I’m not big on crash posts, but when I went to our local paper’s web site today, I couldn’t help but notice this picture along with the story of a fatal crash on Hwy 58 nearby. Obviously the International is what first caught my attention. And when I saw where its cab upper structure ended up, I assumed the worst for its driver.
The cab has obviously been cut off by emergency responders to free the driver, a 67 year-old man heading along Hwy 58 near Dexter, and area where there a number of roads that cross it. The driver of the Ranger, an 18 year-old male, pulled out from one of those roads directly in front of the International’s path. That turned out to be a deadly mistake, as he was pronounced dead at the scene.
The International driver was airlifted to the hospital with “serious injuries”.
Lest anyone jump to any conclusions about the International’s heftiness being the cause of his survival, getting T-boned at highway speeds is one of the more likely types of deadly crashes. Sure, if it had been a very light Geo metro running into the Ranger, it’s possible that might have made the difference. But there’s no question that if the International had been a new/recent pickup, the driver might quite likely have walked away instead of being flown to the hospital. Or at least suffered drastically less injury.
Yes, it’s the kind of scenario that plays in my head all too often when I step into my ’66 F-100 which lacks any safety equipment whatsoever and has a non-collapsible steering column. I only drive it when I need to, and I drive very defensively. And hope for the best.
Dear Paul, Your analysis of this situation is indeed correct. The matter is, of course, sad. Even without the name of the deceased, we can pray for his family because the parents are now faced with the worst experience in the life of any parent – that of burying one’s child. We can also pray that the driver of the International survives and recovers. Tom
Paul, the above is the exact reason why I would be hesitant to driving a classic vehicle, even if it were my old 1964 Chevy, or the 1957 Chevy of my dreams.
That photo is chilling, to say the least, and when I see well-heeled people shelling out near or better than six-figure sums of money to restore a classic car like the shows I watch on the Velocity channel really make me scratch my head in wonderment.
Of course, if I had the money, I would perhaps be doing the same thing, but still…
Had the vehicles and drivers been reversed the result would likely have been reversed as well. There is obviously almost no crumple zone in the door of any vehicle. A modern vehicle driver may fare better due to a side airbag but it can only do so much as well.
An interesting thought as regards the Ford Ranger (and other small pickups though) – since they are body on frame I wonder if the cab structure itself is weaker than that of an equivalently sized unibody vehicle since that cab doesn’t have to be as strong, i.e. it isn’t tasked with supporting the vehicle itself. This would obviously manifest itself in collisions where the other vehicle simply overrides its frame structure.
This looks like a pretty nasty hit judging by the extent of damage, so I’m curious about the speed of the impact. Bear in mind cars and trucks are tested at 35-40 mph, so if you T-bone a car, or get T-boned at 60mph on a rural highway crossing, even having the best rated modern car won’t be a guarantee your walking away.
May not have helped here but this is why I’m a-ok with upgrading brakes, using fat grippy tires, and the accompanying wider taller wheels to fit both on classics. Short of reengineering the internal structure(I don’t recommend DIYing your own crumple zones!) making the vehicle more responsive to driver inputs is a must.
Personally for me the reward is worth the risks when it comes to classics, but this is a good PSA for those who’ve never weighed the dangers.
I drove by a bad accident yesterday. A pickup was on it’s side and tore up badly. But it was the first time I’ve seen animal control at a scene. Aparently a dog was hurt as well.
Paul, I think you were right to post this. It is a macabre post on a generally very positive website, but it is good sometimes, I think, to be aware of the dangers out there.
As a paramedic, I agree with your analysis. Being a passenger in a vehicle that is t-boned at the front doors on the side you are sitting on is one of the most dangerous scenarios. The higher the speeds, obviously, the worse. That’s why rural highways tend to have the worst accidents. Deadly accidents are fairly rare on urban roads, with people heedlessly blowing lights or speeding excessively being the most common factors in fatal crashes. It is a shame that a young man died, though it always adds an extra level of tragedy in my view when there is a deadly crash and the person who caused it is the one who survives.
I really hope the International driver recovers and can replace his oh-so-Oregonian curbside classic.
It can be very helpful to be aware of dangers like this and how to avoid them. These scene reminds me of a similar accident that I saw in the mid-1980s.
When I was about 12, an accident similar to this happened across the street from my house when a teenage boy driving a Renault Fuego attempted to turn left onto a busy 4-lane road and likely misjudged the speed of an oncoming car. He was broadsided by a Chevy Nova, and tragically was killed.
I vividly remember watching the rescue attempt and the tragedy of watching the survivors of the crash as well. I also remember my father telling me afterwards that judging oncoming vehicle speed is one of the most difficult things for a new driver to master — and to remember that scene when I learned to drive. It was a lesson I never forgot.
I drive anything as if I’m riding a motorcycle. I have a friend, who’s wife T-boned a Metro with a ’86 F-250. It sent the car rolling like a bowling ball; driver walked away. Two thoughts here:You go when your time is up, and maybe, just maybe, there is something to be said about a small, light transportation pod. Car wrecks (I refuse to call them accidents, as 99% of them are avoidable) stink. I have been rear ended more times than I care to remember, just sitting at a traffic light or in gridlock on I-5, minding my own business. My prayers go out to all those involved.
“I drive anything as if I’m riding a motorcycle.” VERY good advice. I think that commuting via bicycle has made me a much more alert driver. That feeling of being fragile, exposed and vulnerable can keep you alive no matter what sort of vehicle you’re piloting.
I started my driving/riding career with a 75cc Honda bike that was just barely adequate for the rural roads and suburban streets I used it on. I think it made me better at judging oncoming cars because I knew I absolutely had the slowest acceleration of any vehicle on the road so I had to get it right every time. I don’t remember ever having a close call on that bike with oncoming traffic from either direction. It taught me to be patient until it was safe to pull out.
4 cyl Tacoma driver here…judging the gap is truly an art-form when under load and with A/C on.
For me the safety issue was the deciding factor against buying an older car. A couple of years ago my wife and I decided that, since we were both retired, it was time to buy another convertible. We looked at several “collector” cars (66 Cadillac/68 Mustang/71 Olds 98/66 Mustang) but finally bought a 2014 Mustang convertible. As much as I wanted the Cadillac, the fact that it had drum brakes and no safety equipment other than lap belts turned me against it. A modern car gets you disc brakes plus collapsible steering column, air bags and all the rest. If the older car was just something to drive on the occasional weekend I would have been more tempted but, not having the space for more than two cars, any car purchased becomes my de facto daily driver. Perhaps if I win the lottery I can afford more garage space and then be able to indulge in older car(s).
Two minor quibbles:
1) There was no 1971 Olds 98 convertible, although there should have been; 1970 was the last year. (My family once had a ’63 98 convertible, the only used car my parents ever bought; they soon traded it for a ’65 Bonneville convertible, first year for the glass rear window.)
2) If you want a collapsible steering column, all the 1967 GM cars had them, and most of the competition as well. (Standard 4-wheel disc brakes and three-point belts were offered in ’67 too, as long as you bought a Volvo.)
68 Mustangs have collapsing columns as well, they switched over that year
66 they became mandatory on Australian cars our 66 HR Holden wagon had a collapsible column
Fairly sure collapsible steering columns didn’t come in until 1968 with the HK.
A mid-1970s vintage car will at least get you the basics – side impact beams, collapsible steering column, three-point belts, and (usually) front disc brakes.
That’s true enough but, at least to my eyes, cars from the mid-seventies are bloated caricatures of what they were just a few years previously. I don’t know if I read it here or somewhere else but most people tend to be nostalgic about the cars of their youth, roughly from age 12 to age 20 or so. For me that would be the cars of the sixties through the very early seventies. It is an ever changing list but at any time at least 8 of the 10 cars on my Powerball list date from 1964 through 1969.
Actually there are some newer old cars that do appeal to me. Of all the cars I’ve owned and driven in the past 50 years the one that I most regret getting rid of was a 1988 Mustang GT convertible that I owned for seven years or. If I could have found another one in reasonable condition I would definitely have considered it but nearly all Mustangs of that era (heck, any era) tend to have led a tough life. At some point they fall down the food chain until they end up in the hands of teenaged boys, something that is never good for any car.
I had a ’66 Cadillac deVille convertible,(light blue, white interior and top) the brake drums were finned, like Buick, but iron instead of aluminium like Buick (I also have my ’63 Electra convertible).The road test of the early and critically the mid 60’s stated the finned drums and capacity “will allow Cadillac to run several more years before switching to disc.” Some cars need converting to disc brakes, if the car is maintained properly, these don’t. The Cad with variable ratio p/s, and the 429 was a performer. I have no illusions about crashing though, My Electra was hit in the drivers side by a red light runner at 60 mph. I saw lights close and coming fast, I floored the Elecrtra, that burst of speed moved the point of impact from the drivers door to the middle of the rear fender at the wheel well. From the damage , with no frame side rails, I most likely would have been killed. The impact knocked my Electra across 4 lanes of road and over a curb into a parking lot. The ’66 Cad never suffered any accidents, and was a wonderful experience. When I bought my Electra (three years old, 30,000 miles) there was a black one in town. A few months later it hit a tree at well over 100 mph sideways, drivers side. The driver was killed and the Electra was bent with front and rear bumpers touching. My Electra, driven,450000 plus miles is extremely competent (I have replaced suspension, and steering and brake components to prevent metal fatigue over years.). I would have missed all those wonderful miles if I hadn’t decided the Electra, and my competence, were worth the chance to do so. This last year I had a fine young lady friend killed by an air bag, you can die in anything.
Speaking as somebody who got into an accident in my 1969 Cadillac ambulance, those era of cars are pretty darn safe due to their mass, thickness of steel, and thickness of doors and other body parts. I’d pick a full-sized American car from that era over any small 1990s Japanese vehicle any day.
I did add shoulder straps as one of the first upgrades to it, out of a 1971 Cadillac sedan that I purchased for a parts vehicle.
YMMV
Gah. Hope the International driver makes out Ok, and being a young guy getting killed, I always think about how much they are going to miss.
Being a motorcycle driver really helped with defensive driving. And seeing a friend die before my very eyes really helped with driving according to the conditions.
Like Paul I am very defensive in my older car
The same Doug D. Non boosted steering and three speed manual in a 60s compact car are not conducive to risk taking. One has to be very deliberate and focused in driving it.
