(first posted 3/25/2016) While safety is a tremendous selling point for new vehicles today, 50 years ago it wasn’t as big a priority, either with buyers or manufacturers. This March 1966 Road Test article takes a meandering look at the issue, giving a glimpse into the auto industry before regulations provided clear mandates on safety features.
Anyone who takes that “who cares?” attitude about safety should have his head examined. One would have to be suicidal to take that attitude.
That’s the way it was back in the day. As noted in the article, when Ford attempted to emphasize safety their sales went in the toilet. People by and large just didn’t want to think about it. (Heck, Nash offered seat belts back in 1950. There were few takers, and resistance to wearing seat belts continued for years even after they became standard.)
Actually, sales of both Chevrolet and Ford were off in 1956 – and Chevy sales were off by more than Ford’s. That Ford sales “Tanked” in 1956 because of its safety campaign is a myth. Ford sales as a percentage of Chevy sales were actually higher in 1956 than in 1955.
And the Chevy was more face lifted than the Ford, which had no changes to any body panels.
yet I hear no end of old guys talk about how much “better” cars were when they were kids.
Me . (oops) .
? Is that a Chevelle in the side of the Buick ? .
-Nate
Reading the article, you’d think that 90% of the car drivers didn’t care about their own safety, much less other people’s lives. What kind of thinking is that? I don’t believe that’s the case. I believe that more people cared about their safety than car makers realised, or were willing to admit.
It wasn’t so much that people didn’t care about their safety as it was they didn’t see the value of or the need for their cars (and their driving skills) to be safer. In Canada, as in the U.S., seat belt usage, for example, had to be legislated. Where I grew up – Saskatchewan – that happened in 1977 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation_in_Canada). When I first learned to drive in 1973, inertia reel seat/shoulder belts were not yet standard on most American cars, making them uncomfortable and restrictive to wear. But their safety value to me was greater than the temporary discomfort of wearing them so I have worn seat belts for more than 40 years and have never thought twice about buckling up. I also got my family to buckle up whenever they drove with me. But we were definitely in the minority for a very long time. Seat belt laws were still being added in Canada into the late 1980’s, so that gives you some idea about their perceived lack of value as a safety feature. Most seat belt legislation in the U.S. came much later and I recall endless debates for years in American car magazines about personal liberty and why everyone should be able to decide for themselves about buckling up. Hell, I remember David E. Davis in Automobile Magazine making it a personal crusade to campaign against daytime running lights in the U.S. when those were being introduced. It took a long time to get people to care about and see the value of automobile safety yet even now there are still debates about the effectiveness of some features. Still, does anyone complain that their new 2016 car or truck is too safe? Did anyone complain that their new 1966 car or truck was not safe enough? Times and perception do change.
Daytime running lights suck, I for one am glad they aren’t mandated in the us because half of every odd car do I see equipped with them is running around at night with headlights on and no markers or tails. Tell me how that’s beneficial to safety?
This is exacerbated by the constantly illuminated and digital instrumentation ever so popular today in the name of technology.
As for seat belts, I’ve worn them since I was 4 years old, just as I was taught, (which btw was in the front seat of my Mom’s Jetta without a booster seat mandated today) and I’ve never entered an automobile since where I haven’t reached for it. I also won’t drive anywhere if a passenger isn’t wearing a seatbelt. Yet law enforcement setting up seatbelt checkpoints, running ad campaigns threatening me to “do it or else” as if it’s the equivalent to rape or murder, makes me pretty resentful of the campaign, and quite frankly I do think it violates personal liberty making it a law. People who don’t buckle up still don’t, and quite frankly I feel about as offended by that as I do people who drank liquor during Prohibition.
I don’t think I was clear in my comment :
I know damn good and well I drive death traps , I scraped dead guts out of many of them .
That’s what I don’t care about ~ I know the risks and take them , I don’t like driving / riding in modern cars .
I’ve always been a seat belt user , if nothing else they make it easier to drive by you not using the steering wheel to hold your self in place when driving the twisties .
For fun , go to you tube and typ in ‘ red light runners ‘ ~ it’ll turn your stomach .
-Nate
I just had a look at some of those red light runner videos. Pretty bad.
I have had a few near misses at red lights when cars came burning through against a red light.
The one and only crash my son was in was caused by a red light runner. The guy said he was late for a doctors appointment. No excuse. My boy was OK but pretty shaken up. Air bags are pretty explosive. Our car was finished.
Roundabouts!
Late reply but you’re half right. The Chevelle is in the side of a ’64 Olds 88 sedan.
My ’68 Mustang didn’t have seat belts. Those would have been nice to have when I flipped it. It didn’t have the whiplash head restraints or the horn button cushion either.
At least my ’68 El Camino had lap belts. But none of the other stuff I mentioned.
Your ’68 Mustang would have had seat belts installed at the factory; sounds like someone removed them. Depending on whether the car was built before or after 1-1-68, it might not have been built with head restraints and (separate) shoulder harnesses, or it was and someone removed those, too.
It is interesting that the drastic improvements in auto safety from, say 1965 to 1985 were driven almost entirely by increasing government requirements. These improvements showed just how much safer cars could be and so buyers started to value safety. During that same time, those improvements were documented, published and discussed widely and openly within the public rhelm. Consequently, manufactures now design to acheive HIGHER than mandated safety performance in their vehicles as a selling point. 5-star crash rating is the only acceptable rating for a Volvo and other manufactures like Subaru, who sell based on superior safety in all of their vehicles.
This is a case of regulation being in the public good. ‘Less Government’ is a cheap and easy mantra, but there are many examples of government control of the free market being immensely important to public well being. This is an excellent example.
To get a complete picture you also have to take into account the number of people that government has killed. (Probably at least as many as they have saved.)
Interesting counterpoint—explain !
You may have heard of small conflicts in places such as Vietnam, Iraq, etc? How many people were killed in those places?
Yes, the U.S. government mandated a safer car for me, but they would just as soon have thrown away my life in a pointless conflict in Southeast Asia without even giving it a second thought. (They did so to many of my friends.) So you will please forgive me if I do not shower government with accolades.
I thought that you might be digging into a deeper topic… Along the lines of my point about education of the public, Vietnam and Iraq Wars have also altered the public expectations and appetite for these types of conflict—in a good way. I also think that Vietnam came at the same time that many of the other revulotionary changes came. The baby boomers were not willing to live with status quo, they expected improvement based on those horrible experiences.
