Safer cars but more dangerous roads?

I think part of the reason people don't pay attention is because cars ARE safer. Pretty much everyone knows someone who has walked away from a pretty significant looking crash, but very few people who have died without it clearly being their own fault (DUI and excessive speed accounts for a LOT of fatalities) so regular commuting is safe. Sure there are some fender benders, but people have insurance and cars get fixed and it's nothing more than a story. The consequences of driving are fairly low to be honest and I think that's part of what has led to distracted driving. You do because you can and it's not 'that' dangerous. It's not unusual when I'm in my truck to look around and see every single other driver in four lanes of stopped traffic with a phone in one hand. Every. Single. One. And they drive like this every day. All the time. How do you convince someone that's dangerous when they actually do it every day for years and DON'T wreck? It's like telling kids how evil weed is and then they go off and meet people that smoke and are just normal people. Weed ruins lives and texting kills, but.........

I admit, I may be in a haven of wonderful roads and low ish traffic density here in East Tennessee, but I have little problem driving my classic minis and pathetically underpowered Citroen ID19. I don't drive them daily, but that's due to antique tag and registration requirements. I do, however, drive them like a motorcycle. I never have less than two oh E36 M3 routes planned out, and my default preference is the aggressive/assertive line. I don't rely on the metal of the car to save me, and I assume the worst of other drivers at all times.

I'm 77" tall. I can barely reach over the hood of a half ton truck. I would definitely think twice before driving my dad's big Healy anywhere but around Amish Country near his house.

Flynlow wrote: That's a great way to put it, and a timely topic. I need to vent.... With the disclaimer that I've moved to the Philly/NJ area approximately 2 years ago, my car enthusiam is.....dying. And that hurts to say, because I've been a car guy since I drove for the first time at 15 and realized that was going to be my hobby. Not football, not baseball, cars. Glorious glorious cars. Loved them ever since. Commuting 35 miles one way everyday on I-95 and 295, and dealing with the utter, utter, idiocy on the roads is killing my passion for cars like poison. Snip....

I feel ya. I live in a North suburb of Atlanta and work downtown. In January I decided to stop driving and start riding bus+train to work. Instead of swearing at the windshield and amplifying the stupidity on the road, I just read.

Every once in a while I have to drive someplace during rush hour and the aggravation of commuting in a large city immediately returns.

I don't fear dying in a crash, I fear my nice old car getting messed up. "Normal" drivers are too caught up in phones, fancy radios, navagation, and just plain not caring about anyone but themselves.

modern cars with touch screens are a huge factor in distracted driving IMHO. Who decided that cycling through menus of hard to understand symbols at 70mph was a good idea? Ever watch someone who isn't a tech wiz deal with this stuff? It's maddening.

Keith Tanner wrote: It's not so much that the classics are any more dangerous than they were before, it's that our concept of acceptable risk has shifted. "Oh, I used to drive a X before, I wouldn't dare now!" is a reflection of your personal choices and priorities, not so much of increased danger. I just realized that of all the cars in my garage, only 2 have functioning airbags. That's under 20%.

This is the nut of it right here. Our lives and safety have become hyper-valuable to us. I won't turn this into a "back in the early 70's we used to ..." thread but let's just say that the threshold for acceptable risk of the general population was much, much lower than it is now. We have transformed from the children who played with .22s unsupervised in old mining pits to parents who are afraid to let their own kids play in the grass because Lyme disease exists. No risk is good risk whether it's real or perceived safety we get in return.

It's an interesting perspective to be in my late 40's and look back. I'm part of possibly the last generation to remember when skiers, bicyclists, and even professional hockey players didn't wear helmets. Teachers were allowed to beat the berkeley out of you - that even seemed berkeleyed up to me then but it was a real thing and parents let it happen and even encouraged it.

I wonder what changed so drastically in two generations to make everyone fear everything and trust nothing. Maybe we needed the threat of thermonuclear war hanging over us to make everything else seem a little less frightening. Or maybe it just made tomorrow seem a little less probable. Whatever it was - it has gone far enough. The pendulum can start swinging back anytime now. Well, maybe not all the way back - someone could just stop it at the bottom of the arc, maybe?

Some very valid points brought up in this. Yeah, cars are safer now and larger giving a sense of security. Plus the always rush to get wherever they are going and wanting to get there before you. And they seem to be looking for anything the same size or larger than they are. Don't see us driving small cars or motorcycles, both have the same issue now. Leads to recklessness sometimes. I know I have felt nervous driving my Miata and seeing nothing but bumper of a large pickup behind me, like maybe less than 10' behind me. Happens a lot. He doesn't realize or care that I can stop before he even hits the brakes and squashes me. Worse in my Opel GT since it is even smaller. Plus I put a lot of work in the car and would hate to see it damaged. It is in good driving order but a 40+ year old car doesn't have the power or the brakes a modern car does and they don't seem to get it. I don't drive it on busy roads if I can help it. The long off way is more fun anyway.