I do have seat belts, the car is maintained and I have never felt “unsafe” in it, but am always highly aware of my surroundings.
Ironically, the car I had ABS, traction control, disc brakes and airbags in was totalled in a rear ender by a small BMW convertible. In a left hand turn lane. Waiting at a red light. At 5 am.
A horrible situation above. But I read and hear on the news of far more hit and runs of people on bicycles, motorcycle fatalities and pedestrians being mowed down [ almost a sport here in Tucson, it appears ], than I have ever encountered an old car and a newer one in an incident. Nor have I in the many years I drove it in and lived in Los Angeles.
But it is an excellent reminder of what can happen, regardless. The chances of being mowed down in an old car by one of the many speeding 4x4s in the area is a constant reminder as well.
Taking the Valiant for new carpeting the other day on the other side of town was a mildly nerve wracking experience; roadwork and traffic, bad road surfaces, shifting, being aware of the limitations of my vehicle and the potential obliviousness of others, all of it took it’s toll, so I am not discounting the message of this article at all. It is a grim reminder of what can happen.
Doug, what eventually caused me to stop riding my motorcycles was the ever increasing numbers of inattentive, texting drivers. I felt that defensive riding was becoming more and more difficult as I saw a steady increase in vehicular texting, and I had several close calls because of texting. It is very hard to fix stupid, especially when you have no control over someone else’s stupidity. Be careful out there. Enjoy those delightful rural Ontario roads with caution.
I gave up motorcycles for the same reason. A convertible like a Miata is 80% of the experience anyway, and you have a top for the rain and can carry groceries.
Yep, I just lost a cousin due to a motorcycle crash: https://bangordailynews.com/2017/09/28/news/winterport-man-72-dies-in-motorcycle-crash/
I never had any great desire to ride, it just seemed like too much work to stay safe.
That’s sad.
I’ve been riding for 25 years now, and during the last 10 I usually try to discourage people from riding. I tell them it’s like smoking, if you do it long enough it’ll probably kill you, and if you never start you don’t have to figure out how to quit.
I disagree Doug ;
Many (?most?) of my Foster boys talk about Motocycles so i have a standing off to pay for any of them to take the MSF’s Iron Horse training program .
So far not a one has bit .
My Son took it and is a vastly better rider (faster too) than I was or ever could be .
Life firearms, I think everyone should be afforded the opportunity, some will take it up, most will not .
-Nate
Paul, thanks for sharing this sobering but appropriate story. I figure you’re probably in not too much danger in your ’66 running around town at 25mph, but driving does get more dangerous at highway speeds.
As a few above have mentioned, “how old a car do I want?” (for safety reasons) is worth consideration if it’s anything but a trailer queen, and that factor will perhaps keep me out of a ’50s-’60s car in retirement.
I’ll hope for the best for the International driver. The teenager is someone who, sadly, had too much of his life in front of him….Thomas M. is right about the ultimate sadness of a parent burying a child.
An additional aid to safer driving in the International pickup, or any classic vehicle, is keeping the low beam headlights (and tail lights) on while driving. Helping make yourself more visible to others.
In the province of Ontario, all new cars sold since 1990 have required daytime running lights. However, Nova Scotia is the only Canadian province that requires daytime running lights or low beam lights on during the day. Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act doesn’t require the use of daytime running lights during daylight hours.
When driving cars built in Canada before 1990, I used to turn the headlights on to make myself more visible during the day to other drivers. Though the law did not require it. I started doing this in the late 80s as the safety advantages of daytime lightning started to become topical in North America. As it was already adopted for a number of years in Nordic countries of Europe.
DRLs have been required in the states for quite some time, too.
Where? Certainly not WV, VA, or MD. They’ve been standard equipment on GM and VW and others, but not mandated.
Further, DRLs are not a panacea. They do nothing to help a following driver see you. Low beams are better.
i recently rented a chrysler 300. it had a switch position for automatic lights. the drl’s were part of the setup. in fact, i don’t think there was a way to engage the drl’s manually. i didn’t touch the light switch for a week and it worked flawlessly. why don’t more cars have this setup?
My 1994 Cougar has autolamps, never given a hiccup and I too never use the main switch for lights.
Personally I think any car equipped with DRLs should come with automatic lights standard. The big issue I have with DRLs is that they are JUST bright enough at night to make you think the main lights are on, and the now always lit instruments in modern cars validate that false perception. I have seen literally hundreds of cars this year alone with no taillights on at night, and every single one, as you’d guess, is new or newish, has DRLs, and the drivers face is glowing from the luminance of the dash lights.
The sensors aren’t all well tuned/calibrated. I have a 2012 Ford Focus. Depending on conditions, the headlights don’t turn on soon enough for my tastes. Usually off by about 20 minutes. I’m sure if they came on soon enough for me that someone would complain about them coming on too soon.
Not here in IL either, and I’m almost certain there are 2017/2018 cars without them as well.
DRL’s have NEVER been required by law in the States.
No, DRLs are not (and have never been) mandatory in the United States. Since 1995 they’re permitted, but they are not required.
You make a very valid point about being visible, in the UK many newer cars run with LED side lights and dipped beam on all the time, Volvos have done this for years, and the great majority of people put their lights on as soon as the light is fading.
In the UK, the shortest days are coming and soon we will be driving to work and home again in the midwinter dark, when its dark around 4pm
I agree that these lights make a big difference in the fading light to make a car stand out, but they also have a downside due to the strength of modern high intensity European lights; away from the city or town they completely dazzle any oncoming drivers even on dipped beam, especially if the car is driving over a hump in the road
I often drive 90 miles home from work in the dark heading south on the main A class roads through the middle of Wales. the vast majority of these roads are twisting bends for miles on end (which are a pleasure to drive on in good conditions, they are a result of the terrain and the fact that the Romans did not get that far).
Fortunately you see the main beam of an oncoming car reflected on the trees and people are pretty good at dipping them before they round the bend, the trouble is you are suddenly hit by these very bright dipped beam lights and that’s all you can see, you have brake and aim for the left of them, its almost impossible to see the road until the car has passed
Its not my eyesight, everyone says they have the same problem, they are just too bright. Now I wait until virtually all traffic has gone and leave late,
I also thank God that the roads are liberally marked with cats eyes (or road studs for the squeamish and my 5 year old niece), seeing the path of road ahead defined by this wonderfully simple invention greatly aids night driving safety.
I’ve turned on my low beams for safety since the late 80s, before Canadian federal law mandated it on new cars, as I knew it added a significant degree to making my car more visible to others. Especially useful on highways, where headlights can appear in the peripheral vision of other drivers in scenarios like this accident, as they approach on side roads.
I’m also very aware of ensuring my headlight beams are properly adjusted so as to not blind oncoming drivers.
I do think daytime lighting should be mandated in the darker months of the year in higher latitude regions that experience significantly less daylight during Fall and Winter. If not year round.
This is a “Safety Highway Corridor” meaning that headlights are supposed to be turned on. It’s a stretch of highway that has a high accident rate. Several folks have lost their lives, due to drivers turning in or trying to cross the highway with poor judgment.
Seeing your comment here and some of your other comments about this stretch of highway, it sounds like this “Safety Highway Corridor” business is
A) indicative of a highway that needs serious safety improvements,
B) the state acknowledging this stretch of highway needs serious safety improvement,
C) the state trying to cheap out on and avoid making the necessary highway improvements, and
D) acknowledgment that the state won’t spend the money until more people die first.
We know, we have volumes of data showing, that highway design is of paramount importance in highway safety. Driver’s ed helps. Car design helps. But, at the end of the day, highway and roadway design is *the* paramount determinant of both auto safety *and* pedestrian/other vulnerable user safety. And highway design is *not* something within the control of motorists.
Shame on the State of Oregon for allowing a dangerous stretch of highway to remain in service and to continue to claim lives.
Oregon has beautiful scenery and lousy highways to enjoy it with. The roaring noise from studded tire damage will drive you insane and exhaust you on any drive over an hour.
Is that why I-5 sounds like a gravel road turned to 11?
Xequar, as one who has been on the flip side of what you are mentioning, let me address your points:
a) No doubt there’s a injury / crash rate that is higher than the norm for similar highways in Oregon for the safety corridor to be implemented. Now, the real question – is it due to the frequency of access points, excess speed, inattentive driving (people texting, etc.), limited sight distance, over capacity, geometrics, or something else?
b) In Missouri such sections are not uncommon and I traveled on one the other day. The problem on this section was everyone going north toward St. Louis in the morning and everyone then going south to head home in the afternoon. It was decided that fines would double for a certain section and the rate went down. It still had too many access points and excessive speed but it went a long way to remedying the problem without simply throwing a lot of money at it. Keep in mind a state DOT spending money is a double-edged sword as for every person who thinks it’s a great thing, just as many gripe about tax money being wasted.
C) What type of improvements do you suggest? This is a two-lane road with a 60 mph running speed. Oregon has 8,000 miles of state owned roads – likely Oregon has finite resources and they have to prioritize needs to fit their funding. Do we know this is the absolute worst location in the entire state? Do we know it’s even in the top half of locations having above average crash rates? No, we don’t.
D) The concept of so many people having to die or be injured before something is done is one of the most ridiculous urban legends ever. Having worked in highway safety for a number of years, that statement is pretty insulting. The goal of those in highway safety is for ZERO crashes and these people work diligently to make constant improvements. Seen any rumble strips, mile markers, upgraded guardrail, runaway truck lanes, highway striping, object markers, road signs, or guard cable lately? Then thank a highway safety engineer. Incidentally, crash testing started in the 1930s by highway safety engineers who wanted to make things better. If the state didn’t give a shit, as you seem to indicate, none of these things would have ever been created. But, remember, every time any of these were introduced, there was also the lobby inquiring why tax money was being wasted.
I mentioned access. If you want an uphill battle, I would encourage you to pick any section of highway, particularly where there are numerous businesses, and go about curbing the number of access points. It’s a really fun job.
We agree that highway design is of importance, but the driver is the ultimate force for what happens. All the efforts in the world cannot capture a drivers attention if s/he doesn’t want it captured. Despite all the advances, there are still people who cross the center line, drive while texting and/or drunk, and who ignore other safety devices, such as stop signs. The road is simply a well engineering path to follow, the driver is still the one driving.