“I thought that you might be digging into a deeper topic…”
Well, this is not the place to get into a deep political discussion. I merely wanted to point out that there is another side to government that those who promote its alleged virtues seem to hope people will forget about. I certainly haven’t forgotten, and I will never trust them. (And – since this isn’t a political forum that’s all I’ll say about it.)
Soldier choose to honor their country. Some by circumstances such as a draft, and others by choice as a career path. To lump all of the past fifty year conflicts and claim the soldiers are victims is dishonoring them. Soldiers are not victims of a government. That is the other side of this issue.
It’s not much of a choice with a mandatory draft lottery…
Not the right forum for these views. Please keep them out.
I agree. What I’ve never understood is why it takes govt. intervention for car makers to do anything about making their cars and trucks safer to drive. I believe that more people, even then, cared about safety than they realised.
The history of auto safety is fascinating. But it took a lot of effort for people to get accustomed to the idea that buyers and drivers must take steps to protect themselves. Seatbelt use was intractbly low for decades. It still is. Many people take pride in not wearing seatbelts, helmets etc, and accuse govenments of overreaching intrusion when laws are enacted to mandate their use.
Remember Fords LifeGuard safety options of the 1950’s? Many buyers thought that a car with seatbelts must be intrinsically unsafe. They found a car without belts to be reassuring because it seemed to be safer.
How can any manufacturer promote safety to people with such perceptions?
That is where educating the public empowers them. You hope that people demand to see the science–the data behind the claims made by manufacturers. Everyone has seen many slow motion videos of crash test dummies with no restraint, with belts and with belts and airbags. Those videos leave little doubt about the ‘truth’. There are always going to be ‘deniers’ on things like seat belts, just the way that there were ‘flat earth’ people before that ideology faded completely and the way that there are climate change deniers now.
I still recall from my youth that many older people sincerely believed that the safest way to survive a crash was to be thrown clear of the car, and that seat belts were therefore to be avoided.
I recall hearing that too. I always wanted to suggest that I drive them down the road a 60 mph and let the jump out. That would give an idea of what being “thrown clear” would be like. But, I was to young/timid to actually suggest it to an older person.
people were stupid back then. Racers used to think the same thing. back when hydroplanes were open cockpit with no restraints, you could count on multiple drivers being maimed or killed every year. Once they went to enclosed cockpits with racing harnesses in 1989, only one driver has died. and he would have survived had he used a HANS restraint.
I always found that line of thinking odd as a kid too.
I call those who take pride in not wearing helmets or seat-belts, future organ donors.
Death is not an option for anyone. This generation knew that more than most. They didn’t fight the Nazis, the Japanese, or the Communists from bomb shelters. They didn’t hide behind walls and demand gluten free survival foods. They didn’t grow up being carried in Baby Bjorns, fed with Dr. Denton bottles, and live in baby-proof homes. Many experienced a sibling’s death while in elementary school. When they grew up, they didn’t attend colleges that issued trigger warnings because someone was going to say something controversial. They attended churches that told them that they were going to Hell and deserved to.
Then they were drafted into a war that was only ended when someone was able to create a bomb strong enough to kill off an entire city. They witnessed carpet bombings, concentration camps, starvation, and survived a century when the Earth killed off 60,000,000 innocent people over a five year period. They witnessed the deaths of their family members, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers and knew what it was like to fear living in orphanages, or working a manual labor job twelve hour a day.
They lived crowded in filthy cities with air so polluted they carried handkerchiefs to cover their noses from the stench of industrial chemicals and stockyards. Half the men smoked cigarettes, the average smoker consuming twenty to thirty cigarettes a day. In cities like St. Louis, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Akron, and Detroit, the sky occasionally grew so dark from coal smoke, there were days when you couldn’t see more than ten feet in front of you – during the lunch hour. Litter was common. Slums were real hellholes, as there were no public housing.
If you had the wrong skin color, you were expected to accept second class citizenship where you couldn’t eat in the same restaurants, use the same public transportation, go to the same schools, drink from the same water fountains, walk on the same sidewalks, or live where you wanted to live, if you could have gotten a bank to give you a loan. Women didn’t have the same property rights as men in many states, and god forbid you did more on a date than be seen with a man without a chaperone.
These are the people who designed the cars, made the cars and bought the cars of this era. When we look at these vehicles, we need to do more than merely notice the lack of safety features found in all cars today. We need to also see that our lives have grown so amazingly luxurious and we are so incredibly pampered, that most of us would run to Congress the moment someone forced us to drive a VW Beetle again.
To them, a car was an unimaginable luxury. A dream they could never have imagined affording. They knew that they could die in a car crash. They knew all about death. They knew a lot more than we do in many, many ways.
wow, well-written and right on the money. To your last statement: those generations did experience things that we have not and that is because many from that generation did not just build the same cars, but they became advocates for learning from those experiences and changing our laws and expectations because they knew we could do better. Their passion for changing the world was founded in those hardships. They (and their children) are the ones that wrote the clean air act and the clean water act and the automotive safety regulations.
jakengle I think you completely missed the point of VanillaDude’s post. It was more of a commentary on how much of today’s population are ridiculously soft, pampered, inexperienced pussies who know nothing of the world. Eventually their sad lives will become completely sterile with no feeling or emotion at all the way things are going.
yeah, and your parents’ generation thought the same things about you.
jakengle, I’m pretty sure you completely missed the point of VanillaDude’s post. He was offering a commentary on how today’s society is hyper-worried about EVERYTHING, and that today’s generations are full of scared, whiny little thin-skinned pussies and how pathetic it is. These people want to completely sterilize every aspect of your life, so that there can never be such a thing as a negative emotion felt by anyone. The generation VanillaDude is referring to is known as the “Silent Generation” – those born primarily during he Great Depression of the 1930s. Those people were tough as balls. They experienced hardships today’s generations would never dream about, and it made them mentally stronger and capable of handling the darker, more realistic aspects of life that today’s society increasingly wants to pretend doesn’t exist. Today’s kids are soft and weak, they wouldn’t know how to handle anything. They don’t even “lose” in a contest anymore, instead they’re awarded a trophy and told that they were “the last winner” (!!!). How pathetic. Want proof? In the comments below, you’ll see comments saying that they are “proud to be a pussy”. A person like that will be forever weak, especially mentally. And these genes are getting passed down….watch the movie “Idiocracy”. For the record, I’m 24 years old – before you start thinking I’m some old fart who’s afraid of technology/change or some shit like that. Rant over.
so basically you’ve never experienced any of those hardships you talk about, yet you want to carry yourself as some sort of hard-ass.
