here but I wish I could, perhaps de identified pics of the cars would get people really thinking and cause them to just take 5% more care. Most of the time just 5% more care would be enough to avoid the crash altogether.

I have been a qualified paramedic for 3 years now, working in the ambulance for 6 years. In the time that I have been qualified these are the fatal road crashes that I have attended that I can remember clearly right now, there are probably a few more but I can not recall them right now.

Sedan head on into another sedan, speed 100km+, 1 dead and 3 serious injuries.

Pedestrian hit by car in the process of rolling over on a median strip, 1 dead (yes it is a pedestrian but features such as DSC may have prevented the roll over).

Small sedan into a tree, speed 100km+, 1 dead and 1 serious injuries.

Sports car (with 5 point harnesses and roll cage), sideways into semi trailer speed unknown but higher than 60km, two dead.

Sedan into B double head on, speed 100km+, one dead.

Sedan into other sedan head on, speed 80km+, have not followed up, alive on arrival at hospital but most likely died as CT showed a brain stem injury which is rarely survivable and initial patient state suggests unlikely to survive.

That list shows two things, one is that some crashes are not survivable no matter how good the car is. The other thing is notice that some of these crashes involved people that lived, had they been old cars without the modern safety features, the fatality count would be higher without a doubt.

I could also compile a list of crashes that when I arrive on scene and look at the car my first thought is we are going to be pulling out a body or having to work really hard, only to find all occupants are out walking around and only minor injuries. The problem is that list would be massive, it happens regularly and it never ceases to amaze me what people can walk out of. The problem for this topic is virtually none of them are cars built before 1980 (can not think of one at the moment but there may be 1 or 2) and very few are built before 1990. I can think of some crashes that I have been to involving crashes at moderate speeds (40-60km) in old cars where there have been severe injuries. the point here is had they been in a 5 star rated car the injuries would have been either nil or minor. This has given me great respect for modern vehicle safety standards and that is why I have the beliefs and opinions that I have.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

To me prevention of an accident is more important than the safety features of a car.

Doesnt seem your too good at that either - from your own accounts.
Youll learn one day, but im pretty sure youll be hanging over a walking frame learning to use your legs again before it clicks.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

IMA. I own a 95 Fairlane, a Centura, a Valiant and a 1981 Commodore. The Commodore does have intrusion bars in the doors. The Fairlane has ABS brakes, airbag in the steering wheel and intrusion bars in the doors. The car I feel the safest in is the Valiant. So its pointless trying to sway my thoughts

what ever your smoking I want some.

just be cause your headstrong dosent make you right.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

IMA. I own a 95 Fairlane, a Centura, a Valiant and a 1981 Commodore. The Commodore does have intrusion bars in the doors. The Fairlane has ABS brakes, airbag in the steering wheel and intrusion bars in the doors. The car I feel the safest in is the Valiant. So its pointless trying to sway my thoughts

Hmm, 1981 commodore.

Commodore 100 km/h crash test

The Smart car with no bonnet came off better than this at 70 mph (112 km/h).

[DJR-351]

Hey gecko, don't you know some people can't be told, if you keep you will end up doing yourself an injury