Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
another vid of it.. Check out the inside parts. wow.. Technology saves lives.. BTW- people say crying foul saying the 59 has an inferior X frame.. umm, the 09 has no frame guys..
Yeah, now most cars have uni-body construction, but back then those "full frame" cars relied on the actual frames themselves for structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
No, if you watch the second view, and look at the shadow underneath, the ground clearance looks constant from front wheel to back.
It is true, though, that before the 60's cars had no safety features at all. Rock-hard dashboards with sharp knobs sticking out them, inflexible steering column, seat-belts unheard of until the 60's. Running on bias-ply tires with drum brakes on highways that were two-lane free-for-alls, and speed limits the same as they are today. And a national attitude that if you see a drunk driver, try to get out of his way, with almost no DWI enforcement.
Yeah and I think the lack of the engine also compromised the crash test... also it made the car much lighter than it actually is in real-life, giving the Malibu more of an advantage!
Close on the lack of safety features on the 50s cars, but starting in 1956, Ford did offer a "Life Gaurd" package, which added seat belts, stronger door locks, padded dash board, and a energy absorbing steering wheel, (see pic from brochure below) etc. Actually some upscale American cars had a padded dash as early as the early 1950s. My grandpas 1955 Cadillac has a factory padded dash panel and even some of the 1959 Chevrolets had an optional padded dash. Starting in 1966, most cars (large) had standard padded dash panels. Then starting in 1967, alot of cars started adding alot of safety features that were required by the government by 1968. Items like padded dash, energy absorbing steering columns and dash boards, seat belts, side marker lights, etc... then in 69, head restraints.
56 Ford lifegaurd...
on this one, see the lower right side... lists all of the 68 Chevy safety items....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
Thank you - very educational. I never knew Buick had an air suspension option as far back as '59.
Yeah, some of the Cadillacs did too. Grandpas 55 Buick had some type of unusual rear suspension... perhaps it had the air suspension too. I will have to research that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Good post, Tennesseestorm.
Yes, comparing with something like a '74 Malibu would be interesting.
Since they were comparing cars with a 50-year age difference why not do that with a '59 Chevy and a 1911 Chevy (there was no 1909 Chevy... 1911 was the first year)?
Yeah, it was a much heavier car.... more safety features, etc. Yeah, I think 1911 was the first year of the Chevy.
That's 3% every year, so the average driver will be involved in an accident every 30 years or so, or twice a lifetime. Or once a lifetime for an injury accident. I've been driving for 54 years, and haven't had my injury accident yet.
I thought about this since my last post. The one thing wrong with this train of thought is that you're treating accidents as random, and they aren't. It also assumes all drivers are roughly the same, and they're not. Good drivers will have vastly less accidents of any sort than crap drivers. A crap driver in a new car could die in a severe accident at any time, due to their crap driving, while a good driver in an "unsafe" car may never get any more than a broken taillight out of their driving career. Using statistics to randomize the events, then apply them to an average that says, "well, that still means that you're going to get into one severe accident in your life" is simply the wrong use of statistics (yes, it's the way the insurance companies use, them, but it's also why insurance comapnaies are raking in record profits due to knowing that the truth is, most people aren't actually going to ever need their services)
Trying to ge the car to save your (the collective "your," not you specifically) butt in an accident is simply deciding that you're a crap driver and can't avoid serious accidents on your own. The truth is that you're really no more or less safe in an old or new car based on the car, but on your own skill level and ability to pay attention.
Last edited by Merc63; 10-04-2010 at 07:47 AM..
Reason: typos
I thought about this since my last post. The one thing wrong with this train of thought is that you're treating accidents as random, and they aren't. It also assumes all drivers are roughly the same, and they're not. Good drivers will have vastly less accidents of any sort than crap drivers. A crap driver in a new car could die in a severe accident at any time, due to their crap driving, while a good driver in an "unsafe" car may never get any more than a broken taillight out of their driving career. using statistics to randomize the events, then apply them to an average that says, "well, that still means that youre going to get into one sever accidnet in your life" is simply the wwrong use of statistics (yes, it's the way the insurance companies use, them, but it's also why insurance comapnaies are raking in record profits due to knowing that the truth is, most people aren't actually going to ever need their services)
Trying to ge the car to save your (the collective "your," not you specifically) butt in an accident is simply deciding that you're a crap driver and can't avoid serious accidents on your own. The truth is that you're really no more or less safe in an old or new car based on the car, but on your own skill level and ability to pay attention.
