… and you’re surprised because… ?
You’re not the only forum member with that opinion.
3 Likes
Makes me think his day job is writing Science fiction for Hollywood. 
2 Likes
We can hope that maintenance and replacement problems like this are remedied with the new federal infrastructure funding. Money well spent IMO, and for everyday people like us.
I just hope with all the money thats going through this bill that the roads and bridges actually get fixed. and fixed the right way, not just patching the roads like they have been doing here in NY for years. I have been 4 wheeling off road and it was smoother than these roads.
Just spent a 3 week vacation in Britain, where most of the roads are like that. As per the previous poster, if this type of driving scares you, you should perhaps not drive t all. Most o the rest of the world has those conditions.
3 Likes
The speed limit is lower in the UK than in the states. Did you drive 70 MPH on the two lane roads?
4 Likes
@bing, please, cut it out. You threw out rope-a-dope mad libs today that aren’t particularly germane to the issue, so you could turn around and adopt the position of the free speech defender. Lather, rinse, repeat. I’m going back and deleting the whole mess.
There’s no reason anybody’s family leave has anything to do with 1) the actual condition of infrastructure, 2) funding mechanisms, 3) priorities omitted or included, or 4) the price of eggs. Please stop baiting people. It’s happened numerous times before, and though there are a couple of folks on the other end of the spectrum who do this, they aren’t here right now.
I’m not picking on you for your politics. You have some kindred here, only they seem not bent on fighting with people.
5 Likes
When they fixed a lot of the pot holes on the roads of Costa Rica, traffic fatalities went up since people could now drive faster.
My comment about an older car being safer for the driver in a passenger side head on crash has stirred things up as I thought it would. What would I need to do to convince you that this is true? Within reason please, I’m not going to spend thousands of dollars to sponsor a crash test that you’ll ignore the results of anyway. I could try to show you pictures of car accidents. But then you’ll say that there is no proof of how fast the cars were going so your evidence is invalid. What evidence do you need? Is it even possible to obtain it? What evidence do you have to show that modern cars are safer for the driver in a passenger side head on crash?
edit:
Here is one where a modern car hit an older car in a driver’s side head on crash. The modern car driver was seriously injured and the older car driver was killed instantly. I know this isn’t about a passenger side crash where the driver survives in an older car, but this older car did have two girls, ages 4 and 7 in the back seat. They survived with minor injuries. I believe the softer structure of the older vehicle reduced their injuries. https://www.fox13now.com/2017/09/16/utah-mother-killed-in-head-on-crash-after-15-year-old-driver-veers-into-oncoming-traffic/
You found an example that directly contradicts your baseless theory, and claim it supports it.
Here’s data showing modern cars are safer:
Read more here:
Find the safest cars and vehicles and the most dangerous cars and vehicles (informedforlife.org)
2 Likes
Two rear seat passengers survived a highway speed head on crash with minor injuries in an older vehicle. How does that contradict my point? My point is the softer older softer vehicle makes things safer as long as you’re not sitting behind the area that is hit.
Increased safety in modern vehicles has a lot to do with much better side impact crash protection. Increased seat belt use and the creation of the interstate highway system has also been a huge part of the reduction in fatalities per miles traveled over the last half century.
edit: And for the newer is safer argument, you better not buy a Ford. The 1995 Windstar has a better rating than the redesigned 2003 Windstar according to the IIHS. That’s not me, it’s IIHS saying it. Also, the 1997-2003 F150 had one of the worst ratings according to the IIHS.
Here I finally found a passenger side head on crash. Both drivers survived. The severity of the injuries isn’t known. The old car looks like a 97 Buick LeSabre. Two injured in head-on collision
Maybe, maybe not. I have certainly owned many cars which had relatively poor safety ratings–even when new, and some were considered death traps by the standards in effect when I bought them (used).
I am more concerned with avoiding an accident than how the car will hold up (or not) if an accident occurs. I try to drive safely, pay attention to my surroundings, and anticipate other peoples’ unsafe actions. As long as the accident is avoided, the fact that my car might have a poor safety rating is not a problem.
1 Like
Sounds like a direct contradiction to me. Of course folks in the back seat were safer, they were more distant from the crash. Had nothing to do with the car being older.
3 Likes
How about you repeat what my claim was. The whole thing too, not 3 words pulled out of a sentence and out of context.
The ONLY reason the government ever mandated them was because the insurance industry spent MILLIONS AND MILLIONS lobbying them to do so. And in doing so the insurance industry as a whole has saved themselves ever more MILLIONS AND MILLIONS.
These safety devices do work and they do save lives. That’s pretty much been proven. The insurance industry wouldn’t be for them if they weren’t working as intended. It’s in their best interest to make vehicles safer for everyone.
Vehicle manufacturers spend a lot of money advertising their vehicles being safe. Back in the 70’s Volvo’s sales sky-rocketed when they showed one of their vehicles launch off a building and showed that the occupants would be fine. It all comes down to how much people are willing to pay for those safety features. Based on sales of vehicles that perform well in safety - there seems to be a lot people who seek out those vehicles.
1 Like
That Volvo commercial was just kick A, in my opinion, at the time. 13 year old boys love carnage.
1 Like
Where are you getting the idea that older vehicles were “softer?” What does that even mean? A '74 Caddy wasn’t exactly made out of marshmallows, you know…
6 Likes
I think the question was how important is it to the average person. It’s important to the insurance industry for sure, but after normal design issues, probably isn’t the first thing on people’s minds.
My 59 VW Bug was pretty soft when it collapsed in on me, and my 59 Pontiac after that was pretty hard to dent. I felt safer in the Pontiac. True the new cars are designed to collapse, at least in the front, so instead of a bent bumper and hood and an injured occupant, you have a collapsed car with no injuries to the occupant. Just a trade off.
I haven’t followed this entirely. But older vehicles are the opposite of softer!
2 Likes