Huckleberry wrote: I wonder what changed so drastically in two generations to make everyone fear everything and trust nothing.

I think it's one generation. My sister lives a couple of blocks from where we grew up, and the neighborhood is nicer now than it was then - and it wasn't bad then. Her kids get escorted to school by my parents. At their age, she and I walked on our own to the same school. They're not allowed even close to the same level of independence that we were under the exact same circumstances. Now, she was always the worrier of the two of us, but still.

Anyhow...I realized tonight I was more nervous than usual driving home. I even checked the back of my car to make sure it hadn't been bumped in the parking lot when a truck was parked close. Not because I was worried for my safety, but because the car I was driving is scheduled for a bunch of rapid-fire magazine tests starting next week and I don't have time to fix it

When cars could kill their drivers, motorists seemed to be a bit more aware, a bit more courteous.

Now that cars are "invincible," drivers seem to not care about their own mortality.

rob_lewis wrote: What are your thoughts? If the speed limit issue wasn't a factor, would you drive a little car as a daily driver? If not, why?

I have, and I gradually quit doing it because it wasn't fun and I was getting tired of the risk. My commute is not pleasant. Not a week goes by where I don't watch at least one crash happen, and every day I see the remains of several. I do my best, but every few years, someone manages to run into me on the commute. So when it comes to the daily slog, I do want a safer tank like vehicle for when I get hit. Same basic reason I almost never ride the bike to work either.

wheelsmithy wrote: Wasn't there a comparison between a '60 Chevy and a modern car ten or so years ago? Seems like the Chevy looked BAD. Non collapsible column=DEAD.

Your talking about the IIHS film of a '59 Bel Air in a frontal offset crash with an '09 Malibu. The point was to take two identical class cars (i.e. Chevy's midsize family sedan then and now) and show how far safety advances have come. And it illustrates the point very well.

Size doesn't matter...gee, where have we heard that before , at least to a point. I'd much rather be in a frontal collision at 35mph in a Smart or Scion iQ than in the big Caddy in Keiths' earlier post. The safety advances in cars is amazing. As much as we want to put our tin foil hats on around government things, the safety mandates have worked. Comparing modern cars to modern cars, once you start reaching highway speeds, if the design/construction is the same, then sure bigger cars will fare better.

There are simply more cars on the road today than there were 50 years ago. Our infrastructure hasn't kept up with the growth. Therefore, the odds of an accident are higher, even putting distracted and other poor driving habits aside. Now put a really old car with antiquated safety and antiquated capabilities on those roads and yes, you're taking more of a risk than if you were driving your 2016 Volvo down the highway.

Here's a link to the youtube of that crash test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

Size doesn't matter when slamming into the proverbial brick wall. That is true. But it does matter when slamming two bodies into each other in a head-on collision. Then the smaller lighter vehicle takes more of the energy of the impact, and almost always fairs less well as a result.

foxtrapper wrote:

rob_lewis wrote: What are your thoughts? If the speed limit issue wasn't a factor, would you drive a little car as a daily driver? If not, why?

I have, and I gradually quit doing it because it wasn't fun and I was getting tired of the risk. My commute is not pleasant. Not a week goes by where I don't watch at least one crash happen, and every day I see the remains of several. I do my best, but every few years, someone manages to run into me on the commute. So when it comes to the daily slog, I do want a safer tank like vehicle for when I get hit. Same basic reason I almost never ride the bike to work either.

I go through this everyday damn day. The road through the marshes to Atlantic City is virtually unpatrolled by the police. The speed limit is 50mph (same as all non-limited access roads in NJ) but people regularly do 70+ on it. It may not seem bad, but when the Jersey barrier is a foot to your right and the narrow shoulder on the left is all that is keeping you from either a dunk into the bay or sinking into the mud of the marshes, accidents are often and frequently unpleasant.

Half way along it's length there is a on/off ramp to another access road. Last year somebody managed to launch their car off it to crash into the face of the billboard beyond.

Appleseed wrote: When cars could kill their drivers, motorists seemed to be a bit more aware, a bit more courteous. Now that cars are "invincible," drivers seem to not care about their own mortality.

Uh, no. Drivers have always been distracted. I took drivers ed back in the early 80's, and the "distracted driver" movie they showed was from the 50s. I also read some Alfa Owner's from the 60's complaining about distracted drivers back then.