That's exactly right. By far, the most important and effective safety feature in a car is the driver's brain.
I thought about this since my last post. The one thing wrong with this train of thought is that you're treating accidents as random, and they aren't. Good drivers will have vastly less accidents of any sort than crap drivers..
If that's the case, then you're the one who introduced the invalid stat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merc63
Lastly, and I've brought this up before, less that 3% of drivers each year get into accidents of any sort.
As for your point that crap drivers have the bulk of the accidents, what do they hit? Good drivers, who are placed at risk by the crap drivers.
What I objected to was your "every year" qualification of the "only 3%" stat. Nobody drives a car for one year and then quits while they're ahead. What if you had said "only 0.008% of drivers each day get into accidents"? Three percent is meaningless, because it clips out an arbitrary segment of a driver's lifetime and quantifies the risk during that interval. You can pick any percentage from 0.00001 to 99, and then specify a time spread within a lifetime that it would apply to.
It's like that birth control device that was advertised as 99% effective. Do you want to know if the failure rate is 1% over a lifetime, or per coitus? Most users never asked, because statistics have a wonderful way of hoodwinking the incurious public into believing what the purveyors want them to believe.
If that's the case, then you're the one who introduced the invalid stat.
No, the stat is valid, it's the use (treating them as random and then applying it to an imaginary average) that was incorrect.
Quote:
As for your point that crap drivers have the bulk of the accidents, what do they hit? Good drivers, who are placed at risk by the crap drivers.
Said good driver will either avoid the crap driver, thus making sure the crap driver hits another crap driver, or in the unlikely event the accident cannot be avoided, the good drvier minimizes the possible damage to a bit of a bodywork scuff.
So the end result is that crap drivers hit either other crap drivers or have single vehicle accidents. The fact that you think that accidents only, or even primarily, consist of a crap driver hitting a good driver is telling. A VERY lareg percentage of crashes are single vehicle. SImply put, dont' be a crap driver and don't hit anything, and you'll avoid a good 90% of possible accidents no matter what they year.
The problem is that you think the only risk is of a severe accident and thus you're GOING to be in one, regardless of skill or the ability to pay attention and mitigate outcomes.
Quote:
What I objected to was your "every year" qualification of the "only 3%" stat. Nobody drives a car for one year and then quits while they're ahead. What if you had said "only 0.008% of drivers each day get into accidents"? Three percent is meaningless, because it clips out an arbitrary segment of a driver's lifetime and quantifies the risk during that interval. You can pick any percentage from 0.00001 to 99, and then specify a time spread within a lifetime that it would apply to.
No, you can't. You have to take into account driver skill level, and that's something peopel like you NEVER DO. You think everyone is exually bad and equally susceptible to getting into accidents. You can't even fathom someone getting into maybe 3-4 minor scuffs in their lifetime being offset bey people that crash a number of times a year. And you have no mechanism for understanding that while the FACT is that only 3% of drivers get into accidents each year, that doesn't mean it's a revolving door and that once you have teh accident, you'll not have another one as it's someone else's turn. It doesn't work that way. It's not random, it has to do experessly with driver action. it's not like a roulette wheel randomly falling in a number.
It's a FACT that 3% of people get into accidents every year. It's NOT a fact that it's a revolving door and your number will randomly come up. What IS a fact is that you can increase your skill level and awareness of your surroundings and remove yourself from the very tiny percentage of drivers that have skill levels that MAKE them crash into things. A the end of the year, you don't just reset and everyone gets the same skill level again, so we start out clean. We cary that skill over, so if you avoided all the accidents that year, you don't suddenly get more likely to be in one, and have that add up over time until it becomes inevitable. That's roulette, not driving.
So instead of worrying about some "inevitable" major crash and wrappintg yourself in bubble wrap to protect you from what you think is just random luck, you can make your own "luck" by being proactive and becoming the most important part of the car, not just along for the ride.