Exactly. Perceptions change over time, but it’s important to consider things in their proper historical context. When these cars were designed, they were safer than anything that came before. People looked up to these cars as thoroughly modern and even a bit futuristic. And were fully justified in doing so at the time. It’s silly to impose our anachronistic modern prejudices.
except we have no end of dumb old people who to this day think old cars were safer because they were “big hunks of metal.” These are the same people who complain how “you can’t work on your own car anymore” (because you don’t have to) and “you can’t back into someone in a parking lot without a thousand dollars of damage” (then don’t back into someone, you senile old duffer.)
“‘you can’t work on your own car anymore’ (because you don’t have to)”
Surely, jz78817, unless you’re a troll – just by visiting this site, you would know that even modern cars, like literally ALL cars, require maintenance. New cars actually require more maintenance than old ones since they’re so much more complicated. And they cost a lot more to keep up, too (computers are a bitch to replace). The old farts saying you can’t work on your own car anymore are actually correct, but they were talking about both basic maintenance (changing brake pads, oil, fluids and what not) and hot-rodding (not the pathetic factory ricer shit you see today). Pop the hood of any car made in the last 10 years. There’s not much to see. Everything is covered in large, expansive plastic casings that the automakers don’t want you to touch or remove.
But go ahead, I dare you to neglect your new car. It will probably do fine for 3 or 4 years with little attention, but neglect it any further and you will destroy it (accidents caused by vehicle neglect are at an all-time high, although still behind driver distraction). I’ve seen gunked up engines on 5-6 year old cars because the owner thought all they had to do was put gas in it every once in a while and absolutely nothing else. Yeah you can have your vehicle serviced professionally, if you have hundreds/thousands to just throw away. That’s why people like to do their own maintenance, it saves them lots of money and makes you literally more intelligent. Based on your past comments and demonstrated behaviors, you sound like you’re one of those “everything is the best its ever been” people, and I know there’s no coaxing you out of that closed bubble so I’ll leave you to it jz78817, but don’t go making impulse-comment clubbing with half-assed assumptions or whatever ignorant method you so choose to use.
oh great, another 20-something who thinks he already knows everything. You’re spouting a lot of naive, ignorant nonsense. I’m not talking about oil changes and brake pads. you can still do those yourself (and I do.)
Your claim that modern cars need “more maintenance” is just nonsense. when’s the last time you’ve adjusted or replaced the points in your distributor? Do you even know what those things are? When’s the last time you did a valve job? Do you even know what that is? When’s the last time you rodded out the radiator because it was plugged up?
if you’d ever actually *owned* an old car, you’d know what I’m talking about. They were easy to work on, but always needed work. The choke (do you know what that is?) was out of whack, the valve cover gaskets were leaking, the rear main “seal” (which in the old days was a piece of rope) was leaking, and god help you if your car had drum brakes at all four wheels.
“modern cars need more maintenance.” What utter garbage.
oh great, another 20-something who thinks he already knows everything
Gee, where did we learn that from…
I couldn’t disagree with you more regarding car maintenance. The “old days” required points, tune ups, etc etc. There isn’t a single system in a current car that isn’t stronger or better than 10-50 years ago. The only possible kink in comparison would be computer systems; but they’ve improved efficiency and safety beyond pale.
These are the good old days.
i strive for a world without adversity and cruelty. if hardships make people tough I hope for the sake of my children future society is very thin skinned. man, fuck this walked uphill bothways bullshit. i’m proud to be a pussy.
This is so on point!
Yeah, this. The “I suffered, so you must suffer too” mindset is incredibly self-absorbed.
A lot of generalizations.
Cars weren’t a luxury to this generation; they all grew up with Model Ts and such. Cars were everywhere, and even in the Depression, one could pickup a T for peanuts. Kids in the 40s often had their own old Fords to drive to school and such.
The other issues you mention are also often stereotyped. But the real issues are these:
Yes, death (and serious injury) from vehicular accidents were more common, and yes, folks just lived with that reality, and hoped it didn’t happen to them. There was nothing to be done about it. But I can assure you that if they could have driven a modern, safe, comfortable car, they would have chosen one of a deathtrap any day.
People always (with rare exception for risk-seekers) prefer greater safety, comfort, clean air and water, better schools, better economic conditions, better heath care, better civil rights, etc…. Yes, the folks that endured more difficult conditions in the past were hardened by their experience, but it was not one they chose on purpose. Just look at how the rich always lived in the past: any and every comfort that they could buy was appreciated.
The simple reality is this: it took activists to pressure the government to affect change in many of these areas: safety, clean air and water, civil rights, etc. People were in denial about the many issues facing them, as they still are today, which explains much of what is going on in today’s politics.
Ironically, these activists are often decried by the very folks who have benefited so much from their earlier efforts. The lack of understanding (and appreciation) about the mechanics of how change has been affected is sometimes shocking.
Folks may want to glorify the rough and tumble past, but if they really want to experience that reality, maybe they should move to a third world country (without any money) and see how well they like it.
We seemed to have gotten a bit far afield here, but we can tolerate an occasional rant. The “greatest generation” indeed had many hardships thrust upon it and overcame them admirably. However, few of that era chose their situation and I hope we never, ever have a repeat. I’m grateful that generally wise decisions by government, business and civic leaders over the past 60 years (with a few notable exceptions) avoided another Great Depression, worldwide war and afforded many of us a comfortable, pampered life. Who would ever want to go back, either in auto safety or Americans life in general.
Well said.
My father, born in 1920, would fit this parallel. He was a WWII navy veteran, survivor of Pearl Harbor, college educated and a very “logical thinking” individual. Besides being a structural engineer, he was a licensed air plane pilot.
Safety was always his concern when flying, including wearing his safety harness. However, his opinion of car seat belts was emphatic: the government will NOT tell me what to do in my personal car. He did not say anything when I used the seat belt in our ’65 Fairlane 500, but he ignored all seat belts in all cars. He felt he was a cautious, defensive and responsible driver. That was sufficient.
He passed away without ever having an accident. Maybe skill. Maybe luck.
It is interesting that most of the discussion on safety in this article is about things that reduce the chances of having an accident. It seems to me that we have focused so much on passive safety as opposed to “know how to drive, and pay attention.”
Very true for a long time, but now we are seeing huge leaps in active safety measures like lane departure warning, stability control and active braking systems. The cars are now both encouraging/enabling better driving and in some instances like emergency brake application, the are DOING the better driving.