The issue now is just more cars on roughly the same roads from 40 years ago. A lot more cars. So the frequency of distracted drivers is higher per mile.

Probably will never change.

The single largest safety difference between older cars and newer cars is always overlooked, including in this thread.

Core engineering.

The basic design concept of 95% or older cars was body on frame, bigger is better, stiffer is better. Heavier gauge metal, lower tech metal tabrication, minimal quality control on welds and assembly, almost no automation in design or assembly processes. No seat belt or attachment points, heavy seats without protection, etc, etc.

95% of modern vehicles are a completely different core concept. Unibody, crumple zones, passenger compartment integrity, engine submarining, collapsible steering columns, breakaway components, reduced mass, increased engineering (folded body panels, pans, door bars, etc), superb quality control and repeatability, automated assembly processes, automated welding processes, soft contact points inside the cab, the list goes on and on.

It's not simply an "old vs new", nor is it a specific invention like airbags or abs (though those are good), it is an overall approach to the engineering process, and adoption of idea that are simply better (like unibody vs body on frame).

It's 100 years of cultural improvements, not any 1 single idea.

Keith Tanner wrote:

Huckleberry wrote: I wonder what changed so drastically in two generations to make everyone fear everything and trust nothing.

I think it's one generation.

I'm gonna make the terribly unpopular suggestion that it's the Internet. It's the one generation that made the transition to continuous access to information all the time

Though the data stream makes us smarter and more aware, it is not a net positive for encouraging people and making them less fearful. It has made everyone more afraid of every little boogey man hiding under every rock, and WAAY too aware of the bad things that go on in every distant corner of the world.

Dumb and ignorant was a basically happy way to live.

But encouragjng fear is an excellent way for businesses to make money, politicians to win votes, and manipulative people of all sorts to gain power. The Internet is an excellent tool for spreading such fear.

If I have the time tonight, I'll set up a Survey Monkey because I'm curious--There will be 6 answer choices:

• I live in a rural area, and I would happily drive an old car every day
• I live in a rural area, and I would happily drive an old car on the weekends
• I live in a rural area, and I would not drive an old car
• I live in a suburban/urban area, and I would happily drive an old car every day
• I live in a suburban/urban area, and I would happily drive an old car on the weekends
• I live in a suburban/urban area, and I would not drive an old car

An "old car" would be defined as something without crumple zones and 3-point belts.

I'd also like to throw in options for marriage, children, and age, but I'd expect that the biggest factor would be the area. Between my family and my in-laws, there have been 8 minor accidents in the last 10 years, and 3 major accidents. In each of the major accidents, in an old car, there would have been fatalities; in the modern vehicles the worse thing that happened was a concussion and a chemical burn from the airbag. The minor accidents would have likely been very damaging to both the car and the person; in our case in the modern vehicles everyone was safe and the cars were "fine".

And here is the thing: out of those 11 accidents, out of 9 people, there were 2 that we were at fault for in 10 years. It isn't bad driving on our part, by and large. We just can't take that risk in an old car.

I'm going to turn the question on it's head a bit. I think we all agree that drivers are more distracted and roads are more congested. As a result, the number of accidents has, most likely, increased.

Now to the question:

Have we made cars safer to handle those conditions OR are those above conditions a result of making cars safer?

To clarify, are drivers more distracted because they feel safer in the car and less worried about accidents? Does that feeling of safety contribute to the increase in congestion? (Understanding that population has the biggest effect, but if cars weren't safer, would people be less inclined to drive?)

-Rob

SVreX wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote:

Huckleberry wrote: I wonder what changed so drastically in two generations to make everyone fear everything and trust nothing.

I think it's one generation.

I'm gonna make the terribly unpopular suggestion that it's the Internet. It's the one generation that made the transition to continuous access to information all the time

Not so much in this case - my sister doesn't spend any time online other than for work, but she reads the paper. Just like my parents did. The school the kids go to is hyper-paranoid about everything. You can't even bring peanuts on to the school grounds in case some kid bursts in to flames.

We had a crash here in town yesterday. Smart car (2000 lbs) vs full size pickup (5500-8000 lbs) in a head-on. You can imagine the result. No matter how good the engineering, physics will win. That's not enough to make me switch to driving a tank every day, but it's pretty easy to see the argument.

About the weight in older cars - my Caddy seems to have most of its weight in the engine and the body panels. I think the doors are impervious to dings, they're incredibly thick. But the structure is nowhere near as good as a modern car. As a four-door hardtop, it's got minimal rigidity. I'd rather not crash it either. But if it came down to Mini vs Caddy, I'd rather be in the Caddy.