I was last in Oregon in 2010. While I didn’t go west of the Cascade Mountains, I was impressed with the level of safety improvements Oregon has. It was much better than other states I’ve been in.
I can also tell you that my living in Missouri gives me the sixth largest state highway system in the country and a state that is 46th is the amount of funding per mile (another huge factor I didn’t delve into). A few years ago we saw our lowest number of fatalities ever but it has started to creep up again, primarily from distracted driving. Several bills have been introduced into the legislature to prevent talking on the cell phone, bills to provide more funding for transportation and related safety improvements (an issue that is habitually ignored at both the state and federal level by both parties), and other measure to make things safer as such improvements cost money which has to come from somewhere. They have gained no traction.
So while this is long, please understand that fixes take many forms and what you have asserted is frankly rather disparaging to those who work tirelessly to make things better.
Like so many things in life, there is more to it than what meets the eye.
Thanks for that Jason,
Always a pleasure to get input from someone with expertise when it comes to complex issues.
This is a great post, and I appreciate it. My apologies if I insulted you or your work! I’ll be honest-I tend to be pretty cynical about state highway agencies, since the highway agencies in the state I reside in are, largely, terrible. We’ve had elections turn on the roads issue, and I recall an episode from the area where I grew up in which “the data [didn’t] support a modification” (which is to say they refused to add a traffic light to the intersection at the entrance to the largest employer in the county, even when the county and the village in question both offered to pay for it), at least until a family of four was killed and the TV stations got on the story.
I will say, though, MDOT puts up the nicest signs of any state I’ve been in. Clearview font, super reflective, very clear on what’s happening or coming up… Yep, what they can’t do in clearing roads or repairing roads or maintaining roads they sure make up for in signing them!
I posted this before I spent the time on Google to figure out the location, find the intersection, and look at the area. As it turns out, it’s pretty well sorted already. They could stand to cut the trees back from the edge of the road, maybe improve the advance signage on the highway (super small signs indicating the coming intersection of the sort the county I grew up in uses on the side roads out in farm country, much much smaller than what MDOT uses). I hope the accident rates have dropped considerably from when they started, because what I got out of Paul’s various comments and what it looks like did not match up.
Had it been the two-lane affair I was thinking, I would have suggested a blinky light, better signage, and improving vision from the side road. Looks like they’ve largely sorted the design aspects, added a blinky light, and double-signed the approach. Not too much more to do, and it’s a much nicer road than I’d have guessed.
I can’t find the Michigan funding per mile figure, but as of 2013 we were dead last for highway spending per capita. But, they’ve finally gotten proactive about safety improvements across the state-center rumble strips, signalized intersections at major crossroads even in the hinterlands, cutting back at least 50 feet from the edge of the road for visibility, passing lanes, the aforementioned beautiful guide and other signage. And, our state legislature has finally seen fit to start in the right direction with our low and largely not reflective of 85th percentile principle speed limits, at least Up North.
Jason has already addressed most of the issues in your simplistic rant.
Yes, like pretty much all states, Oregon is crunched for highway dollars due to the politics (resistance) of raising the gas tax and the greater efficiency of vehicles. As a matter of fact, Oregon did manage to put together a comprehensive transportation bill this summer, which will increase the gas tax and future funding. But projects are prioritized, and and this section of Hwy 58 was actually extensively redone within the past ten years, adding some passing/turning lanes, wider shoulders, etc.
Except for the Portland area, Oregon has a low population density. We have only one interstate/freeway that crosses the state north/south (I5) and east/west (I84), but 84 is on the northern edge of the state, coming out of Portland. If I want to cross the state to Idaho, two lane highways are the only option, except to drive up to Portland first.
These two lane highways are of course intrinsically more dangerous than a limited access freeway. Doh! But the traffic densities and financial resources simply do not warrant them to be converted to a freeway. Maybe in 25 or 40 years.
This section of 58 has a small town nearby (Pleasant Hill), where the speed limit drops to 45, and there’s a traffic light at the main intersection. But before and after that, there are many driveways to properties fronting the highway, and numerous roads and streets.
I’m attaching a screenshot of this intersection. As you can see, there’s two lanes of highway eastbound (the direction the International was going), and there’s also space in the middle for a car to have turned into, if the other side of the highway is busy. And there’s warning lights overhead. This was all done a few years back in a major improvement project on this stretch of 58.
This is about all that can be done for an intersection of a rural road with a two-lane highway short of a full signal, which has its own issues.
Yep, looks like they’ve done a lot of work on it. Reading your comments throughout I got the impression it was something different (probably what it looked like pre-improvements) and that the safety corridor “Turn your headlights on” imperative was a dodge. Speed limits, stop signs, and other such regulatory things seem to be applied as though they’re a panacea and a substitute for good design in a lot of places. I wasn’t suggesting it needed to be a freeway, but maybe that there was a blind curve or lack of signage or (as does look to be the case on Google) the trees need to be cut back to give good sight lines or a turn lane added-the sort of fixes that are reasonable for a rural state highway.
I’m glad to see that they’re taking their duties seriously.
Those Google Earth views can be a little distorted, but that intersection does look tricky. It does not appear to be 90 degrees. The trees block sight lines, yet the stop sign appears to be way back from the main highway.
I like DRLs for the visibility they provide, especially for silver and beige cars that blend in to the color of faded asphalt. But lots of people in the States absolutely hate them.
Daytime running lights significantly reduce your risk of being in a crash during the daytime. They’re required equipment in Canada, throughout Europe, and in a large and growing number of other countries throughout the world because they are a very cost-effective safety device (i.e., they work). Most arguments against DRLs, whether or not their exponents realise or admit it, are arguments against the problems caused by particular implementations, not against the DRL concept itself.
Since early 2011, European regulations have required functionally-dedicated white DRLs. This is really the right way to do it; it gives the maximum safety benefit without any significant drawbacks or annoyances and with minimal fuel consumption.
In North America, there is a long tradition of industry resistance to spending money on lights, so in Canada and the US a wide variety of DRL implementations are allowed. Low beams or high beams at reduced intensity are permitted as DRLs. Neither of these is a very good method; the reduced-intensity high beams are too glaring and don’t give a wide angle of visibility, while the low beams don’t make very effective DRLs because the light distribution patterns that make a good low beam or a good DRL are mutually exclusive. Both low and high beam headlamp DRLs are problematic in that after dark they leave equipped cars invisible from the sides and rear and the driver with severely inadequate seeing unless the automaker deigned to provide (and the driver decided to pay for) an ambient-light sensor.
It’s also allowed to steady-burn the front turn signals (not the parking lights, but the turn signals) as DRLs. These are probably second-best versus functionally dedicated units in terms of benefits & drawbacks.
(And then you have the AM talkback radio types bleating without basis in fact about DRLs are evil because government overreach, they kill motorcyclists, they molest children and shred fuzzy kittens, etc)
Daytime Running Lamps DO shred fuzzy kittens! DRL’s are also involved in the proliferation of voodoo death cults and the return of the 8-Track tape. Yikes! (Hope I haven’t missed anything). 😀
Well, no, you haven’t missed anything; we’re not supposed to talk about the integral part DRLs play in chemtrails, vaccine-induced autism, and the illegal existence of an income tax. Eep! »claps hand over mouth«
Portland, Eugene, and Salem are each at latitudes comparable or farther north than the province of Ontario’s most populous regions, including Toronto. Meaning they are subjected to the same reduced lighting we get when Fall and Winter approaches here. Further, the PNW gets more heavy cloud than we do in the darkest months.
I would suggest states like Washington and Oregon should encourage more use of daytime lighting on motor vehicles. If not mandating it. From experience in Ontario, it unquestionably makes vehicles more visible to each other. Especially pre-dusk and when there is reduced light.
I don’t know how it is done in Canada but in the USA, the states cannot mandate that a feature be put on a car like DRLs. This is the domain of NHTSA and the DOT which are federal government agencies. The most a state can do is mandate when the lights are turned on. In my state (Maryland) there is a law that requires you to turn them on when you have the wipers on (i.e for rain or snow) or in certain instances such as a section of road.
In Canada, Transport Canada (a federal government department) mandates the federal law requiring new cars come installed with the DRL feature. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act dictated all vehicles sold or imported into Canada after Dec. 1, 1989, must have automatic daytime running lights (DRLs).
Individual provinces can pass legislation requiring daytime lighting mandatory usage. Whether it be DRLs or low beam lights. This would encompass classic cars without automatic DRLs. Currently, Nova Scotia is the only Canadian province that requires by law the use of DRLs, or low beam lights during the daytime.
Yes states can mandate the specific equipement be installed in vehicles sold new in their states. Back n the day when heaters were optional equipment there were some states that mandated it, of course those were northern states where it gets cold and the lack of a defroster was deemed unsafe. Of course heaters became standard on all vehicles long ago but I bet the law is still on the books. Rear window defrosters were also required by some states where they were available and not standard.
There is a reason that some of the older TV and print ads intended for a national audience, that advertised a base price often had disclaimers that stated that price did not include regionally required equipement.
That strikes me as a blatant violation of the interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Which of course divests the states of any power to regulate interstate commerce.
Can you image the havoc that would be unleashed if each state could regulate the equipment, performance, standards, emissions, etc. of the cars sold in their state??
CA has the only exception, the power to set its own emission standards. That is the result of a specific federal law, which recognized that CA had emission regulations in place prior to the federal standards. That law allows other states to chose CA regulations as an alternative.
But other than that, any attempt by a state to regulate interstate commerce, as in the selling of cars from another state, or cars sold in other states, is a clearly unconstitutional. If a manufacturer chose to only sell in one state, the state of manufacture, then it might be possible.
If you can show me some clear evidence to the contrary, I’d be most interested to see it. But I’d be most surprised. The US economy would go to hell in a hand basket if the states could all regulate the goods sold in their state.
You’re exactly right. The Clean Air Act has a specific exception-Section 209-written into it that allows California to request waivers to allow them to continue to enforce their more stringent standards. The law is written to say that the government should do so almost as a matter of course unless CA messes up in some way, but it is a specific facet of the federal clean air act. Other states can adopt CA standards for which California’s been granted a waiver (Section 177), but they must adopt them *exactly* as CA sets them and at least two years before the model year in question.
Said another way: California can act because the feds *allow* them to act. Interstate commerce is the domain of the feds in the United States.
