I actually have two real world examples to share:
On 28 December 1989, my dad, brother, uncle and I were in a crash in Shelton, WA in my newly restored 1964 Chevy Impala 4 door. Our adversary was a new '89 Chevy one-ton truck powered by propane. It was a delivery truck for the local propane company. We crashed very similarly to the crash test video posted here.
Without getting into the nitnoid details, headrests and shoulder belts would've been nice. Three of us were covered in glass, my uncle and I knocked heads together, I bent the dash into an inverted V with my legs. My 39 year old uncle, who was already diagnosed with terminal cancer prior to the crash, but had been in remission, became hospitalized and died a few months later. The rest of us had bumps, bruises, and face and mouths full of glass, but were physically okay.
The other vehicle had the front left wheel ripped off and it continued down the road another 1/4 mile on three wheels before crashing. The driver had passed out prior to the collision with my car from a diabetic coma. After coming to and ingesting some sugar, he was fine.
I believe if we had had that crash against a typical new '89 car instead of the truck that actually hit us, we would have fared better than the other driver. 1989 was still pre-airbags, etc. But if that crash happened today, I do agree the occupants of the other vehicle would do better than that old '64.
My other real-world example happened just a few days ago . . .check it out on google. In Oakridge, OR, a 91 year old lady was killed when she turned her '62ish Thunderchicken left into the path of an Oakridge Police cruiser (a Crown Vic I think) who was pursuing a perp with lights and sirens on. The officer was critically injured, and both cars looked like the crash video. Who knows if age contributed to the death of the old lady, but I strongly suspect so. However, looking at her car, I sure wouldn't have wanted to be driving it and be in that collision!
I work at Oregon DMV, and I do believe today's cars are much safer than older ones . . .even ones from 15 years ago. But put up an early 90s car against a '50 or '60s car, and the older one will do better, I believe. Sorry for the long post but this subject really hits home for me. Here's remembering my uncle, Dave Hash . . .
Mark mjh
--- On Mon, 10/19/09, Fr. Ray Ball <frray3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Fr. Ray Ball <frray3@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [FWDLK] Crash Test: 1959 vs. 2009
To: L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, October 19, 2009, 4:36 PM
Here are a couple post crash pictures of the two cars. You can see more details by clicking each picture:
From: Fr. Ray Ball <frray3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, October 19, 2009 2:27:12 PM
Subject: [FWDLK] Crash Test: 1959 vs. 2009
On the 50th Anniversary of the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety.
1959 vs. 2009 in a crash test:
Would a Forward Look car fare any better?
Ray from NH
'58 Belvedere
'59 Star Chief
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to
http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network