U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2009, 07:55 PM
 
4,925 posts, read 9,778,073 times
Reputation: 3268

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Shoulder harnesses (belts), along with seat belts, were required equipment on all cars sold after Jan. 1, 1968.

Unless you mean all cars on the road, meaning pre-'68s.
That's what I meant. (I just knew someone would pick on that!)

First car we had with seat belts was a 1969 Dodge Polara that we got in 1972. Had a pain in the neck (literally) separate shoulder belt that clipped to the roof parallel to the top of the door when not in use. It usually just hung up there because it was such a pain to unhook and buckle and adjust. Then, just for variety, it would come unhooked on it's own, swing down and bash you in the forehead...good if you were about to doze, but otherwise just startling and annoying.

All our other vehicles in the family in 1975 did not have seatbelts.

Speaking of cars...in 1975 you had much more frequent maintenance to perform on your car than today. You had carbs with chokes that seemed to need frequent attention...points to change and gap...spark plugs that needed changing multiple times before you even get to the point where they need changing today. And, in general, they didn't last as long. If your car had 80,000 miles on it, most folks started looking for a new one.
Of course, they could run all day at high speeds on hi-test. I loved Montana when I was learning to drive and a young driver...
While they didn't last as long, they certainly were built heavier and larger...you could actually hit something with a bumper and it wouldn't cause $1500 damage to your vehicle, and you and your girlfriend could actually get, um, comfortable in one. Or, so I've heard.

One other difference comparing then to today, at least where I went to high school is that more guys actually knew how to work on their cars and did so. There seemed to be a bigger emphasis upon having a car that ran hot than looked hot. You were considered a real poser (a word I don't remember from then) if you had a car that looked great (jacked up in the rear of course) but ran like a dog, or even worse, was stock. In fact, we all liked the idea of having a "sleeper"--a car that looked benign but would blow the doors off supposed hot cars of the day. (The '69 Dodge Polara was a great sleeper--besides looking like a cop car, it came stock with a 383 4 bbl that I but a new, bigger carb, electric fuel pump, headers, new intake, etc. on it--it ate Mustangs and Camaros!). We would rather have a fast car that looked like garbage than a car that ran like garbage but was pretty. Maybe that's a commentary upon today's society--all show and no go? More of an emphasis today, in general upon appearance of your vehicle--I really like the ones that have a stereo that cost more than the car.

The thing I hate about that day...so many of us in high school had cars from the '50s and '60s that are considered collectors cars today--to us they were just old cars. The thing I hate about those days? I didn't hang on to any of them! I used to have a 1958 Willys Wagon, 1963 Corvair, a 1964 Chevy Impala, the '69 Polara, a '69 GMC three-quarter ton pick up and a '74 Dodge Challenger. I turned down a buddy who offered his cherry '57 Chevy to me in '75 or '76 for $900---which just seemed like tooooo much for such an old car!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2009, 08:37 PM
 
5,858 posts, read 14,046,541 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
I wasn't alive then, but I know NYC was definitely way worse then in terms of crime and the economy.
Yeah, but if you crank back 25 more years (to 1950), NYC was arguably in its golden age. It's cyclical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 08:51 PM
 
5,858 posts, read 14,046,541 times
Reputation: 3482
I like 2009, but there were better things about 1975. You didn't need a college education to get a job that paid enough to support a family in a middle-class lifestyle. Two incomes per family were optional, you didn't need that unless you wanted it (women had many job opportunities than they had just 10 years previous). Sprawl was in its infancy in most cities, compared to today. The interstates and expressways were much less congested. International borders were much easier to cross. Air travel was relatively more expensive, but much more comfortable and hassle-free. Gangs existed in only a handful of neighborhoods in a handful of cities. College was more affordable. It was easier to get a graduate degree with grants. No one worried about "illegal immigrants". The political dialog was much more civil, the country seemed less divided than today. Religion had not yet intruded into politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2009, 09:24 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 18,268,700 times
Reputation: 2782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
I like 2009, but there were better things about 1975. You didn't need a college education to get a job that paid enough to support a family in a middle-class lifestyle. Two incomes per family were optional, you didn't need that unless you wanted it (women had many job opportunities than they had just 10 years previous). Sprawl was in its infancy in most cities, compared to today. The interstates and expressways were much less congested. International borders were much easier to cross. Air travel was relatively more expensive, but much more comfortable and hassle-free. Gangs existed in only a handful of neighborhoods in a handful of cities. College was more affordable. It was easier to get a graduate degree with grants. No one worried about "illegal immigrants". The political dialog was much more civil, the country seemed less divided than today. Religion had not yet intruded into politics.