In reply to mtn:

How many drivers in your family? In ours, there are 25+ drivers and we have only had 2 accidents in the last ten years. One major, one minor. No significant injuries in either. The major was a broad side at 45, where most cars, old and new, suck at crumple zones.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I didn't mean to suggest the Internet directly- it's indirect effect is just as strong or stronger. The paper your sitter reads has also learned the value of negative sensationalism, and the school most definitely sets policies based on data accumulated from internet connected sources.

Fear sells.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Engineering still has something to do with physics. Every force vs reaction physics issue related to a car accident can be addressed through engineering.

You are comparing 2 modern vehicles with comparable engineering and giving one a 3X weight advantage.

If that same Smart car had hit me head-on in my 5500 lb 1960 Cadillac, he would have had a better chance of surviving than I would.

Physics + engineering= safer cars.

If I had the choice of my kids driving a 1962 Bonneville vs a modern compact, I'd choose the modern car every time, because it is FAR safer, because of its core engineering. Weight does not make the car safer.

And there are times when weight will hurt you. If you drive an 8000 lb vehicle into a 75 ton concrete wall, the back bumper will hit you in the ass much faster than if you were driving a 2200 lb Civic.

Toyman01 wrote: In reply to mtn: How many drivers in your family? In ours, there are 25+ drivers and we have only had 2 accidents in the last ten years. One major, one minor. No significant injuries in either. The major was a broad side at 45, where most cars, old and new, suck at crumple zones.

9 people that I'm counting--my immediate family, and my wife's. But again, we live in Chicagoland. My wife and I (and my wife's family) live in a county that has 2,800 people per sq mi. My family lives in a county with 1,586/sq mi. We both border a county that has 5,530/sq mi.

You're in Berkeley County, SC? (hehehehe...) That has 162 people per square mile. While it isn't a direct correlation of people to cars on the road, since we have a wonderful public transportation system, we have at least 10 times the amount of cars on the road compared to you. Accidents here are impossible to avoid if you stay here long enough. I can't think of anyone around here who hasn't been in at least a fender bender.

So out of the 9 drivers, we have had 11 accidents in 10 years(1). That would stand to reason that we can expect to be in an accident once every 10 years (not perfect math, just generalization of course). If just one of those happened in an old car (without crumple zones and 3-point belts), there is a very good chance someone would have been hurt. Would you be willing to take that risk? I'm not.

If I still lived in a rural area (the county I was in was about 300 people/square mile), sure, I'd drive something unsafe every day. Now? It would be a weekend only car. It still might happen, but I like to drive my cars more than weekends only.

(1) Note, I didn't include the accident when my mom was rear-ended in a rural area when she was stopped and pulled over for an ambulance, because it was a rural area

rob_lewis wrote: I'm going to turn the question on it's head a bit. I think we all agree that drivers are more distracted and roads are more congested. As a result, the number of accidents has, most likely, increased. Now to the question: Have we made cars safer to handle those conditions OR are those above conditions a result of making cars safer? To clarify, are drivers more distracted because they feel safer in the car and less worried about accidents? Does that feeling of safety contribute to the increase in congestion? (Understanding that population has the biggest effect, but if cars weren't safer, would people be less inclined to drive?) -Rob

IMO, we've increased congestion because we've an increased population.

We've long striven for safer cars without regard to congestion or driver attention.

Full agreement on both those posts. The Smart vs pickup was a like-for-like comparison. Both modern vehicles, and I know the Smart in particular had a high level of engineered crash safety. But there's only so much it can do. Photos of the car actually look like it stood up pretty well, but there's only so much that can be done. 2000 lb Smart vs 5500 lb Cadillac would be interesting - there's a lot more energy that would get absorbed by the Smart.

I'm not sure about the mass factor in a one-sided collision. I'd have to look at the crash data - do heavier cars (of the same size and thus the same amount of crumple zone) fare worse than light ones?

And yes, fear sells. I'm not sure that's new to papers, though. It's just the line between tabloids and "responsible journalism" has gone away. And for some reason, fear is selling better than ever.

alfadriver wrote:

Appleseed wrote: When cars could kill their drivers, motorists seemed to be a bit more aware, a bit more courteous. Now that cars are "invincible," drivers seem to not care about their own mortality.

Uh, no. Drivers have always been distracted. I took drivers ed back in the early 80's, and the "distracted driver" movie they showed was from the 50s. I also read some Alfa Owner's from the 60's complaining about distracted drivers back then. The issue now is just more cars on roughly the same roads from 40 years ago. A lot more cars. So the frequency of distracted drivers is higher per mile. Probably will never change.

But back then, the distracted motorist careened over the embankment and died, self-correcting the problem. Now, motorists extract themeselves, ininjured, from the same ravine, only to quickly update their FaceBalls status.