There was actually quite a lot of hullabaloo in the early 2000s about this, as the Bush administration was threatening to cancel California’s waiver in the interest of synchronizing standards (and probably for political dominance reasons as well). My recollection is that there were federal lawsuits that drug on long enough that the incoming Obama administration rendered them moot by granting the waivers.
I suspect that many of those regional equipment laws may have become unenforceable when the Federal Government got involved in motor vehicle safety regulation in a big way in 1966. For example I recall reading that quad headlights took awhile to implement because some states did not allow them and the auto industry had to work through many state legislatures to get laws changed, so that by 1958 they were legal everywhere.
But once the Feds waded into the area that made state enforcement of conflicting laws (and sometimes those that do not conflict as well) risky. The legal doctrine is called preemption and it means that once the Federal government constitutionally enters an area with regulation, federal law preempts conflicting state law.
I believe it was Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 that mandated the early safety features beginning with 1967 models and the Feds have been extremely active in that area since. I doubt that there have been many attempts at enforcing state safety requirements since the early 70s.
@xequar, No there are states that adopt part of but not all of the CA emissions standards. When they first started doing so in my state they did not include the provisions for the CA emissions performance warranty and they don’t do the ZEV requirements either.
And I just thought of another one, lead wheel weights. Several states have varried bans. This is a bit old https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZy5rrmeTWAhXov1QKHXN0DesQFggxMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perfectequipment.com%2Fweb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2F176818373_LeadLawsPenalties_2014.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2PKIFLW1nv_Ked4feXIC1k but it shows that
“Vermont prohibits the ‘use of lead wheel weights on state owned
vehicles’ and further states that ‘no person shall sell or offer for
sale in or into the state of Vermont a new motor vehicle with lead
wheel weights.”
Scoutdude, that is not correct. Under the principle of Federal preemption set forth in 49 USC 301, states are not permitted to enforce a vehicle equipment standard more stringent than the Federal standards. The Federal standard says rear turn signals can be red or amber; states are not permitted to require only amber or only red. The Federal standard does not require side turn signal repeaters, daytime running lights, or rear fog lamps; states may not require any of those items. The Federal standard is silent on the matter of fog lamps; states are not permitted to require them. All states can do is regulate the usage of equipment cars may or may not have. If a state wants to prohibit the use of fog lamps, they’re allowed to do that. And states can have equipment standards more permissive than the Federal standard; if a state wants to have a statute requiring vehicles to have rear turn signals that are red, amber, or green, there’s nothing the Feds can do about it.
New York enacted a requirement for backglass defoggers in 1974. They enforced it for awhile, despite it being legally null and void per 49 USC 301.
…I used all lighting-related examples, but it holds for all vehicle equipment, design aspects, and features that are subjects of a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Specifically, the statute states that when a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is in effect, a state (or a political subdivision of a state) may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of vehicle equipment or vehicle safety performance only to the degree the state standard is identical to the Federal standard. That means any aspect of a state standard is null, void, and unenforceable if it is more stringent than the applicable Federal standard.
Your wheel weight example doesn’t apply; there’s no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for wheel weights. There is a FMVSS, № 103, for (front) windshield defogging and defrosting, but none for backglass defogging and defrosting, and that was the crux of the squabble between NHTSA and NY State. NHTSA said NY couldn’t enforce their rear-defogger requirement because FMVSS № 103 didn’t require a rear defogger, and NY contended they could because FMVSS № 103 applies only to front windshields. Neither side backed down, but it didn’t really matter that NHTSA insisted NY’s requirement was null and void; automakers sent only cars with rear defoggers to NY because it would be bad for business if customers would get hassled for driving a car without a backglass defogger and the automaker, no matter how correct, were to say “We don’t actually have to put those on”.
New York State is allowed to mandate rear defrosters or defoggers, for decades. In fact, many brochures from the ’70 and ’80s, will show, under the options section, fine print indicating such.
Also, another obscure NY regulation that was attempted but abandoned
was a “City-Country” Horn Switch. I first saw this in the owners manual of a then new but wrecked ’74 Maverick. I absconded with said manual, just because I could. There was an illustration which showed a switch on the left side side of the column, near the turn signal lever. The text advised to switch to city mode when in the city. I guess it was some kind of attenuator
to lower the output.
The only reference I ever found on it was one line buried in this article.
http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p216y1983.pdf
I wonder if this was ever put into production, or just got as far as the owners manuals for ’74.
I did a bit of Googling, and yes, NY’s law says that it will be “unlawful to operate….” a vehicle built after 1974 without a rear defroster.
So they key is “operate”, which does not mandate anything to the manufacturer (which would be unconstitutional), but simply makes it a requirement for operating a motor vehicle registered in the state. Which of course manufacturers complied with.
Interesting, and explains how they got around the Commerce Clause. states certainly have rights as to the operation of vehicles in their states. But strictly speaking, they couldn’t keep a manufacturer from selling a car without a rear window defroster. It just couldn’t be registered.
It begs the question: what happened when someone moved to NY with a car that didn’t have a rear window defroster? Retrofit?
“what happened when someone moved to NY with a car that didn’t have a rear window defroster?”
Here’s one that may have snuck by. This is the beautiful 1975 Impala that I photographed for Jason S. in Binghamton this summer. It had no rear defroster, yet had current NY tags and inspection sticker (below is a blow-up of the defroster-less rear window).
Of course, depending how the law was written, the defroster mandate could apply only to cars made after December 31, 1974, and this Impala could have been manufactured in late ’74. But I suspect at this point, that many inspection folks might not even notice that a defroster is lacking on a car of this vintage.
I had a 75 Buick colonnade coupe registered in NY. The factory installed rear window defroster consisted of a grille on the rear package shelf with a fan below. I don’t think it had a heat source, just relied on blowing ambient interior air against the glass to clear the frost. It didn’t work well at all. My next car was a Dodge Omni 024 with the defroster grid in the rear window. A much more effective defroster system.
My Fiat 130 had twin horns, toggle switch on the centre console. Two different sounding (and volumed) horns under the hood. Kept mine on the stronger because the other one was absolutely pathetic.
I have some “Salesman’s Pocket Ordering Guides” for International vehicles from the 70’s. In the back there is a list of options that are required to meet the noise level regulation in states that have them. I don’t personally have ones that predate the 1968 FMVS that required defrosters but others on the IH forums have indicated they have seen the heater/defroster which was still an option in the early 60’s that was listed as required in certain states.
I had a friend with a 70’s Subaru that had a city/country horn.
At some point in the couple of years before I got my Saab 95, Popular Science ran an article on safe driving tips from Saab rally driver Erik Carlsson. As they had related it, he had just driven a Saab Sonett safely across the USA. I was leaning towards a Saab at that point, and the Saab connection gave Carlsson a bit more cred with me.
One of his tips was to keep the headlights on at all times. So, until I got my first car with DRLs in 2014, I did this, even at high noon on sunny days. In Missouri, Colorado, and California, people would flash me or yell, “Your lights are on!” In Washington and Oregon, they didn’t do this.
As one can see from the picture, this happened on a very sunny afternoon. This is a “Safety Highway Corridor” meaning that headlights are supposed to be turned on.
I was speaking more to what you can generally do to make a vintage vehicle safer to drive. I’m suggesting that headlights (and tail lights) on during the day will make your vehicle more visible, and safer in general. It may not prevent a specific accident like this where a driver is clearly ignorant or negligent. It can very much prevent collisions in many cases, due to your increased visibility.
In 1971 I bought my first car, a ’68 Saab 95 V4. Saab’s reputation for passive safety definitely factored into my choice. A year later I was T-boned by a Plymouth Duster doing maybe 25 or 30. The Saab landed greasy side up. My passenger and I were hanging from our seat belts but crawled out, not a scratch on us. I knew I’d bought the right car!
There’s a video of a 1959 Chevy and a 2009 Chevy being crash-tested. You’d definitely want to be in the newer car, and I say that as someone whose CC photos of a ’59 Chevy wagon inspired a PN writeup a few weeks ago!
https://youtu.be/mJ5PcWziXT0
my father’s ’84 saab 900 saved him from serious injury when he slammed into a guardrail. the whole side of the car was crushed on the outside. from inside, you couldn’t even tell there had been an accident. his shoulder was sore from the seat belt for weeks. he also claimed that the superior driving dynamics of the vehicle had saved him more than once.
Scary stuff. In 1989, I was T-boned by an ’89 Ford Festiva while driving my ’62 Comet. The Festiva was going about 45 MPH. It hit by my rear wheel; I spun about 250 degrees. The two in the Festiva had to go to the hospital. I had no injuries. The Festiva was totalled, and I could see cracks in the windshield. I unbent the sheet metal from touching the rear tire on my car so it could rotate, and the car was still usable. You can compare the amount of damage on both cars. The Festiva is damaged right up to the front doors.
So what’s safer, an ’89 Festiva or a ’62 Comet? Jay Leno says driving a 50+ year old car may be safer, because you stand out like a sore thumb and everyone’s paying attention to you, so they won’t hit you. I also think airbags may cause problems of their own. I drive conservatively and maintain as big a “space cushion” as possible.
Eventually, probably, self-driving cars will take over, and all the risk (and all the FUN) will be over. As W.C. Fields once said, “It’s a funny old world–a man’s lucky to get out of it alive!”
“Jay Leno says driving a 50+ year old car may be safer, because you stand out like a sore thumb and everyone’s paying attention to you, so they won’t hit you.”
Jay, living in SoCal, drives more among the jaded.
Riding a vintage bike, I find that people drive where they look. I get oncoming drivers homing in on me as they struggle to identify my bike.
Motorcyclists are taught to aim for the gap and not the obstacle by looking at the gap, something I practiced when riding, because instinctively I did the opposite more than once.
I loved my 60’s all-manual pickup, would drive it today if I still had it. I drove it differently because of its limitations.
“Jay Leno says driving a 50+ year old car may be safer, because you stand out like a sore thumb and everyone’s paying attention to you, so they won’t hit you.”
Except distracted drivers. Shoot, if anything, his theory in action would be putting the other cars around him at risk…
Phone useage while driving is illegal here $150 on the spot fine plus point against your licence which will add up to disqualification, sitting at traffic lights I can see down into the little four wheelers surrounding me nearly every driver has a phone in their lap and its lit up so in use, these are the muppets that will crash into you because they arent paying enough attention to their driving.
