
Head-On Crash Test of 2009 and 1959 Cars (video) - mhb
http://video.consumerreports.org/services/player/bcpid1078549944?bctid=41311737001
======
83457
Maybe this will finally dispel the myth about older cars being safer in these
sorts of collisions because they were built like "tanks".

~~~
Retric
Yep, for more info:

[http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/pics-aplenty-iihs-
reveals...](http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/26/pics-aplenty-iihs-reveals-
before-and-after-of-malibu-bel-air-cr/)

The after pictures clearly show why the 1959 car kills you, while the 2009
let's you live.

PS: _"The dummy's head struck the steering wheel rim and hub and then the roof
and unpadded metal instrument panel to the left of the steering wheel.... The
windshield was completely dislodged from the car and the driver door opened
during the crash, both presenting a risk of ejection. In addition, the front
bench seat was torn away from the floor on the driver side."

Ouch.... an instant death according to the IIHS. And the '09 Malibu? "A high
acceleration was recorded on the left foot, indicating that foot injuries
would be possible._

[http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/17/video-iihs-
celebrates-50t...](http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/17/video-iihs-
celebrates-50th-anniversary-by-crashing-modern-malib/)

~~~
hy3lxs
Youtube: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by
Insurance Institute For Highway Safety." :(

~~~
Janzert
Umm someone needs to explain that you're supposed to let the viral video
spread where it will, not send take down notices when it does start to spread.

------
conanite
It would be interesting to see a video of two 1959 cars crashing compared to a
video of two 2009 cars crashing. It's nice to have a tank, but if everyone has
tanks, maybe I'm not better off.

~~~
jimbokun
You're still better off in a tank if you hit a telephone pole or a tree, for
instance.

~~~
idm
Do you mean a tank, literally, as in an M1 Abrams? ...otherwise, did you see
the video? Crumple zones, passenger cabin intact, airbags, seat belt, etc?

~~~
jimbokun
Huh? I took conanite to mean newer cars are "tanks," only in the sense they
survive crashes better than old cars. He was saying that it might not be a
relative advantage if the other car hitting you is equally impervious.
Irresistible force, etc. etc.

My only point was that you are much better off in a modern car striking a
telephone pole than you would be in a 1959 car, even if it is true that you
are somehow worse off when two modern cars strike each other (although I doubt
that also). Nothing about literal tanks intended whatsoever.

Your comment seems to take the exact opposite meaning from what I intended to
say, so I must have expressed myself poorly.

~~~
idm
I see what you mean now, but there are several threads in this discussion that
use "tank" to refer to old cars (i.e. made-out-of-steel rust buckets.)

------
dangoldin
I think it's unfair to compare cars from 50 years ago against cars today
without comparing the behavior of the drivers. Although the cars themselves
may be safer, more people may be on the roads and may be driving more
recklessly which would lead to a higher number of accidents as well as having
the damage be equal.

I remember reading something about a study being done that showed people that
cars drove much more dangerously around bikers with helmets than bikers
without; if you feel that other cars are safer you may drive more dangerously.

Edit: Here's the study:
<http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2006/9/11/overtaking110906.html>

~~~
tomjen2
This is a very valid point and raised very well. It does not deserve these
downmods.

~~~
noodle
why? this feels like a red herring fallacy.

we're talking about the technology and quality of the cars across time as it
relates to safety.

you pull in people as drivers and it fundamentally changes what we're talking
about. more examples:

"I think it's unfair to compare cars from 50 years ago against cars today
without comparing the state of modern traffic laws and speed limits"

"I think it's unfair to compare cars from 50 years ago against cars today
without comparing the quality and ubiquity of roads, highways and interstates"

etc.

~~~
dangoldin
My general point was that although cars are safer than before, we still need
to look at the system they are a part of which affects safety. I don't want
people to make the conclusion that it's safer driving now than before - that
may or may not be the case.

~~~
joecode
Well... it is:

[http://www.roadandtravel.com/safetyandsecurity/highwayfatali...](http://www.roadandtravel.com/safetyandsecurity/highwayfatalityrates.htm)

Note that nationwide statistics are not available that far back, but consider
this report from Washington State:

[http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/wtp/datalibrary/Safety/MVFa...](http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/wtp/datalibrary/Safety/MVFatalities.htm)

~~~
dangoldin
But that hasn't necessarily come from car safety although I'm sure that's a
large contributor.

It can also be attributed to better education, more cracking down on drunk
drivers, etc.

~~~
noodle
I think it's unfair to compare cars from 50 years ago against cars today
without comparing the behavior of the drivers, improvement of safety
education, improved laws, better police enforcement, etc..

see what i did there? ;)

------
Zak
I'd like to see some comparisons of active safety (the ability to avoid
crashes and retain control in adverse conditions). I suspect the improvements
in handling and braking in the average car since 1959 aren't nearly so
dramatic. Aside from the SUV craze, the average front-wheel-drive[0] family
sedan built today feels like it wants to fall off the road every time it
encounters a corner.

I have to wonder why the average car buyer doesn't seem to notice or care. I
suspect most adults have, at some point in their lives driven a car with
decent handling and braking.

[0] Front-wheel-drive alone is not to blame for this; I've driven FWD cars
that did not feel like that.

~~~
hristov
Don't agree. I don't know if you have actually driven any of the boats of the
60-80s but they handle very very badly even if they are rwd. I am talking
about large old fashioned american cars, like ford crown victorias chevy
caprices, etc. They have very bad steering response shake like crazy on the
slightest turn tires squeel with slightest provocation etc. Those cars were
built to drive in a straight line.

