Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGrissom
Few remember that the federal mandate was either air bags OR an automated seat belt. The primary purpose of a front air bag is to protect unbelted occupants.
|
This assertion is so completely wrong. Take a wild guess as to why they call it a "supplemental restraint system?"
Airbag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGrissom
I feel safer in my 300D in a side collision than most new sedans, but safest of all in my 65 Newport with its wide heavy doors and really long "crush zone" trunk. That is where the idiots usually attack.
|
The words you're looking for is "a false sense of security".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillGrissom
An amusing youtube video is from the Insurance Institute (or such) claiming to show how much safer newer cars are by a partial head-on crash of a modern sedan against a ~62 full-size GM sedan. The newer car slices thru the old car, leaving a cloud of rust dust. I am guessing the old full-frame car had totally rusted frame rails and body, and maybe some missing parts. What happened to the "crumple zones" idea in the new car, which came thru almost unscathed? That video has many classic car owners saying their cars are unsafe.
|
Yes, you are definitely guessing when you talk about this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk
Even if the 1959 Bel Air was brand new, I'll take my chances in the car designed around seat belts, air bags, a safety cage and crumple zones, thank you very much.
An even better example of how quickly the technology has evolved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs
But hey, don't let that change your dogmas. I'm sure a car that was never crash tested during its development 60 years ago is way safer than anything designed and repeatedly crash tested today.