...and decent, hardworking Americans knew exactly who to hate/blame...Jane Fonda, hippies, Woodstock, Gloria Steinem, rock music, the Kennedys, California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2009, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Back in the gym...Yo Adrian!
9,369 posts, read 18,012,722 times
Reputation: 18406
You have to take the good with the bad. In 1975 there was no domestic terrorism or Homeland Security like today, no huge gang problem infesting cities and suburbs, no crack or meth epidemic, kids played sports in the streets instead of imitating gangsters like they do today. People weren't as transient and so there was a sense of community in most places. The world was still a mystery to many who had not traveled. We cared more about quality and customer service back then.

Today you can find everything on the internet which is a good thing, but I think it detracts a little from the spirit of adventure and discovery. Today we have better health care, environmental preservation, computers and internet, better cars, improved methods of communication (cell phones and email), and a sense of awareness. But we've also become a throw away society, we no longer fix things, we just throw them away and buy new. Our athletes and celebrities are much more arrogant and cockie today. Society has placed way too much emphasis on celebrities (how much news do we need about a deceased bearded nut case who sold toilet cleaning products?), not to mention the Lindsey Lohan's and Jennifer Aniston's. We spend more time conversing with friends on cell phones, text messages, Facebook and other means of communication than actual face to face discussions. I think race relations have not improved all that much since 1975, sometimes I think we've gone backwards instead of forward. Our politically correct world has crippled our sense of humor and creative artists. Not sure what the next 25 years will bring, but I'm not optimistic. If I had to choose I'd take 1975.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2009, 11:24 AM
 
5,858 posts, read 14,046,541 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
...and decent, hardworking Americans knew exactly who to hate/blame...Jane Fonda, hippies, Woodstock, Gloria Steinem, rock music, the Kennedys, California.
LOL! By 1975, much of the cultural upheaval of the previous decade had simmered down. Hippies, rock music, Vietnam, urban rioting were much less the lightnring rod issues by then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 03:11 AM
 
Location: Miami
888 posts, read 651,318 times
Reputation: 658
I am enjoying all of these comments.
Thanks for the insight, and please write more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 09:41 AM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,869 posts, read 10,564,737 times
Reputation: 9528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeromeville View Post
There was no reality TV:
Ha. There still isn't. What's called 'reality TV' is about as realistic as a comic book. The Brady Bunch was more realistic than our 'reality TV.' And, some of the episodes were actually entertaining. I don't ever remember some moron trying to 'eliminate' some other moron from the show. TV is so tacky today.

The only thing that is half-way realistic and bearable on TV today is maybe the History Chanel or Discovery (sometimes).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2009, 07:59 PM
 
1,246 posts, read 2,986,779 times
Reputation: 1824
Everything you ever wanted to know or experience about the '70s can be found here:

MaryMc's Seventies Stuff

Here's a diary of a 70's girl that is very revealing about life in an Illinois suburb during that time - what teens did for fun, what they bought, what they watched on TV, etc.

Stuck in the '70s -- Diary Who's Who
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2009, 03:39 PM
 
56,587 posts, read 80,870,855 times
Reputation: 12500
I think it depends on who you talk to.

Today, I think we have too much media and it's more sensational at that. Kids don't go outside an play as much as they used to even from 20 years ago, let alone 34 years ago. There's more technology, which can be good or bad. Some places that some people couldn't "go to", are now pretty much open to anyone. Things that you might not of heard about, have been uncovered in a way that make it seem like it is worse than it was back in the day, even if it hasn't changed. People sometimes don't say what they mean and mean what they say.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top