“Motorcyclists are taught to aim for the gap and not the obstacle by looking at the gap, something I practiced when riding, because instinctively I did the opposite more than once.”
Good advice, but you still need to stay very, very aware. Back when I had my Suzuki GS550 ES, I was on a 4-lane + suicide lane in a strip mall area when a guy in a pickup pulled out in front of me. I began shifting the bike to sqeeze behind him, which is about when I noticed the chain and the vehicle to which it was attached following him into the road.
I barely got it stopped in time.
I don’t entirely disagree with Jay’s rationale there but he’s definitely a bit optimistic thinking most drivers will take notice. HE would, I would, probably most of US would, but probably not the average commuter.
I personally subscribe to similar outlook that loud pipes save lives. Call it obnoxious or noise pollution but that actually engages an additional sense, just like a siren.
“I personally subscribe to similar outlook that loud pipes save lives. Call it obnoxious or noise pollution but that actually engages an additional sense, just like a siren.”
I somewhat agree with this in the same way I feel colors like bright blue, orange, or yellow seem to make people take notice. Statistically true? Don’t really know, but I have a hunch it probably helps (white car in a snowstorm, anyone?).
This is counterintuitive, but I read somewhere that red is just about the worst color. At night it soaks up almost as much light as black. It also makes the car look smaller. When another driver is trying to judge how far away your car is, smaller = farther away.
I think there’s something to that as well, I recall reading an article a while back that stated the best color for high visibility is that bright yellow green used on old Porsches, early 70s mopars, and Lamborghinis. I’ve seen emergency vehicles in that color too.
My Mercedes-Benz is that bright yellow green. Visibility amongst traffic good, but I think the reason that colour is associated with visibility is because of the hi-vis fluorescent variations that now exists, our emergency vehicles use them too.
MB actually did research on this in the 1960s and came up with a colour they call (IIRC) Mercedes Benz Safety Orange. You’ll recognise the colour from the cars they use in their safety tests, as well as on the C111 prototypes. As a flat (not fluoro) colour, this is apparently the most standout hue under the broad circumstances of road context, i.e town or country.
Of particular note is that is an almost complementary hue to the blue in the sky which I suspect is the reason for this particular colour standing out (cars – particularly glossy and metallic ones – tend to reflect what is around them. Even though our eye/brains tend to filter this out, the sky is an ongoing presence on the road, not just above it).
c111
“International Orange” and a similar hue called “Safety Orange” have long been known to be high visibility colors. International Orange was developed decades ago to aid in the visibility of experimental aircraft against the azure (blue) hue of the sky.
The Bell X1 Rocket powered plane painted International Orange was flown by Chuck Yeager on Oct 14, 1947 as the first aircraft in a controlled flight exceeding the speed of sound. The Golden Gate bridge is also painted in a high visibility orange, a type of International Orange to improve bridge visibility for shipping entering through the Golden Gate narrows. International Orange was also used for the main detachable fuel propellant fuel tank for the prior Space Shuttle manned flight launch system. An additional common application is for the orange colored safety vests used on construction sites and highway work.
Thanks Vic. Been thinking about writing on this subject for CC and you’ve just broadened my references.
International Orange, as used on space suits.
Close to the color of my truck. Which is one of the reasons I like its color.
The dull orange color of the Space Shuttle External Tank was not a deliberate choice for visibility; it’s just the color of the spray-on insulation. For the first two missions, the tank was painted white to protect it from UV light degradation while sitting on the pad for days in the Florida sun. It turned out that this wasn’t a problem, so they left the rest unpainted and saved 600 pounds of dead weight.
A blip of very loud four barrel gets noticed too.
Festiva:
While the crumple zone is well, crumpled. The passenger compartment seems to be mostly intact.
Sad to see that happen. I don’t think the International being modern pickup truck would have allowed the driver of the International to walk away ether. Pickup trucks (as a class) are well known to have some of the highest fatalities for vehicles. They have a high center of gravity and can be easily rolled and unlike an SUV, there is only a tiny cabin area for all the weight to sit when the truck is upside down.
As for the Ranger, a lot of folks don’t survive a t-boning. However that regular cab Ranger is very tiny inside. I had a 2010 and it always felt cramped and also I never liked how with the seat all the way back (I am 6-1) it felt like I was up against the back glass window.
I think you have to drive any car carefully. However there are some cars and trucks that seem to get a bad rap such as the Ford Explorer and the Chevy Citation. Both of which got their bad reps from user error. In the case of the Citation it was because the folks buying them most likely never owned a FWD car before and they do drive differently then a RWD car. In the case of the Explorer, all the issues were because of owners that had never owned an SUV and were to dumb to realize that while their 1990 Taurus might give them no issue doing 60 on and off ramp, a truck with a high center of gravity will flip over doing 60 on an off ramp.
But perceptions die hard. In my own case, I had somebody come up to me at the local grocery store last week and tell me my 1997 Pontiac Trans Sport was very unsafe as they had seen that video demo by IIHS showing the GM U van crumpling. Of course when I told them that despite the doom and gloom in that video, the IIHS’s own data shows that the 97-04 U Van had no substantial increase in fatalities over other vehicles. In fact despite GM having made and sold loads of them over the 97-04 period and loads of them on the road, there seems to be less fatalities with them then other cars made during that time. In fact the IIHS data shows that you have a better chance of dying in an accident with a Corolla of that era(97-04) which had better safety equipment and better frontal offset crash protections then the U-Van but the guy did not believe me.
As for myself, when it is my time to go then it is my time to go. I am not going to fear my vehicle.
Sad to see that happen. I don’t think the International being modern pickup truck would have allowed the driver of the International to walk away ether. Pickup trucks (as a class) are well known to have some of the highest fatalities for vehicles. They have a high center of gravity and can be easily rolled and unlike an SUV, there is only a tiny cabin area for all the weight to sit when the truck is upside down.
In this direct frontal hit, a modern pickup would have done very well. Exponentially better than the old International. I read up on all the accidents in the region, and I’ve seen some pickups involved in very grisly head-on accidents. Several of the drivers did walk away, or had minor injuries.
I’ve been in several accidents and I have never been t-boned. My aunt and uncle were. They have a bright red GMC Sierra. The cause of the accident was something many of you mentioned above. The lady that hit them was messing with her phone. She didn’t notice the red light or the big red truck in front of her. My uncle was driving and saw what was about to happen. He leaned away from the door and pulled my aunt towards him. They only had mild whiplash and the truck was fixed. They were hit at about 45-50 mph. I’m thankful they are ok and pray that the international driver will be alright and that the young mans family will be ok.
I hate left turns, which may cause more accidents than anything else. It is so easy to miss seeing something when you hurriedly look both ways, which seems to have happened here.
As for the International, old vehicles just weren’t made for crashes, that’s all. It doesn’t matter how thick the steel was or how much it weighs. When a couple of my kids were interested in an old car nothing before the 70s was even remotely considered. They have ended up in 80s-90s stuff which eased my mind. Look at enough pictures of old accidents and you think about stuff like that.
I don’t have kids, but you immediately brought me back to High School where I ended up meeting a now good friend of mine. She got a fairly ratty 1975 Nova sedan as her first car. What. A. Death trap.
We nicknamed it the Hot Pistol, because the smell of the car reminded us of danger (it honestly smelt of deep mining equipment to me; heavily metallic, and so strange in retrospect, but it certainly had that stench). I heard stories about this car before I ever rode in it. The front passenger door had randomly popped open previously. The front seat belts were inoperable. The brakes were shit.
Que the first time just Liz and I were to ride together in the Hot Pistol. Me: “I’m not riding in the front.” Liz: “Why!?”. Me: “I’ve heard that door doesn’t really close, and I’m not going with you without a seat belt”. Liz: “Fine. You are making a big deal out of nothing though”. I happily got into the rear seat on the passenger side and buckled up. Chauffeur away, Liz.
Swear on my life during the second (left, of course) turn we made after we were underway that damn door flew open at 20 mph. I literally screamed. Stunned, Liz knowingly apologized. She knew I’d never ride in that front seat ever after that (did I mention the all steel dashboard?). We all couldn’t believe her parents actually let her dive that car in the condition it was in, and that was honestly the first time in my life where I really questioned the safety of cars, in general.
He may have been trying to cross the highway. I don’t know.
But yes, a left turn (or crossing) on a 60 mph two lane highway on a Friday afternoon at 4:45 was going to be quite challenging. This stretch of highway gets a bit busy, especially at commuting times.
Sometimes, if the traffic is thick, you’re better off to take a right and then reverse direction.
I read the media coverage of this accident, one article of which indicated this young man ran a red light or stop sign. Whatever, a terrible tragedy and an 18-year old is really a boy, especially in this day and age. I feel badly for his family and friends, and join in the hope that the other driver survives without serious problems. What remains of his truck shows a lot of care devoted to it.
When a friend inherited her father’s 61 Thunderbird I refused to ride in it because of the absence of seat belts. She later had them installed and I did go for a ride but understood the risk of being a passenger in such a primitive car compared to today’s safety standards.
Driving home to Santa Monica across Los Angeles on Friday I was not in a hurry and paid special attention to all of the distracted drivers. Several instances of seeing cars weaving, nearly crossing adjacent lanes, slowing up, not starting up when the lights changed to green. In every case the person was texting or talking on a hand held phone (illegal of course). This problem is epidemic and leads me to be a very defensive and highly observant driver. Give me front, side, head and pelvic airbags and more. Just the reality we all face today. I’ll continue to enjoy the old cars in shows and museums or photographing them as curbside classics.
No light; just a stop sign. It’s a tricky road, especially on a Friday afternoon at 4:45 pm.