There’s no proven or effective way to get people to drive better. Basic driving skills are very elementary; id doesn’t take much knowledge how to drive. But paying attention and using good judgement, the lack of which accounts for the overwhelming majority of “accidents”, is not something that can be taught. And there’s plenty of evidence that supports that.
Advanced driving schools and all of that are completely useless if you chose to distract yourself while driving, or drive impaired. That’s why there are assumptions that if all vehicles were autonomous, accidents would decrease by 90%.
Not saying that it’s an easy transition to that; just pointing out that driver distraction and poor judgment, not “skills” are the cause of most accidents.
Driver distraction is one place where we’ve gone backwards considerably over the past 40 years. The other day I wanted to turn on the rarely used rear window defogger in my 2012 F-150. I had to look toward a bank of a dozen similar black buttons, and pick from two with similar symbols on them (one for the windshield and one for the rear window). I had to wait for a place on the road with a wide lane and no traffic, and look three times to find the right button. And, I did swerve a bit onto the shoulder in the process. I probably should have pulled off the road to hunt for the button – that’s a pretty sad state of affairs, and the F-150 dash is fairly old school and simple compared to many.
40 years ago, the dash in my dad’s 1976 Ford LTD looked like the picture below. There were just four levers that controlled the entire climate control system. The rear defogger was isolated to the right side of the panel, and was easy to find by touch alone. If you did look at the dash, it was pretty easy to pick out the WORDS “Rear Defog.”
The other area where there’s been backsliding is outward visibility. An unfortunate confluence of styling trends, aerodynamics, rollover safety, pedestrian safety, the need for luggage space in a smaller car, and the need to fit side curtain airbags in the A and B pillars all hurt the view outward. Compare a BMW 2002 with its direct successor the 4 series coupe (or 2 series if you prefer). Which has better outward visibility? Try the same thing with a ’60s Camaro and a new one. Or just a mundane car like an ’83 Nissan Sentra or Stanza – no modern Nissan has such a great view out (a rearview camera would be superfluous on the Stanza hatchback I used to drive). I understand why the changes that led to relatively poor visibility had to be made, but wish more attention was paid to finding a fix.
I agree with that–the two points are that not even the most diligent driver will always get it right, and no level of virtuosity is sufficient to save you from everything other drivers might do on the road.
The piece of the story that Road Test missed, in retrospect, is that Mercedes (Berenyi) and, I think, Volvo, had figured out the crumple zone concept well before 1965. Crumple zone design is absolutely critical to passive safety, and was of no interest to anyone in the USA in the 1960s, to my knowledge. More than the stupid off-hand statements from beloved figures like Bill Mitchell, the fact that nobody in the US industry seemed to know there was a state of the art they were missing out on is disappointing.
+1 – even the most diligent, skilled driver can make a mistake and be in trouble in an instant. Detroit must have known about European auto safety research – but it wasn’t a priority at the level of styling and marketing. I’ve never fully understood why so many auto enthusiasts get into a lather over auto safety legislation. As Mitchell, et al, made clear, Nader was a necessary countervailing power to the US auto industry. Other than outliers like Tucker and safety engineers for auto racing, the US industry really wanted to blame the drivers – witness the driver training films back in the day.
Mandatory seat belt legislation also clearly worked yet was resisted by state legislatures for years. As Malcolm Gladwell has written, even Nader was slow to support it, thinking Americans would remain resistant to buckle up though this was not the case in countries such as Australia that had passed such laws.
I got a good chuckle from Bill Mitchell’s quotes in the article, he seems to agree…
The seatbelt craze isn’t doing anything for the brains of the guy driving the car
lol
Problem with that thinking is, you can’t always choose to risk an accident; some other fool may do that for you. Now it does suggest the issue of Risk Compensation, but it’s fallacious to assume everyone employing a safety device will automatically be emboldened to play Evel Kneivel.
He was probably thinking of lap-only seat belts.
then he was an idiot, because most collisions involve at least one person who wasn’t at fault. am I just supposed to accept that I’m stupid because an oncoming car crossed over the center divider without giving me enough time to react?
It’s sort of interesting. The aversion to safety then seems to jive accurately with people who object to autonomous vehicles. Which once perfected (and they are getting there rapidly) would greatly reduce accidents. Yet a lot of people object to them strenuously.
Myself included. Auto safety warnings (like the early collision prevention assist by Mercedes) good, but I want to be the one ultimately in control. Call me a Luddite.
I think it is more than just being a Luddite, it is that as one becomes less and less engaged due to technology (blind spot detection, etc.), there is a greater chance of not paying attention when it will make a difference. There is also the possibility of having the vehicle make a decision that while avoiding one dangerous circumstance, another is created. As an example, Mercedes offers the “Drivers Assistance Package” with active blind spot assist, meaning that it would prevent one from pulling into another vehicle. It is easy to imagine a circumstance where one would be prevented from moving over to avoid a massive accident. An automated system will likely do better than a human in 99% plus of circumstances, but when that 1% is what kills or cripples you (and or your family) that is irrelevant.
it’s the whining of a bunch of old white guys who are incensed that someone might try to tell them what they should do.
Right on man, all ills of society are simply caused by old white guys, because skin color, age and gender matter as it turns out. I used to be predispositioned to not give a rats ass about peoples physical aspects in regards to how I treat or look at any given person, but now I know to not trust anyone old, white and male. Thanks sociology professor!
! YEAH ! .
Now : GET OFF MY LAWN DAMMIT ! .
=8-) .
-Nate
I’ve got 3 vehicles over 40 years old that I drive, and I love em, but they are certainly not as safe as something new. I’m an EMT and it’s amazing the accidents that people can have with a newer vehicle (when they use their seatbelts) and walk away uninjured. I would hate to head on a semi-truck with my 58 buick, even with the lapbelts I put in I would not be walking away from that. but I’ve seen people with a new crossover get only minor injuries from that. Of course you can still get yourself killed in a modern car, but it’s certainly not as easy to. Sidepoint, WEAR YOUR SEATBELT! trust me, it’s going to help you, you don’t want to go through the windshield.
I’m going to issue my biggest rant that I’ve written on CC…..only because I lots of merits on my licence and conduct myself in a responsible manner as a driver.
Bill Mitchell’s quote, “what we need is better traffic control and driver education” is right on the money……to this day in 2016. And it will continue to be right for each passing year that the motor vehicle exists. Every day, I see complete idiots in traffic weaving in and out and people making hasty decisions because they’re “in a hurry”, and I personally know people that pay $2000 a year for their license, because they are simply poor drivers and don’t make good decisions on the road.
