-
-
- dead0man, I’d bet you’re a teenager, aren’t you?
-
- Some people want an old car because it reminds them of their youths. A teenager would not understand this.
- Some people want an old car because environmental concerns are quite distant in their minds, and really, should be -no matter what Al Gore said when he was on MTV. A teenager would not understand this.
- Some people want an old car because it’s safer in a crash, and they have become aware of their own mortality. A (typical) teenager would not understand this.
- Some people want older cars because they are often less expensive to keep running than newer cars no longer covered by factory warranties. Most teenagers would not understand this.
- And finally, some people want to be able to spend their money as they please, with minimal government interference. It’s called “freedom of choice”, and you don’t get it everywhere you go. Most teenagers would not understand this either. - MC
Wow, I am neither offended nor a teenager. But nice try. I am “young” I guess (27) but I do love a lot of old cars. There probably not the old cars your thinking of but I do like old cars none the less. With few exceptions they are all European though. A '49 Mercury is cool and some pre-war American car companies had some nice looking cars. I would not want to drive one on a daily basis. Cars that remind of my youth are some of my favorite cars. '79 to '85 Mazda RX-7s are on my top ten list. My environment statement was an afterthought and more of a bonus in the new car/old car debate. I believe the “I’m safer in an old car because its bigger” is usually BS. Yes, when you hit me in my '00 VW Golf 1.8T with your '79 LeSabre going 55 mph, I will die and you will live. Is that safe? If I hit you doing the same speed. I die and you live. So we should all drive big old cars? Nope. Freedom of choice. I chose to put my life in your hands every time I fall behind the wheel. I will give you the cheaper to repair thing. Unless its not a Camaro, Mustang or most other American cars between '49 to present. I’d be willing to be it can be a challenge to get a fender for say a '62 fiat. And I am all for freedom of choice. You should be able to drive whatever the hell you want to. As long as it can stop.
Did that not explain that I am aware and accepting of all of the modern luxuries? Modern, ear shattering stereo with radical tone speakers and a stereo AM/FM/Tape player/CD entertainment set in the dash that lights up like an aircraft control panel does one little good when it is imbedded in your rib cage because the car maker ‘economized’ a touch.
Well, I suppose you could listen to it after a wreck, while waiting for the rescue squad to lift the flattened roof off of your crushed body.
I love Toyo Tires. They have never worn out on me, but have, after many years, actually rotted on the car. The rubber pulled away from the belting, creating interesting bumps. They lasted twice as long as previous tires, so I could not complain.
I enjoy the more environmentally friendly engines, but the government had to step in and give the car makers an ultimatum about using the technology they already had to make them better.
I would think that if you make a product of mass transportation, you know that you are holding the very lives of the buyers in your hands, so you would produce the safest design possible. Car makers do not. They cite cost, expenses and on and on and then turn out vehicles designed to be family cars that turn into crumpled tinfoil upon impact.
The technology of the race car is proof that cars can be made safer. Those designers want their drivers to survive. The body comes apart when it hits a wall at about 150 mph, but the driver walks away. Putting something similar into a car is, expensive, will alter the design, will increase the weight, and people will not buy it, so says the automobile makers. The latter part is their main concern, but if all dealers add crash cages, then the public will have no choice.
Did anyone ask us if we wanted the vent window removed? If we wanted those running lights that go on when you start the engine? Those new, spooky ‘joined’ headlights, or the removal of heavy, sturdy bumpers? No, they just went and did it. I’ve seen car designs that never made it to the road and were much better, in my opinion, than the current, basic design of the cars out in the last 10 years. No one asked our opinion of the design changes, they just put them out there.
Just try to buy a new Corvette that is not almost entirely plastic in the body. For years, you could not even buy a car that was not front wheel drive. You had little, if any, choice.
I like the new luxuries, better tires, safer interiors, wider range of colors and mpg as well as lower emissions. I just don’t like the fragility of the new cars on the road. A car is in traffic in all forms of weather. A 4 mph collision by a kid on a bike should not do $500 worth of damage to a fender!
Yeah, thanks. I, for one, am 19, and not a God damned generalization you made is true. Try putting any other social group name other than teenagers in there, and see how offended people get. And don’t say “Well, I said MOST!”, because offering exemptions does not intelligent make.
Oh, and hi, Drahmark.
–A retarded, ignorant teenager
-
-
- deadOman, lemme try it again:
-
- You’re saying that larger vehicles pose disproportionate hazards to small vehicles. Okay. There’s two solutions to the problem, but one small detail you seem to ignore is that once upon a time a “Midsize” car weight 5000 lbs+, and it wasn’t because the boys in detroit left a load of bricks in the trunk. Get it straight: bigger vehicles = better crash protection, smaller vehicles = less. If you want to zip around in a car that’s smaller and flimsier than most, hey, feel free, but don’t get annoyed when everybody else doesn’t feel the same way.
- And as far as SUV’s being “less safe” (presumably to other vehicles), all you can do is choose protect yourself, or not. Since you cannot choose what type of vehicle anybody else drives, it’s not your fault if they get killed driving a pipsqueak of a car when the other guy in a monster Medicaid sled walks away.
~
Homer: Hey, look! MTV Realworld Beach Rapper Party is on!
Cornflakes’ link to a picture of a rollcage is what I had in mind. I know these are sold as aftermarket products that you can have installed. Though, I’m not sure how sturdy they’d be in a real crash. Don’t they have to be mounted to the chassis directly to equally absorb the impact?
Would mounting it (er, welding I should say) to the chassis be possible with all the carpeting, seats, dash, etc., in place? I bring this up because in those crash test videos of front impact hits, it shows the cabin intact, but the front comes in so far, that it crushes the driver’s legs, and usually as a result, breaks them.
This is a bit unsettling for me. There’s all these safety features in place to stop the cabin from crumbling should a front end hit occur, or the car flips. But, at the cost of not being able to walk? So, as I was thinking about this, the notion of adding a rollcage came to mind. Anyway, I thank you all for all the replies.
Drahcir, you’ve very thoroughly presented your case that modern crashes are more expensive. What you haven’t backed up is your claim that they are therefore less safe. In fact, it can be argued that the higher repair costs are one of the tradeoffs made in exchange for safety.
MC, you say that larger cars are safer in a crash. That depends on the sort of crash, however: If you crash into a stationary and essentially immovable object like a wall or a telephone pole, then large cars are substantially less safe. It’s only in collisions with ligher and movable objects that they’re more safe, and that’s more than made up for by the decreased safety of the folks in the other car.
Meanwhile, the whole tone here is getting a bit argumentative. Would it be better for me to move it over to GD?
Chronos, am I wrong in thinking that MC’s inflammatory generalizations would not be tolerated if it were, say, blacks or catholics or vegetarians being targeted instead of teenagers?
–Tim
-
-
- No, it does not depend on the crash: by your reasoning here, the lighter and flimsier a vehicle is, the safer it is to be inside when it collides with stationary objects. If this was true, hitting a wall at 30 MPH while riding a bicycle should be more safer than doing the same riding inside a car, but it ain’t. More metal = more protection, assuming the passenger compartment isn’t the weakest portion of the heavier vehicle (which in some older cars it may be), but newer cars are structurally weaker all the way from one end to the other. And even in those cases, you’re dealing with the difference of strength of an old car’s passenger compartment being mashed against a new car’s “crumple zones”. Every summer weekend, dozens of demolition derbies across the US tell the truth. - MC
-