Paul, you could install 3 point belts in your Ford, I had them in my ’65 C10. I just drilled through the back of the cab, a couple of inches above the seat backrest, and ran a seatbelt mounting bolt through the hole, using a couple of big fender washers under the nut on the outside of the back of the cab. You can see the nut and washer on the outside, but who cares if it saves your life. My Chevy did have a smaller back window.
http://www.2040-cars.com/_content/cars/images/45/152545/005.jpg
You can buy manual adjust all in one 3 point belts. Here’s an example.
http://www.seatbeltsplus.com/product/CH300.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInKWSru7h1gIVEpJ-Ch17YgM4EAQYAyABEgLOJvD_BwE
Your window is larger, looks like you still would have room to drill and mount.
https://dealeraccelerate-all.s3.amazonaws.com/bca/images/1/9/7/197/4822_9be67be648_low_res.jpg
You could also just have a flat metal plate with a nut welded to the center welded to the side of the cab roof where you want to locate the shoulder belt, the cab is double wall and won’t show from the outside. There are instructions on line on how to do this to cars and trucks that have no mounting points. I did this on my ’66 VW Bus to install shoulder belts as it had no mounting points, a welding shop did this for a few dollars.
It’s cheap insurance and will keep your torso away from the wheel and steel dash if some idiot crosses your path at the wrong time.
Here’s the detailed instructions to install the 3 point belts in your Ford. No welding required to install the shoulder belt mount.
http://www.seatbeltsplus.com/mm5/images/Downloads/1947-67%20GM%20&%20Ford%20Truck%203%20Point%20Conversion.pdf
Thanks. I’ve long been meaning to do that. This makes it easy.
Glad to help, Paul.
A lady pulled out in front of my wife some years ago, who was on a State highway driving 55mph in our ’98 Caravan. Beth slammed on the brakes, but was probably still doing 45-50 at impact. Thankfully for the other driver, the impact was mostly on the rear door of her Taurus, but it still sent her to hospital with a broken shoulder. Beth and our two sons were fine, albeit new members of the airbag club. The van was totaled.
I think the key is understanding how vulnerable you are in a vintage vehicle.
I drive both my 1959 Beetle and my 1963 VW Bus often. I have seen plenty of wreck photos of vintage Volkswagens (it’s sort of become a morbid fascination) and I know full well what I am getting myself into every time I put myself behind the wheel.
Plenty of people do potentially dangerous things because it’s a passion. Old Volkswagens are my passion and I will willingly accept the risk of driving them.
+1
Mass makes a difference as well. These head-on crash tests of the AMC Concord (whose basic design dates to 1969) versus newer design but lighter vehicles are interesting. Part of the tests also demonstrate what happens to people who are unbelted.
Those videos don’t seem useful. I’d expect a stationary any car, Omni or Accord regardless, to essentially “eat” the force of an impact. In regards to the Rabbit, the Concord is suspiciously out of the frame until impact (slower speed?). Granted, I really don’t remember anything from physics. I’d like more info about how they chose these tests before I pass a hard judgement, but AMC doesn’t have a good look to me here…
It’s not so much about the Concord specifically, but that an older, heavier vehicle can become a battering ram when it meets a lighter, more modern design in a crash. You can do a lot with engineering but, as Scotty on Star Trek observed, ‘Ye Cannae Change The Laws of Physics!’
The Concord doesn’t have a good look?!?!? Are you watching the same vid as I am??? That P.O.S. Rabbit crumpled like an aluminum beer can!
“… crumpled like an aluminum beer can
Um, what is a crumple zone? They take the impact from the passentger compartment.
It shows the Rabbit’s modern energy asorbing controlled collapse vs. older rigid construction. Also shows the effects of mass, the Concord weighs 1110 lbs more then the VW. 2851 vs. 1741 lbs.
I T-boned (in my ’77 Rabbit) a ’63 Dodge pickup that ran a stop sign, was going about 35 MPH at impact (I had been going 50 and watched the speedo until we hit). Hit him on passenger side, bumper went under his cab and the front of the VW folded flat to the windshield, caved in the right side of his cab all the way to the frame. Didn’t puncture his in cab gas tank. No one in the trucks passenger seat, we both walked away (actually the truck was still able to drive away), I only had seat belt bruises. I have pictures of my Rabbit, no way to scan and post though. It folded up to the windshield, with the front bumper still sticking straight out normally.
Paul, You did us all a service today with this post of the accident. Note how many comments and how much positive input has been sent. One part of this positive input will probably never reach the offenders and that is to those who text while driving. They do not listen to myriad ads. Likewise for the people who hold telephones to their ears and drive. In both cases they must have “earth shattering” things to communicate that just cannot wait – until they take someone’s life.
My Mustang is a 67 and there are times I wish it was a 68 just for the few safety features that became mandatory in the 68 model year. (collapsible column, side marker lights…)
I didn’t even like my wife driving my old 2004 F150 Heritage (those few times that she did) just because of how terrible the offset crash ratings were for the 1996 to 2004 “jellybean” trucks.
If it was a late ’67 it would also have a collapsible column, as Ford phased them in over the model year.
Mine is an April build per my decoding of the build tag. Probably too early in the year.
Should be late enough. Are you sure it doesn’t have one? There should be a sheath near the end where it goes thru the firewall that looks something like bellows.
Now you’re going to make me go check. 😉 (but I’m at work now.)
I did notice that it actually has rubberized padding on the hub…
If you grab that center pad and twist it, (can’t remember if it’s clockwise or counterclockwise) it come off in your hand, twists right back on. I discovered this on dad’s ’67 Monterey, all ’67 Fords used this design steering wheel.
@XR7Matt: The issue of daytime running light vehicles running at night without taillights is serious enough that in Feb 2016 Transport Canada proposed regulations requiring taillights on. However, there was no consensus, so now the regulations may be implemented this fall, with a mandatory compliance date delayed to 2020. Link to recent CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tail-lights-head-lamps-safety-phantom-vehicle-transport-canada-regulations-crash-1.4279458
My 2 older cars (1991 BMW 318iS and 1993 VW Passat diesel) have DRLs with the taillights automatically on. Apparently the manufacturers chose this configuration knowing than many drivers would fail to turn on their lights after dusk.
My uncle Jim was my dads younger brother, and best friend, he and my aunt had 4 sons from 10 to 16 years old. I was 8 then, our two families did everything together, my cousins like brothers. He had a beautiful home, a new summer home near Lake Almanor, and the fully loaded ’57 Belvedere sedan they bought new. He owned a sheet metal fabricating and air conditioning company, doubling size each year. In early 1958 he was in his shop truck, a ’55 International with utility box, coming back from Willows, 40 miles away, after work. With fields high, he never saw the ’57 Ford Country Squire wagon approaching the stop sign of the T intersection at CHP estimated speed of “in excess of 120 mph” The wagon had a 2x4bbl 312 in it, an a DUI wealthy rancher behind the wheel. The photos were devastating of the wreckage. The unrecognizable cab was 120 feet from the utility box, which in turn,was 75 feet from the truck frame. It took officers some time to find my uncle, or his remains. He wasn’t recognizable as a human form. CHP said the Ford went airborne for 128 feet before rolling end over end 3 times, and side over side at least 6 times. A big part of the family lived locally, we got through it, but never totally.
As a teen, I lost way too many friends to drunk drivers, now replaced with text and phone addicts. Vietnam got some too. I never got there because an innattentive 4 ton truck driver hit the small truck I was in and screwed me up physically for life. Because of that and a girl friend who did suicide (manic depressive), I planned to get away, travel in my Electra, try and get over some of the stuff. But first, a close friend who did all my upholsetry work, and family friend for years, got a call from his daughter, she and her husband were having a physical fight, she needed dad. He had a 54 International pickup. He started down the hill to Chico (lived 20 miles up hwy 32) There was heavy fog. a drunk Texan tourist in a huge motor home doing 60 mph in the fog hit him head on. He lived through the collision, witnesses said as he was burned alive trapped in the pickup he was screaming. The Texan told CHP he had to be on his own side of the road, he was using the solid white line to guide him. The CHP pointed out the only white solid line was on the opposing lanes shoulder. Then a friend I knew from kindergarten through school was coming back into town by motorcycle around midnight on hwy 99. A drunk college student in a Shelby Mustang, driving on the wrong side of the road at 140 mph! hit Will head on, hard enough it totaled the Mustang..It ripped Will to pieces, they never found his arms. I was a basket case, diagnosed with PTSD I had to get away. After driving trough Arizona, New Mexico, Mexico, Texas and into New Orleans, I wasn’t any better and decided to stay at a small residential hotel. I was 19, I met a guy there that was 21, gay, and gorgeous, 5’11”, 185, jet black hair, ice blue eyes, chiseled features, we both worked out and he was also mentally screwed up by life. He was painfully shy, but just being near each other, we started getting better, only problem in the relationship, I’m not gay. He said that didn’t matter, I just made him feel so much better being around, and treating him human. Instead, we became blood brothers. We loved each other fiercly, as brothers, traveled and rented a house in Florida for awhile. We still had two cars, and decided to drop his ’63 Dodge Polara convertible off at his mothers in north Florida., then travel the country in my Electra together. We were in the slow lane due to turn off soon. It happened so fast I’m not sure he saw it. a double rig flat fronted semi came through the fence along the freeway. It hit J.A,’s Dodge right in the middle, bending it in the shape of a boomerang and pushing it across three lanes and into the guard rail, and crushing the passenger area. I don’t remember getting the Electra stopped or much else. I got to the driver’s side of his car, his face looked perfect, but he was gone, from the chest down the entire car was only inches wide, including J.A. I hugged what I could of him until they took him away. I kissed him goodbye at the funeral. His mom insisted I take the ashes, he wanted to be with me. That scene in front of me that day has replayed every day since then, there is no choice. I nearly followed .J.A., dropping from 175 to 98 pounds in a short time. Then, back in California, my Lady found me. She was screwed up too, but it worked until this year, and her cancer. She and I were both blue eyes, with golden blonde hair and fair skin, weird how fate is. My son’s hair turned from blonde as he got to his teens and is now jet black, he’s 5’11” has translucent ice blue eyes, slightly darker skin, is drop dead gorgeous, and a hell of a lot more stable than I ever was.
BTW Shortly before buying my ’64-’66 Imperials, Louie, a near lifelong friend, was driving a ’64 Imperial LeBaron to a church in a neighboring town. He was a minister and a car salesman, totally honest. he was crossing a T intersection in farm country, a 67 Chevy long bed pickup hit the Imperial in the two doors on the drivers side, at around 75 mph. Louie saw it coming at the last second and pivoted down on the seat. At impact the Imperial was pushed sideways around 30 feet, but then gained the road on its own and straitened on the pavement before Louie stopped it. He was uninjured. The front bumper of the Chevy was against the front of the seat in the pickup and the engine in the bed. The DUI driver died. The Imperial was from the car lot. It took two doors and slight rear fender work to fix it, $500. Louie bought the Imperial and had it until he passed away last year, at 94. I’ve had my Imperials since then.