Not only that, but in low speed collisions in parking lots and whatnot, people simply NEED TO WATCH WHAT THEY ARE DOING (in all caps for a reason). The driver distraction level nowadays is ridiculous. I’ve had people damage my cars (or have seen others damage cars) in parking lots, just because they’re not watching what they’re doing. One time, I watched in horror as a minivan completely backed into my driver’s front fender……and this person was backing into a 7/11 parking lot, where there are almost always vehicles parked out in front. If you’re going to back into an area where it’s a high traffic area, it’s best to look two, if not three times. Her kids were in a snit in her vehicle, so she was backing up while distracted. Don’t you think that you should NOT drive, when you don’t have things under control in the environment in a vehicle?
Unfortunately, no safety devices protect against “moron”. And I think that the driver licensing is way too soft in who they issue a licence to. We all pay more on our insurance, just because someone isn’t watching what they’re doing. And the texting and driving is getting worse…..more and more people getting killed because someone can’t resist what’s on their cellphone. Eventually, the insurance places will have to have a no tolerance policy, where it will be like drinking and driving.
On top of that, I fear that backup cameras are just a placebo effect…..people now expect the vehicle to prevent accidents, and I think that’s just a huge mistake. It’s going to have longer term effects on people’s awareness of their surroundings, which is already in debatable quality these days.
Except that Mitchell was almost totally wrong. Yes, divided highways are safer, if that’s what he means by “Better traffic control”. But studies have shown that “better driver education” doesn’t make any meaningful difference.
As you noted yourself, it’s driver’s judgement that makes by far the biggest difference. And judgment, common sense, attitude and attention are not changed by education. Licensing requirements can not filter out a person’s willingness to be distracted when they’re driving, get emotional, or use bad judgment. Skill are one thing; the judgement of how to use them (or not) is another.
It’s easy and tempting to say that we should fix folks’ judgement, but it’s not really very possible. Hence the projection that autonomous cars would drastically reduce road deaths.
I say, let those folks be the first to test autonomous vehicles in real world conditions. They obviously need it more.
Just as long as I can continue to drive my own vehicle.
Ah, the safety rose, full of thorns….if I remember correctly, the first airbags were an attempt to bring passive safety to those who wore lap pelts, but refused the shoulder strap portion, as they were not integrated at that time. Better to have the air bag in the wheel, than hit the the thing with your chest and head. I get the idea at the time, but I still hate the idea of the steering wheel bag…..the curtain and pillar bags, I totally get, but one thing I have never understood is the continuation of the use of the rear view mirror on the windshield cluttering up such a huge percentage of forward viz when every car seems to be visibility challenged as it is. I hate always cranking my neck to see around the blind spot it creates, and would prefer a cam displaying on the media screen, out of the way, on the dash. But that’s just me…
I agree with rear view mirrors. On the smaller cars they take up way too much real estate in forward visibility. I usually tilt the mirror up out of the way or completely twist it up, rendering it useless and rely on my side mirrors. On my personal, three modern driving cars, I loosen the set screw and sometimes pop the mirror off the windshield altogether. (Except one which is wired in electronically). What a huge difference! WOW,…I can see!!
Does it take good judgement or simple common-sense to use the turn signal stalk? I can’t tell you how many times I see drivers failing to do this. What am I, a mind-reader? Are you turning left or right or not at all? It might make the difference between you hitting me or not. I call this sheer laziness and arrogance. You are not special enough to NOT use your turn indicators. The other common act of stupidity I see over and over again is the failure of a driver to turn their lights on at night. Believing somehow that their car’s running lights (front only, mind you) are the headlights, they drive around with no taillights on until someone risks a possible road rage incident and honks some sense into them. What? Cars need automatic head and tail lamps now because drivers can’t remember to turn them on themselves? Cars have never been safer than they are right now but all that safety gives many drivers a false sense of security and worse, that false sense turns into potentially dangerous ignorance of some of the most basic principles of safe driving.
LightCopperMetallic:
This advice applies especially to drivers of vans,
pickup trucks and police cruisers, whom around
southern CT anyway never seem to employ
them!
Some good points…….I was under the assumption that Mitchell meant better driver judgement by “better traffic control”, but I think that you’re probably right in that he meant that maybe more traffic lights/ dividers/ road signs (?) may help things, which doesn’t necessarily mean much if people ignore it or flat out don’t care.
I have to mention something that might be somewhat controversial, but something that I think should be addressed: as the driving populace ages (especially with more baby boomers approaching the 70-80 year old range), To some, this may be discriminatory, but I think that people should be retested, for the simple reality that reflexes, vision and overall awareness are not the same as they once were when the person was originally tested, many decades prior.
I also think that some people that have a ridiculous amount of demerits, should have to be re-tested and that there should be a point where no amount of money should make their driver’s licence available. If you’re THAT bad of a driver, you shouldn’t be on the road, because you’re a danger to yourself, others, and you also drive insurance premiums up with various fender benders and aggressive driving. Mind you, I think that we’d see many more people driving illegally without a licence (or insurance), but I think that both the driver’s licencing places and insurance companies should make things much more difficult than they’re currently making them.
About a month and a half ago, I had seen an 81 year old guy that had hit a traffic light standard, knocked it over onto his back window, and drove his car up onto the middle boulevard. His airbags were deployed, and oil was pouring out of the bottom of his car, yet he seemed to be pretty out of it…..he assumed that he’d be able to drive away, as if it were a small fender bender or something. Myself and another bystander (both of whom had got out of our vehicles to make sure that guy in the car was okay) had to point out to him that the police would at least have to be called. He mentioned to me that he had a couple of beers, and I said “you know what, man? Let’s make this our little secret. Don’t tell the police that”, because I didn’t want him to get in huge trouble. But it does make you wonder how many people are already putting themselves at a disadvantage with drinking and/ or old age.
81, drinking and driving? There’s good judgement for you.
Heh heh…..yeah. The crazy thing is that had I been a few seconds earlier, the light standard would have fell right next to my car (conversely, if there was a car in the left turning lane going west, the actual traffic lights would have fell probably onto the hood or windshield of *their* car). I have no idea how he knocked it over to fall on the back window of his car, but he did.
He was REALLY lucky that the set of lights didn’t fall through someone’s front windshield. There are some times where you really just have to have some good luck, and it was a stroke of luck that nobody was in that particular place, at that particular time, or the results could have been deadly……imagine the weight and velocity of a set of traffic lights falling onto the roof of your car, or right through your windshield at an angle, like a knife, and possibly pushing you into your seat with some serious deadly velocity.
we need to be more willing to suspend/revoke people’s driving licenses once they’ve demonstrated they can’t handle the responsibility.