I think any modern fwd sedan will do better. For example I used to drive a 90s
crown victoria and then switched to a later model ford contour. The contour
handled sooo much better even if it was fwd.

~~~
Zak
I have driven some of those old boats, and they do handle very poorly, but not
really worse than a lot of truck-based SUVs today. Looking outside of the US
where large boats never caught on, the improvement in active safety appears
even smaller.

I came to the opposite conclusion regarding '90s Crown Victorias vs. Contours,
however every Crown Victoria I've driven was a sport or police model with
stiffer suspension than normal. Comparing to my grandmother's Buick
Roadmaster, I'll agree with you.

Again, I'm not saying modern cars aren't better. I'm saying the difference in
active safety is not as big as the difference in passive safety, and I'm
wondering why that is. Today's best handling cars are much better than the
best cars of decades ago, but the average isn't nearly so improved.

------
SlowOnTheUptake
What isn't clear to me is, do safer cars translate into fewer traffic injuries
and deaths?

I recall reading an economics paper that indicated that safer cars encouraged
more reckless driving and the two competing factors canceled each other out;
as cars got safer, the number of accidents increased until the number of
deaths and injuries returned to their prior levels.

I wonder if we all still drove 1959 cars would we be using cell phones while
driving?

~~~
dmv
There is an interesting table at
[http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar...](http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/crash-
test-1959-chevy-vs-2009-chevy.aspx)

"Highway safety then and now"

Registered vehicles: 1959 - 71.5 million 2008 - 255 million

Miles driven: 1959 - 700 billion 2008 - 2.9 trillion

Fatalities: 1959 - 37,910 2008 - 37,261

~~~
Periodic
A 75% reduction in fatalities per million-miles-driven in 50 years. That's
very good to see.

Thank you for bringing in the numbers.

------
jrussino
I wonder how much improvement there has been between more recent models of
cars. I doubt that there are many people driving the 1959 Chevy Bel Air on
today's highways, but there are probably plenty of people driving cars that
were built in 1999. I'd be interested to see how much of a difference in
safety there is between similar car models from '99 and '09.

~~~
papersmith
I think the major passive safety features of this decade are better crumple
zones and side-impact airbags. IIRC Euro NCAP made their crash tests much
tougher recently to adapt to the improved safety across the board.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Actually, I suspect the bigger effect is driver and passenger airbags becoming
standard.

~~~
papersmith
I think that happened in the 90s. :)

------
timmaah
I like the rust cloud from the 59. Makes you wonder what kind of shape the car
was in before they prettied it up to crash.

I drive 2 old aircooled volkswagens in the summer and am just about ready to
give up the hobby because of this. I don't like the extra amount of risk the
hobby puts on my life.

~~~
cninja
According to the senior VP of the crash institute, the cloud was dirt from the
50 year old car, not rust.

[http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-
abou...](http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-
about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/)

------
tlb
The choice of camera angles seems biased. Most of the shots showed the
driver's side of the old car where the impact is and only the passenger side
of the new car.

I'm not disputing their overall conclusion, but it'd be fairer to start with
overhead angles and show equal time on both sides.

~~~
donw
They show the same camera angles for both, and an overhead shot of the impact.
Both cars impact on the same (driver's) side. The most important two shots in
this are the interior shots, and the left-hand door. On the Bel Air, you can
see the passenger compartment get crushed -- the steering wheel crushes the
occupant against the seat, the door is more-or-less ripped off, and the roof
crumples inwards.

On the modern car, it does what it's designed to do -- the steering wheel
stays put, and the passenger compartment forms a solid cage around the
occupants.

------
jacquesm
one of the comments links on another site about this crash test links to this
page:

[http://www.carcraft.com/junkyardcrawl/ccrp_0910_x_framed_che...](http://www.carcraft.com/junkyardcrawl/ccrp_0910_x_framed_chevys/photo_01.html)

There's a bit of a hint why this particular model came of so bad.

more info on the car:

[http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ask-the-best-and-
brightest-...](http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ask-the-best-and-brightest-is-
this-the-bel-air-the-iihs-destroyed/)

------
codyhilton
You'd think that after 40 years of automobile safety innovation we could do
better than this. In reality there shouldn't even be a scratch on the Malibu
let alone even a remote possibility of injury to the passengers.

~~~
MikeCapone
If the car didn't have a scratch (ie. the energy wasn't dissipated by the
crumple zones), a lot more of the impact would be felt by the passengers.

What's the point of having a car without a scratch of the driver is turned to
jelly...

~~~
tricky
This is true even with roll cages in race cars. You'd think you want the
strongest metal available, but that's not right. They actually use a softer
steel so the cage deforms a on impact.

The guy who welded mine said the shock from an impact to a titanium cage would
effectively shatter your body. He was far from a doctor, but it made sense.

------
biohacker42
Up next, a 1950s computer vs an iPhone, a TV from 1950 vs a modern day TV,
what else can we compare? Everything! Technology has progressed, how about
that!

Besides the omg look at the crash shock factor, what does this tell us? The
only thing I get out of it, is to be reminded that we should rely on the
insurance industry's crash tests, not the government's. The insurance industry
is much tougher on cars.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
It's a common belief that old "solid" cars are safer than their light, flimsy
modern counterparts. This test dispels that belief fairly dramatically.

~~~
biohacker42
Is it really that common?

~~~
randallsquared
Mostly among the 40 and up crowd, I think. I'm not sure I know anyone younger
than me who believed that (I'm 36).

~~~
83457
I'm 28 and my primary inclination was to think that newer vehicles crumple
while older cars do not, leading to more internal injuries for passengers of
older vehicles and more vehicle damage of newer vehicles. However it appears
that the older vehicles lose on both fronts.