LRF, I’m sorry you’ve had so much sadness in your life – it seems very unfair.
I just wanted to remark that I have carefully read your detailed posts on the site and appreciate the time you take to share your recollections and your photos.
All the best to you going forward.
Wow, what a crazy accident, and what a shame about the results!
You’re absolutely right that had the International driver been in a modern vehicle he’d have likely walked away. Back in March, I T-Boned a driver that ran a red light with my Fiesta ST. I was doing probably 40 when I actually hit him. All four doors of the car opened and closed perfectly after the accident, and I was able to get my personal effects out of the car at the scene. The car was totaled, but I didn’t have so much as a bruise the next day.
Having grown up in the hinterlands, I know a rural highway runs much faster, and I know that the force of impact at 60-65 miles per hour is not *just* 1.5 times more than the force of impact at 40 m.p.h.. But, having been in an accident at 60 miles per hour with a 1995 Buick LeSabre, that I also walked away from, I wouldn’t be surprised by the driver of a modern vehicle in that same crash walking away instead of being hauled away in serious condition.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again-there’s not a chance in hell I’d want to do either of my crashes with one of my old cars. I don’t care that there’s seven feet of hood between me and the other guy in the ’78 Continental and that it has a collapsible column and bla bla blah. Steel is not a good substitute for airbags and crumple zones, period.
+1. Well said, couldn’t agree more. I recently saw a family with little children in the backseat enter a local freeway in a 1955 Ford Country Squire wagon. All I could think was what would happen to a car like this in an accident vs. a contemporary car with crumple zones and airbags. And given the huge amount of distracted drivers around SoCal, there is only so much you can do in terms of defensive driving.
http://katu.com/news/local/police-molalla-mother-and-her-4-children-killed-in-head-on-crash
Thank you all for the insight and food for thought. I have seen some gnarly crashes in the Portland area which make me think a wide variety of subjects. Just yesterday a circa 2000 Buick Century hit a Range Rover near Salem and I was surprised to read all four died.
Clearly, our thoughts with the family of driver who lost his life, and we are aware of the trauma the International driver will now face.
One point that hasn’t come right out yet is the visibility from the modern Ford pick up – those thicker A pillars can (don’t know for sure in this specific case) hide oncoming traffic, especially if the driver is looking quickly left and right. Headlights and DRLs help here of course. Also, were there side airbags in the Ford?
The big risk for the International driver, assuming he was wearing a seat belt, would be steering column intrusion. Again, we cannot see clearly, but perhaps the front axle went under the Ford, reducing the column intrusion?
Having recently experienced a major accident albeit single vehicle accident (a double roll over in our case), I think I can say that the International driver owes his life to seatbelts, and to the first responders. They, whether they were paramedics or the concerned and caring people who stop, are absolute heroes.
The Ford was reported to be a 1998 model. The Ranger line was discontinued in 2011 and was far from modern (but yes, much more modern than the Interenational). In any case, no side airbags and a fairly old design.
The International has a Saginaw (GM) collapsible steering column and collapsible steering shaft. The axle is not the issue it is the driver’s side frame rail as that is where the steering box is mounted and near the front. However that front mounting affords the room for a lot of telescoping of the shaft before any force gets to the column. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying it is safe by today’s standards but it is on the good side of the safety standards. In fact the entire reason that truck broke IH’s tradition of not having an actual model year is the switch to safety standards by model year and not be date of production. That meant they had to declare a model year and conform to those standards even if production started in the prior calendar year.
A little update that makes this case even sadder. The International driver, Mr. Croy, lost his wife to cancer in January 2017. The obit below refers to all the trips they took together to Ducks games in this truck, their 1972 International “Duck Truck.”
http://www.thegazette.com/obituaries/cheryl-croy-20170122-0000047650-01
A little about my background; I’m a 20+ year LEO and Ive been an advanced collision reconstructionalist (AKA crash investigator) for the last 10 years. Ive also been a volunteer fireman since I was 16 so Ive been in the emergency response business for most of my life. Out of the hundreds of wrecks Ive investigated and responded to over the years, maybe 20-30 of them involved classic (pre-1980) vehicles, most of them older pickup trucks, including one that I was involved in when my daily driver 1972 Satellite was rear ended and totaled by an Escalade, which I’ll talk about later.
Certainly I’m not going to discount how impressive modern vehicles are in terms of safety; they are essentially rolling cocoons. However, there is no need to live under a blanket of paranoia while riding in an old car either. There is a lot to be said for thick steel and a full frame chassis. What Ive typically seen in the old cars in a crash is that the crumple zone of the newer car will absorb the majority of the energy created by the collision leaving much of the older car intact.
For pre-1980 cars that are driven on a regular basis, I cant say enough about keeping them maintained and I strongly recommend upgrading to radial tires, dual reservoir master cylinders, and of course seat belts. Keep your car maintained, keep your focus on driving and be aware of other drivers and you’ll be fine.
Something to consider is that gross tonnage always wins. I don’t care how well a new Miata does in NHTSA crash tests, its going to lose against a Suburban in a collision. And all of these modern safety systems are worthless if you don’t wear your seat belt; an airbag can eject you right out of the car.
While speaking of NHTSA tests, I don’t pay much attention to them. The dynamics of every car crash are different and those are controlled tests in a controlled environment. Ive seen wrecks involving cars with 5 star crash ratings where occupants have died or had serious injuries and vice versa.
Finally in the case of me and my Satellite; the weekend before Thanksgiving in 2011, I was driving my 40K mile daily driver 1972 Satellite sedan and traffic came to complete stop for a drawbridge opening. A non-attentive (texting) driver in an Escalade rear ended me while I was stopped with the rest of traffic and the speed at the time of collision was approximately 30 mph. Like I mentioned above, the front crumple zone of the Escalade did its job and took the brunt of the impact, and the radiator support was pushed into the engine, rendering it undriveable and it had to be towed from the scene. The driver suffered minor injuries from the airbag deployment and was transported to the hospital. On my Satellite, the rear bumper was pushed in a few inches and the quarter panels buckled enough so that the right rear door couldn’t be opened, and I bumped my head on the windshield and my back and neck were sore for a couple of days but otherwise I was fine and was able to drive the car home. Thankfully my kids weren’t in the back seat but I think they probably would have been OK as well; I think at worst they have bounced their heads against the front seatback. The insurance company totaled it but if it was financially feasible, the car could have been repaired. Today, as I have mentioned on here before, I own several 1960s and 70s cars (including another Satellite, I loved that car!) that are all regularly maintained and rotated in as my daily drivers and safety is not a concern.
Well said Dan, I am on the same page as you. I am aware of the inherit higher risks of a vintage car but I mean look how many people ride motorcycles or fly small aircraft or engage in other potentially life threatening activity everyday?
I am lucky that my car does have a bit of a leg up when it comes to safety compared to other old cars. It has disc brakes, three point front belts, door guard beams, a collapsible steering column, a frame and front end sheet metal designed to collapse at impact, and a dash board designed to absorb impact. Does this mean my car is anywhere near the same league as a modern, vehicle? Not a chance, but compared to stuff from the 1950’s it is much better.
I have been thinking about vehicle safety a lot lately even before this post. I think one of my next upgrades will be to have the seatbelts re-webbed. I’d also like to install three point belts in the rear for my kids. I want to keep enjoying my car, and while like other’s I engage in defensive driving, if the worst ever happened, I’d like to at least make some effort for my car to be as safe as it can be.
What kind of classic car do you have, Vince?
It’s a ’72 Torino. Not that it’s safety features are anything special, as most cars by the mid 1970’s had all of the above features I mentioned. But like I said, compared to early cars, especially pre 1968, at least it has some safety put into it’s design.
Vince, in 1980, a ’72 Montego was our family car and my Mom slid on a patch of ice and hit either a tree or a fire hydrant, smacking it almost dead center in the grille and totaled the car with pretty heavy front end damage. Mom was driving, my brother was in the front seat and I was in the back seat and guess what, we all were fine.
The moral of the story: Don’t wreck your Torino!
This is from the ’68 Cougar dealer accessory brochure. Note the rear shoulder belt kit. That implies there’s an anchor point somewhere, from this picture it looks like somewhere on the parcel shelf metal.
When my mother owned her 85 Crown Victoria she became aware that Ford was offering rear shoulder belts for installation and she had them put in. They were separate belts from the lap belts and required a second buckle. They mounted pretty much like these in your brochure shot seemed to be mounted.
I had a 1989 Tracer. Either the dealer was too lazy to order them, or they really were on backorder forever. Never did get them in that car.
From ’67 on, cars (if not convertible) in the US were required to have rear (and front) outboard shoulder belt anchorages.
The 1967 Lincoln Continental I owned didn’t have the shoulder belt option, but the ‘anchorages’ were there. I see that if I’d have bought a ’68 model the shoulder belts would’ve been mandatory.
The ‘hazard flasher’ doohickey was on the right side of the steering column if memory serves.
You could get them in ’68-69 Camaro’s too, but it’s a pretty rare option.
One consequence of my main professional line of work (involved with traffic safety research) is that I can no longer pretend it’s safe to drive an old car. It just plain is not. You’re fine until your luck runs out, and then—very quickly—you are very maimed or very dead. If I were single, maybe I wouldn’t care so much. But I’m married, which means if I get injured so I can’t work, or I get killed, at least one other person in the world is severely screwed, not to mention desperately sad. I don’t want to bring suffering on myself, but I absolutely will not bring suffering on anyone else in the world if I can reasonably avoid it.
Back in the “good old days” (which didn’t really exist, we only remember them that way), there was no alternative—everybody drove unsafe cars because that was the only kind available. We just did our best not to think about it, because the only other option was to stay off the roads. Now we have much better options. Now even the worst, least-safe car you can buy in a civilised country is enormously safer in a crash than even most of the safest cars of just ten years ago. Most of us have seen this, which makes the point, but also take a look at this: two cars both much newer than the International pickup in this post…look and listen to the results in reality; they really put paid to the rationalisation that driving an oldie is perfectly safe because it’s so much more massive than today’s cars.