Driving is a privilege, but we act like it’s a right.
Yep, absolutely. Buses are available for those that can’t handle the responsibility of driving.
Some old ways of thinking:
“It’s bad luck to talk about car crashes”
“A mother will instinctively hold out her arm to hold back her kids, no need for car seats”
“Better to get thrown from the car…”
“Power disk brakes are too sensitive”
But at the OTOH, today, it seems like people are trying to not take responsibility for driving, expecting driverless cars “tomorrow”.
Another excellent Road Test article, one that exposed Detroit’s cavalier dismissal of any responsibility to offer a safer product.
In 1966 the motor vehicle accident fatality rate was a whopping 5.5 per 100 million miles, over fives times the rate today. Back then it was considered “bad luck” to talk of accidents and auto safety, even though almost everyone knew someone who had been killed in a crash. At that time Detroit knew their vehicles could be made safer, but made the chilling decision to ignore safety, as it didn’t pay. (The brief Ford experiment in 1956 was an exception). The growing carnage on the highway was largely blamed on “the nut behind the wheel”, a canard fostered by the auto industry.
Finally, in the late sixties, growing public outcry, fed by the emerging consumer activist movement, got the attention of Congress and the first auto safety regulations were put into effect. Detroit had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the U.S. government into starting to improve the safety of their cars. It’s doubtful they would have done so if left to their own mercenary devices. Yes, the government does gets things right sometimes. And yes, Ralph Nader, for all his many faults, deserves a share of the credit for bringing this issue to the public’s attention.
The problem with the “growing public outcry” explanation is that people weren’t too keen to pay for safety equipment when given the chance to do so.
For example, in its “Owners Report” series, Popular Mechanics noted that only 25 percent of 1967 Dodge Polaras were ordered with disc brakes. For the 1967 full-size Chevrolet, only 20.4 percent ordered front disc brakes. (Air conditioning, meanwhile, was chosen by 41.8 percent of Chevrolet owners.)
If given the choice between paying for a collapsible steering column and air conditioning, most people would have chosen the latter in the late 1960s.
Most people didn’t bother to wear safety belts until states began mandating their use in the 1980s. That was why activists pushed for the installation of air bags in the 1970s. They claimed that people weren’t buckling up, so the air bag had to serve as the primary restraint system, even though critics correctly pointed out that air bags presented a threat to unbuckled drivers, particularly smaller ones, along with children in the front passenger seat.
People also forget that the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled had been declining since the 1920s. It hit a low of 4.92 in 1961, and then increased from 1962 through 1966 (with a pause in 1965) to 5.50. The claims of safety activists to the contrary, the roads had been getting safer. No doubt better road design and construction fueled part of this trend, but vehicles must have been getting safer, too.
It then continued to decline through 1976, after which it slightly increased from 1977 through 1980.
It then resumed the long-term decline (except for one-year upticks in 1986 and 2012) that has seen fatality rates per 100 million vehicle miles traveled hit record low figures today.
Like with every other product, stricter government regulations is what fixed them.
Otherwise, if no one is forced to do something, why become less competitive by offering something most people won’t perceive as added value?
Thanks to these regulations, we have standard outside mirrors, dual master cylinder braking systems, collapsible steering columns, cars designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy, airbags, 3 point seat belts, cars that are crash-tested in many conditions to help designing them better.
Even the active safety features that many buyers, concerned about cost and long term reliability wanted to avoid until recently are getting standard on most cars now. Extra airbags, ABS brakes and many other active safety features like vehicle stability control are part of most new vehicle’s standard equipment list.
As good as these things might be, they make vehicles of today very complex machines which will probably be more expensive to fix as they’ll get older. I think that alone might be a motivation for all companies to provide these features now!
Too many sweet boys remained 16 for good, even though in this accident vehicle safety wasn’t too involved.
When I was a kid during the mid 60s, I remember being thrown against the dashboard during a sudden stop. I was lucky that it only caused a bloody lip. On other occasions my dad would extend his arm out in front of me for protection. Seat belts should have been standard equipment back then.
The crash conducted between a 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu sums it up best. The Malibu is far less likely to crash in the first place, and should a crash occur, what caused death in 1959 probably would be walked away from today.
The photo I wanted to attach before my browser “crashed” (groan)
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/video-hub/cars/safety/2009-chevy-malibu-vs-1959-bel-air-crash-test/17188412001/41311737001/
Since the photo doesn’t seem to want to attach.
The voice sounded like John Davis of Maryland Public Television’s “Motor Week”… The camera man for that show grew up two doors down from me.
While that video proves a point about safety improvements in 50 years, it’s a shame they took out that ’59 Chevy. While not my favorite classic car, that thing looked to be in beautiful shape before they crashed it.
I watched this when it came out. My first thought was “Well… DUH !” Totally unnecessary carnival stunt. Try a 59 Chevy with a1909 model.
The result was so obvious it didn’t need illustration. Why would one not expect a 2009 model to be better in a crash than a 59 ?
And according to AAA, 50% of deaths in automobile accidents come from people too stupid to fasten their seat belts.
I thought it was a very powerful jolt to reality for the “good old days” crowd. I love looking at old iron, but I miss driving the old cars not at all except for nostalgia/preening purposes.
As evidence, but not proof, that there is no magic bullet, I have known several people who were thrown clear of accidents who would almost certainly died had they be belted in. In one case, the vehicle caught fire, in the other the car was completely crushed. Once again, for every 98% of people who may be saved by a technology/device, there will be the 2% who are killed by it. This is not saying that the devices are bad, or should not exist, but it is important to recognize that they are not infallible.
Just last year (2015) an Adult (?) told me ” I’d rather be thrown clear than wear a seat belt ” . this indicates serious denial of facts and reality .
A fine young man who I knew , was a serious racer and good mechanic , business owner etc. .
He died when he was ejected from his new Toyota open top roadster on Mt. Emma Rd .
I later discovered that he _never_ wore seat belts except on the race track .
Damien , I and everyone who ever met you , miss you terribly .
-Nate
Seat belts should be mandatory for just the fact that to be in control of a vehicle you have to be behind the wheel. Seat belts make sure that is where you stay in a crash. Just because you crash doesn’t mean that you stop. If you end up in the backseat (it happens) and your car is rolling then a second crash is almost assured.
THIS, THIS, A MILLION TIMES THIS! It is the answer to the cocksure ignoramus who bleats about seatbelt laws being an infringement on his personal libertee (and blah blah blah) because “it only affects me so it’s my choice!”.