Quote:
It's like that birth control device that was advertised as 99% effective. Do you want to know if the failure rate is 1% over a lifetime, or per coitus? Most users never asked, because statistics have a wonderful way of hoodwinking the incurious public into believing what the purveyors want them to believe.
Actually, it's NOTHING like that. Seriously. Your example is again more like roulette. TO make it applicable, you would have to say that it's 100% effective, and most people find it to be 100% effective, and always will. But because some people use it wrong, and tear the condom before use and use it anyhow, thus contributing to the failure, the maker has to say it's less than 100% effective, as facts show a certain percentage of the users experienced failure. But since that failure was 100% the fault of the user, YOUR chances of failure are zero, so long as you don't misuse the product. And no matter how LONG you continue to use the products.
Do you see what I'm saying?
With a product that the failure rate is due to user error, you cannot leave the user out of the formula, and assume the end result is able to be averaged amongst all users. Cars don't crash by themselves. It takes a person to do it. Leaving the person out of the factoring except as a constant is what's misleading. And in this case, it's fear-mongering at best.
I thought about this since my last post. The one thing wrong with this train of thought is that you're treating accidents as random, and they aren't. It also assumes all drivers are roughly the same, and they're not. Good drivers will have vastly less accidents of any sort than crap drivers. A crap driver in a new car could die in a severe accident at any time, due to their crap driving, while a good driver in an "unsafe" car may never get any more than a broken taillight out of their driving career. Using statistics to randomize the events, then apply them to an average that says, "well, that still means that you're going to get into one severe accident in your life" is simply the wrong use of statistics (yes, it's the way the insurance companies use, them, but it's also why insurance comapnaies are raking in record profits due to knowing that the truth is, most people aren't actually going to ever need their services)
Trying to ge the car to save your (the collective "your," not you specifically) butt in an accident is simply deciding that you're a crap driver and can't avoid serious accidents on your own. The truth is that you're really no more or less safe in an old or new car based on the car, but on your own skill level and ability to pay attention.
Oh, this is so true.
I have a buddy that is a DC9 pilot. When asked how safe airplanes are, he will launch into a tirade about how the automobile is far safer than any plane. His explanation is that if all cars were driven by licensed pilots under the same conditions as aircraft fly there would be nearly no accidents.
He points out that vehicles would rarely be driven by angry ex-boyfriends at excessive speed with a nearly flat snow tire on the left front, or by a mother and her 4 screaming children down a highway on which she is already lost, late and confused.
SO if you filed a flight plan and did a walkaround and canceled the trip for bad driving conditions or vehicle issues, the car which is already only marginally less safe than a plane would end up far safer.
But because some people use it wrong, and tear the condom before use and use it anyhow, thus contributing to the failure, the maker has to say it's less than 100% effective, as facts show a certain percentage of the users experienced failure..
I wasn't talking about condoms. Pills and IUDs also claim percentages of effectiveness---less than 100% even when used correctly
You have said nothing in your entire post that conflicts with what I said, which is that a described percentage of failure within a limited trial has to be extrapolated into the projected failure over a lifetime of use, in order to be meaningful. A statistic is "invalid" for its intended purpose if the user does not take that into account in evaluating the statistic.
A good driver can reduce, but not to anywhere near zero, the risk of being involved in an accident. Unless you are prepared to demonstrate how a "good driver" can avoid being rear-ended while waiting at a red light.
Even as late as 2004, some vehicles were very poor.... but some 2004 were excellent. I would say the same applied in 1959... the 59 Chevy may have been poor, but a 1959 Buick may have held up excellent. They needed to test a few 1959 cars before spouting that all 1959 cars would perform like this. They (IIHS) of all people should know this. Just my opinion.
Even as late as 2004, some vehicles were very poor.... but some 2004 were excellent. I would say the same applied in 1959... the 59 Chevy may have been poor, but a 1959 Buick may have held up excellent. They needed to test a few 1959 cars before spouting that all 1959 cars would perform like this. They (IIHS) of all people should know this. Just my opinion.
New cars are more advanced in technology, fuel consumption and performance. Old one can also be considered but to a limited scenarios.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