There is no getting around the simple, basic fact that an old car is an unsafe car. That may be an unpopular thing to say on here, but it’s absolutely true.
Many of their brakes were marginally adequate in the traffic of back then, hazardous in today’s. Same can be said for the steering and suspension and wipers and defogger and heater…and safety. You can make an old car somewhat less abjectly dangerous with money injection for better crash-avoidance ability in the form of upgrades to the brakes, real seat belts (lap belts don’t count), better lights, better suspension, etc, but many of such a car’s safety hazards cannot be fixed. You cannot overcome the complete lack of any crashworthiness or post-crash survivability engineering in old cars—the solid steering column, the weak door latches, the lack of crush zones, side impact protection, fuel system impact protection, or any other basic crashworthiness engineering, design, or construction. The knowledge and technology did not exist. See this collection of clips—note how well the stronger, improved-for-1964 Chrysler Corp door latches work (not) to prevent the door flying open in a crash. I see a lot of very dead and very maimed people when I view that video.
And this is the traffic death trend in the US since 1921—take a look at it and you’ll see it contains the data to refute faulty thinking like “When I was a kid, everyone drove cars running on leaded gasoline and nobody wore seatbelts and everybody smoked cigarettes and we turned out just fine!”.
There are plenty of solid reasons to like old cars. We don’t like old cars because they’re better—they’re not.
Back in the “good old days”, it was “bad luck” to even talk about car accidents. So, nothing was done for years. When Ford tried to sell safety in mid 50’s, buyers avoided the options, and then “safety doesn’t sell” was the mantra.
Until Ernie Kovacs died in a Corvair, and Nader investigated…
Same with airliners; in 1931, Knute Rockne died in a Fokker Trimotor crash, and the ensuing national attention on the investigation resulted in the extinction of wooden airliners in the US.
‘Better’ is a subjective term here, if you’ve offered no criteria. Safety, economy, reliability, sure. I’m on board.
Style? Nope. Not a chance.
Comfort? Too variable to mention.
(Note: this is a quibble about your writing/grammar, not about the point you are trying to make.)
Today’s cars are better in almost every functional way; i.e., they are better at being cars. If we really lean into it we might come up with one or two ways yesterday’s cars were functionally better. Glass headlamp lenses didn’t haze to uselessness, for example. But we really have to dig hard.
Styling is subjective, and always has been. It’s not on a better/worse axis, so talking about today’s cars being better than yesterday’s leaves style out of the question without need of explicitly saying so. Yesterday’s cars strike our fancy today for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with quality or rectitude of design—nostalgia plays a large part in it—but back in their day, they were described by marketeers and buff books and groupies in pretty much the same terms as today’s cars: exciting, daring, attractive, fashionable, bold, etc. And if you look at “How do owners like the [make] [model]?” types of car reviews found in the likes of Popular Science or Popular Mechanics, you’ll find the general public has always aired pretty much the same range of opinions from “I like it” to “I hate it” with plenty of “it’s fine”. And remember, back when the old cars we ooh and aah over today were new, car guys who oohed and aahed over the old cars of that time bìtched and moaned that the cars in production at that time (’50s, ’60s, ’70s…) were unstylish, crass, ugly, ungainly, classless, etc.
A good reminder .
Maybe it’s time to re post the one about toes getting chopped off when you put your feet on the dash as so many foolish young folks do .
-Nate
Well, that certainly is something to think about. At some level I’ve long known the risks but for my commute I judge the 49 year old daily driver to be OK.
Despite my frequent rants against plastic bumpers I am glad my wife is in a new car since work involves a lot of driving.
And I cannot pretend to be unhappy our son spent everything he had to get into a 2009 W211 E280 at 19. The frequent taunts that he has a better car than me are welcome. And the dog rides with him too, but that’s for entirely different reasons…
One other thing with some of these restoration car shows, why don’t some of these cars get seat belts?!
Saw one episode where a ’68 Camaro gets a 600+ hp motor, and they are driving it without belts. Come on!
Also, there’s always the old car purists, who claim how safe they are because “look at all that metal”.
When the video was posted of the ’59 Impala vs. new Malibu, there were cries of “the old car was rusty, that’s why it didn’t survive” and all other rationalizations.
Some think simply because older cars “look better” and “bring back memories”, they make every excuse to dismiss modern safety tech.
In the end the decision really depends on your comfort level – and what your risk-averse insurance company is willing to insure. For my own regular use I’m good with collapsible steering column, padded dash, dual hydraulic system, front disc brakes, 3-point harness, and side impact beams. (Extra points for something big and heavy to act as a battering ram and make the other guy’s car be the crumple zone.) That’s pretty much any car sold in the U.S. for the last 40 years so there’s a lot to choose from.
I’d still like to see a rust free 60 Continental sacrificed just to see how a big heavy early unibody would do in that scenario. I don’t expect it to do well and merit an “ah ha!” cheer from the chassis car fans mind you, but it should demonstrate the fact that not all old cars are going to behave like an X frame Impala, which is seemingly everyone’s takeaway from that video.
I would expect the X-frame cars to do poorly in pretty much any crash scenario. It was not one of GM’s best ideas. Probably side impacts would be crazy scary with hollow doors and no side frame rails.
There’s plenty of old crash test footage on Youtube to go through, foreign and domestic, see how various models fare. Don’t know if there are any of those old Continentals though.
Well, that first one was horrifying yet transfixing to watch. I’ve never, ever driven my car without a seatbelt on. You’d be a fool not to wear one.
Of course, crash test clips always remind me of this clip from The Simpsons…
I shamefully found myself laughing through that first video and couldn’t figure out why. It turns out, buried deep in my memory banks, that Simpsons episode was playing!
Which lead me to recalling this fitting clip 🙂
Thanx for the Simpsons clips ! .
I have never seen the original Signal 30 etc. safety films .
-Nate
My late wife was involved in a car-truck crash in 1993, she was driving a 1991 Ford Tempo 2 door, with the automatic shoulder belts, The other vehicle was a 1990 Chevy 1/2 ton P/U that turned in front of her. She hit it directly on the passenger side front corner. The front of the car crumpled in, just as it was designed to do, unfortunately she had neglected to fasten the lap belt and slid under the shoulder harness and hit the wheel and then the windshield, causing massive internal injuries and a 2nd degree closed head injury and a left leg and ankle that was broken in four places She spent 2 months in SICU at Metrohealth Medical Center in Cleveland Ohio, and God bless them, they put her back together, but she was never the same. If only she had had the forethought to fasten both belts, the outcome may have been very different. Needless to say, I believe in the seatbelt laws.
I’ve been driving a ’70 Citroen ID19 regularly for a year now and had driven one or another Citroen D series intermittently as daily transport from the mid 1980’s thru late 1990’s.
All of the above concerns about passive safety are absolutely true in my estimation. Fortunately the Cit’s brakes, steering and suspension acquit themselves very well in comparison to modern vehicles. But I have no illusions about crashworthiness (though the manually adjustable 3 point harnesses are nice). It was good in its day but time marches on.
Something else out there has changed since last driving one 20 years ago. It has caused me to drive with so much more awareness.
1. It feels like everyone else on the road is driving a monster truck with a death wish. With tons of power.
2. Lights. Tail lights. I got on the road and within an hour I went to the auto parts store and bought a bright red LED light strip. I was nearly rear ended 3 times in that hour. The old incandescent brake lights work but they are low and single bulb. Newer LED tail lights are so bright and instantaneous in illumination that they blast your retinas through the back of your head. And now people only respond to this level of stimulation. I installed it inside across the top of the rear window. Now people stop at a good distance.
3. Lights. Headlights are just so much more powerful. I’m thinking of ways to compete with that. I’ll probably switch the round sealed beams to Hellas and use fused lighting relays to take the load off the old wiring harness.
4. Lights. Dash lights. Has the entire world lost knowledge of the physiology of night vision? It only takes moments of bright light to lose it and many minutes to regain it. In night traffic I can lose my night vision just glancing at the instrument clusters of cars around me! They are bright and an increasing number are white. Night vision sensitivity is lost for the duration. So I can only up the ante with augmenting my citroen’s exterior lighting to offset the effect of everyone else’s interior lighting. I suppose that the engineers have reached a point of admitting defeat in this area what with all the GPS screens and smart phone screens lighting up drivers’s faces at night. I feel very vulnerable on the highway at night where I see a driver’s face awash in blue-white light as they blunder down the road in their mobile bunker generally unaware of the world outside the small screen and the GPS barking orders along the way. In particular I see they are completely unaware of me sharing their road. Reading a review of the technology within a 2018 German automobile, amongst the three touchscreens the easiest to get to is the one where you address your frequent “infotainment chores.” This was said without irony.
5. Myopia. Literally a huge increase in the rate of vision trouble in younger people due to staring into small screens for so many hours per day. Apparently the near field focus on a bright screen changes the shape of the eye somewhat and that affects mid and distant vision.
I think there are implications with regard to the ability to estimate the closing speed of oncoming traffic. Maybe it increases the likelihood of the tragic accident above.
My experience recently confirms this or maybe it’s just overall distraction. I have never been cut off so many times by people pulling out of perpendicular streets as I have now. The driver doesn’t look at all or they look right at me (more like right through me) as they pull right into my path. Jay Leno’s reasoning hasn’t been working for me. I’m driving a Citroen for heavens sake. Maybe they don’t know it’s a car. 🙂
All of the above plus smartphone distractions plus the physical isolation that modern vehicles provide (including the thick A pillars) put the mind of the driver inside the cocoon’s virtual world and not out in the world they’re driving in.
This gets back to why I drive the Cit. The driver inputs are very direct, perhaps more so than the average new car. Responsiveness despite its being underpowered is up to snuff. The slim pillars provide a wide unobastructed panoramic view all around. I usually take the secondary roads for which its modest horsepower and gearing is best suited. Being surrounded by the scenery, the farm fields of corn or wheat that I can almost reach out and touch- the connection to the world outside the vehicle is not denatured. I feel much more alert and attentive to all my surroundings driving this car, for better or worse.
My hunch is that this way of travel is not mutually exclusive to passive safety. I’d like this experience in a new car that incorporates years of evolution in passive safety. It’s just that I presume the focus groups have shown that the isolation equates to protection in the modern mind. I might never have noticed this strange modern life phenomenon if I hadn’t returned to driving an old favorite in a new era.