I agree. That’s like that idiot who said that because his family is wealthy, that the law doesn’t apply to him.
That’s pretty specious. While I am in fact an avid seatbelt wearer, I’m pretty certain that if I got into an impact that would be enough to throw me into the backseat if I weren’t wearing one, I’m not going to be able to prevent a second crash if I was after a freaking airbag blew up in my face. To say otherwise is equally as ridiculous as people who claim drinking doesn’t effect their own driving. You may very well be able to still operate the car, but chances are when your vision is obstructed, you’re seeing stars and have a mild concussion, your as likely to cause another accident as you are to prevent one.
Sorry, no, it’s not specious, it’s factual; this isn’t a guessing game. Sure, in a very severe crash the driver’s going to be out of commission with or without a belt. But not only does wearing a belt significantly raise the threshold severity above which the driver is incapacitated, it also keeps the driver in position and conscious to control the car in a very large array of less-serious first collisions. Which are considerably more common than the severe ones you have in mind.
I’ve had an airbag pop in my face before, any collision that does that, which doesn’t take as much as you expect, is going to leave you in a daze. I 100% agree with the narrative that you have more control, but I’m skeptical that anyone’s in the moment reaction will net a result that will always prevent a second collision with another object, maybe the one they were immediately aware of, maybe not the one next to it.
There are many, many collisions not severe enough to trigger the airbags but still severe enough to knock an unbelted driver out of position and/or condition to control the car—which doesn’t take much!
I don’t think anyone (except you) is discussing the notion that a driver will always be able to control the car after a first collision by dint of being belted; seatbelts and airbags don’t always prevent death, and cigarette smokers don’t always get cancer, either.
I’m poking holes in this second crash into another object theory, it’s an idyllic scenario that would require a magic bullet like chain of events to occur and I see no way to credit any real life scenarios that may demonstrate it as more than dumb luck. Even in scenarios that don’t pop the airbags. I’d give as much or more credit to improved seat support as I would the seatbelts in those instances.
This post has made for some very interesting reading and subsequent discussion. No question that in 2016, safety sells cars and that 2016 cars are safer than ever. But no matter how well-engineered a vehicle is, it still can’t defy the laws of physics, no matter how much some drivers might think that’s possible; now that’s specious.
I had to offer a post on this. Both me and my wife are baby boomers although 10 years apart((me 1951). Both of us lost siblings, her 1 me 2. I almost died at birth. Both of our father’s were in the Marine Corp in WW2 and both eventually died of service caused problems that were ignored by the US Government.
I remember my dad was a stickler for car condition and safety as much as you could beginning in the late 50’s. All the existing cars were retrofitted with seat belts and all future cars that did not have them and a strictly enforced rule on wearing them. Shocks on present and any future cars were changed to Monroe HD front and Load Levelers rear. Tires were upgraded to a larger size(usually 7.75 – 8.25 depending on whether it was a sedan or SW), true 4 ply and nylon cord and tire pressure was religiously kept at 32 psi.They thumped a bit when cold but after a few miles it went away. Brakes linings were changed to HD premium. Windshield wiper blades were changed and kept in top condition as was the wiper fluid being full at all times. All glass inside and out especially the windshield were kept squeaky clean as were headlights. Interior clutter was kept to a minimum unlike in so many of today’s cars, we had dedicated litter bags and no litter was tolerated in the cars as was no food in the cars. Today I believe that the cars were some of the safest as could possibly be on the road at that time.
This thread has become political/emotional from the start. Let me inject a slightly different viewpoint, from a background in aviation. True, there was no Vice President of Safety in the GM org chart above, but there is also no such position at Boeing. Designing and building for flight safety is simply part of the culture. Dont think that it FAA standards and enforcement alone is responsible. Most developed world airlines go beyond the minimums and their passengers expect it. Military customers are willing to tip the scales more for performance vs safety than the airlines for obvious reasons.
As just a private pilot flying low and slow in a machine lighter and lower in horsepower than a Camry requires a medical exam and refresher training every two years. Every fatal accident is investigated by the NTSB, so the whole aviation community knows the cause. With all of that, significant reductions in accident rates tend to come with new technology, just like in the automotive world. The biggest single drop was around 1961-63 when the airlines were rapidly replacing propeller planes with jets that could finally fly above the weather and had engines many times more reliable.
Another thing is that I cannot tell you how many red lights that I’ve seen people go through in my city. We’re talking, you know, not even knowing that it’s a red light and going through and getting into some serious accidents. I’ve also noticed that people will wind up when they *see* the light turn yellow, but it’s a total red light when they enter the intersection, and they’re already going well past the speed limit on a complete red light, so if anyone were to go out on their green light on the right of way, they’d get absolutely smoked in the intersection. My friend had her ’69 Firebird written off because someone ran a red, and this stuff is deadly.
In about 2003, I had a 1984 Olds Cutlass Brougham, and was on my way to work. A guy ran a red light in his Camaro, and accordioned his car right into my driver’s side. The whole front end of his car was totalled, and the whole side of my Cutlass was totalled. That car was built really well (not the framerails, though!), as I walked away without even a scratch or a bruise. Dude said he had the green light…..so this jerk was not only content with not seriously injuring someone, but was trying to get out of his deductible, too. I ended up winning the claim, but losing a good deal of my trust on who’s out there on the roads. Seriously, some people should not be driving–accidents will happen, but if you go through a complete red light as if you didn’t even realize there was a set of lights, and then try to pass it off like you had the right of way, the rest of us learn a valuable lesson……if someone is not watching what they’re doing, the rest of us inevitably pay the price. And if some of us are in the wrong place at the wrong time, we pay the price for someone else’s stupidity. That’s life, to a certain extent, but I honestly don’t think that people view vehicles as something that can kill others…..”sorry” doesn’t cut it when someone else is dead.
What is that old saying, green light – go, yellow light – go faster? Does that 2 second advantage to get from Point A to Point B justify causing an accident? This is why when I see people accelerate to race through a yellow light, fail to use turn signals, fail to yield appropriately to pedestrians and cyclists, or texting while driving, I just shake my head and wonder how it is they got a driver’s license. Oh, wait, I know… they were able to do the parallel park test correctly!
What concerns me is that in the last 10 years, I’ve seen people’s ethical standards continually erode with each passing year, to the point where these blatant red light runnings are most likely rationalized to oneself as “I’m in a hurry” or “that guy went through a red light, too” or “that was a yellow light”. And we have red light/ speeding cameras here, yet the red light running has got worse. It never ceases to amaze me at how certain people will commit various acts of bad manners and ill advised actions to bend rules that they would never otherwise do. It makes you wonder what people will try to get away with, if they feel that nobody is watching or if nobody of authority is watching.
This is also why there must be at least a 1-second delay on even the least-utilized traffic lights.
You might be surprised how common traffic lights are without any clearance time (all directions red)—some states don’t require clearance time, even though that is probably not compliant with the Federal MUTCD. Other states and localities deliberately shorten the yellow phase because that’s the only way to make red-light cameras lucrative enough (usually for the private corporations running them), despite/because of strong and ample evidence that a longer yellow phase sharply reduces red-light running.
Single vehicle accident, one person dead as a result of being thrown from the vehicle (though the article doesn’t mention it the fatality was more than likely the result of not being buckled in)… http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/%e2%80%8bwoman-dies-in-crash-on-the-way-to-her-mother%e2%80%99s-funeral/ar-BBr2bHh?li=AAggFp5&ocid=ASUDHP
Throughout the history of the automobile, whenever an accident occurs, drivers blame the car for the crash, they don’t look at themselves and ask “what did I do to cause this?”, or “what could I have done to prevent this from happening in the first place?” No, they’ll say “it’s the car’s fault, it was too dangerous, or the road was too dangerous.”
Danny: “Why aren’t we supposed to call them ‘accidents’ again?”
Nicholas: “Because ‘accident’ implies there’s nobody to blame.”
Perhaps I should replace “accident” with “crash” or “collision”? 🙂
Exactly. Yet, some people justify buying X-overs and SUVs over mere cars because they believe that the vehicles height and heft make them ‘feel’ safer by comparison. The car companies perpetuate this with designs that feature high beltlines, shallow side windows, thick A & C pillars, all of which ‘reinforce’ the sense of being inside a safety cocoon. This cocooning leads some drivers to have a false sense of security which they use as their excuse for not taking responsibility for their poor driving and accidents.
This is a topic I never really see discussed but one I’m totally interested in – safety styling. There are of course factors in styling that impact safety, but do the current styling trends necessarily reflect the safety of the vehicle? Or are the safety of the vehicles simply warping people’s perceptions as to what a safe car is supposed to look like? Aerodynamics can often be the same way, most would probably perceive a wedge shape ala Ferrari Testarossa the pinnacle of slippery because race cars are like it. Same when efficient styling, every car became a Valiant like box by the early 80s because that “looked” efficient, and during an energy crisis that was desirable, factual or not.
Walked by a vintage Honda Civic 4-door sedan on the street last night… This pic better highlights what a perfect contrast it is to the ‘cocoon’ theme currently favoured by so many manufacturers. Check out the low beltline, tall roof, large glass area, thin pillars, and very low hood line. It’s too much of a fishbowl now, drivers and passengers would illogically feel exposed and unsafe, even if it were backed by 2016 safety technology. That low beltline also makes it too easy for drivers to be spotted texting behind the wheel!
” Wow, what an offensive, racist comment. Not appropriate.” .
SHADAAP .
-Nate
I don’t know about all car buyers in the sixties, but I will say that my Dad wanted as basic a car as possible, so nothing could possibly break. And he was damn cheap too. To him, a radio or power steering were not necessary. He grew up in the Depression. He was on the front lines in WWII. He learned to live a basic life style. So, to spring extra dough for better brakes or tires or mirrors, to him, were just not necessary. The cars he grew up with were as basic as army jeeps. So yes, safety had to be legislated in, like mandatory seat belts in the seventies, DRLs today. Middle rear brake lights, etc.
I don’t know what prompted my dad to do this in the mid 60’s, but every car he bought that didn’t come with seat belts he installed seat belts. My younger brother and I were taught from the get go to wear them. I have no memory of a time where I didn’t wear seat belts. To this day, I won’t leave until everyone is buckled up. That habit served my dad very well when in 1969 he had been run off the road by a drunk driver in a Cadillac while driving home from work. My dad’s car went up a bank and then became airbourne and then landed on its roof and his head went through the windshield with the car scooting on its roof until it came to a stop. Only his seat belt kept him in the car. The car my dad was driving was one of his rare non Mopars and I want to say it was a ’59 Renault. Memory is a little foggy there but that’s what I recall him saying. When the damaged Renault was brought home, you could only look at it and wonder how he managed to survive the crash at all. I think it’s because his seat belt kept him from being thrown out of the car.
I imagine I’m hardly the only person who daydreamed about buying a classic car brand new from the dealer. Some of the advice in the featured article about upgrading cars by ordering them with all of the heavy duty options is exactly how I always imagined doing a time travelling shopping trip. Disc brakes, bigger wheels, anti sway bars, shoulder belts when they became available, heavy duty everything. Being a time travel fantasy at a 1967-68 Plymouth dealership, also come back with lots of spare parts like Budd disc brake calipers, etc.
My first car was a ’67 Sport Fury with a 318. The Fury I have now is a ’68 Fury VIP also with a 318. What I didn’t know then that I know now is that small block ’67-’68 Mopar C-bodies (Slant Sixes as well) did not come with front anti sway bars but the big block cars always did. My ’68 Fury VIP now has a factory front sway bar complete with the factory brackets welded onto my stub frame. Makes a big difference in how the car drives.
If I were going to mandate things like collapsible steering columns (a very good idea) I think I would also mandate front anti sway bars much earlier. My ’79 St. Regis came with one already as did my ’80 Cordoba. When the St. Regis was my dad’s he added a rear anti sway bar from a ’77 Cordoba and improved the car’s handling even more. But, my ’89 Dakota has no front or rear sway bar and while it was my dad’s truck, he often said it drove exactly like his ’56 Plymouth Savoy except for having disc brakes. Driving the Dakota on winding twisting two lane roads is not much fun. I’m hunting around for a Dakota I can salvage a front sway bar set up from. So far, that’s been harder than expected.
Er…what? There is (still) no such mandate.
It is interesting to see this article as I missed it in 2016.
When I was kid, I knew of many people who had been killed in auto accidents. In my high school graduation class of 1983, four boys were killed in the grad party season. That was out of about 300 grads. I had two cousins killed in car accidents. My aunt was seriously injured when rear-ended in her no headrest 1967 Pontiac Laurentian. Every one of these deaths/injuries had something to do with alcohol. One cousin died when hitting a tree at only about 25 MPH. The steering wheel impaled him.
Fast forward to 2022 and my kids don’t know anyone killed or injured in a car accident.