• You are here: 
  • Cars > 
  • Articles > 
  • Video Proves Cars Are Safer Than Ever

Video Proves Cars Are Safer Than Ever

But Is The Cost Worth It?

Posted: Oct, 17 2009
by: William Jeanes, AOL Autos
 

On September 9, 2009, the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety destroyed a perfectly good 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air. This wanton dispatching of a perfectly good 50-year-old Chevy dismayed lovers of vintage cars, but it did add a “Thank God” to the old saying, “They just don’t build them like they used to.”


Presumably as a part of celebrations marking its Golden Anniversary year, the IIHS set up a mano a mano matchup between a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and the hoary Bel Air. One round, no timeouts.

In one of those cold, unwelcoming crash-test buildings, the two cars and their dummy pilots smacked each other at a speed of 40 mph in the front-offset format. That meant that the Bel Air’s left headlight struck the Malibu in about the middle of its hood. The result was not encouraging to those who believe that ancient iron trumps 21st Century plastic.

If the Bel Air’s dummy driver didn’t “die” in the crash, it would be a simulated miracle. The driver of the Malibu, however, enjoyed the protection of an airbag and seat belts, and got through the encounter bruised but breathing.

Because I am old enough to have driven a 1959 Bel Air when it was new, the IIHS demonstration got me to thinking about just how far we’ve come in the safety area since the year before John F. Kennedy became President of the United States. In those 50 years, we have come to take a lot of now-common safety features for granted. Here are just a few of them.

Tires: Tired no longer regularly blow out or otherwise lose their air supply at the slightest provocation. We often overlook the considerable contributions the tire companies have made to safe vehicle operation.

Seat belts: These things have come from cumbersome urban legends (“My great-uncle’s barber knew a man who was trapped in a burning vehicle by his seat belt.”) to easy-to-use devices that only the criminally dense among us refuse to use.

Airbags: Taken together with seat belts, the airbag has kept no telling how many drivers in their seat after a crash instead of letting them rocket through the windshield. We now also have side and head-level airbags.

Crushable steering columns: Once upon a time it was possible to impale yourself on the steering column and suffer the discomfort that comes with shoving the horn button through your sternum. Not any more.

Antilock braking systems: These lifesavers are as ubiquitous as wheel covers nowadays and demonstrate on a daily basis what a good idea it is to have electronic wizardry keep all four of your car’s wheels turning at the same speed.

Crumple zones: You can see these at work if you watch Indy racing. Instead of using the driver to absorb impact, you use collapsing front ends and engine compartments. This theory can be traced to an old stunt man trick: jumping from the third floor onto a stack of cardboard boxes which collapse in order and diminish the kinetic energy our hero generated during his free fall.

Alcohol awareness impact: Not a feature, but a practice that deserves mention. The involvement of alcohol in vehicular accidents and deaths almost defies overstatement. The IIHS estimates that 40 percent of road fatalities involve alcohol. Bad enough, but down substantially from the 1970s when the figure was 70 percent. The National Institute of Health says that reductions in driving after drinking saved more than 150,000 lives between 1982 and 2001, which would be more than the combined total saved by increases in seat belt use, airbags, and motorcycle and bicycle helmets.

There are of course a bushel of other new safety features—electronic stability control, rear-vision cameras and directional headlights to name just three—and there are dozens more either here or on the way. But suppose we ask what have all these improvements done for us?

The answer is one hell of a lot. Using only a few of the relevant statistics, here’s the story in brief.

In 1959, 36,223 motorists missed their next meal. As a nation we drove 700.5 million miles, and that worked out to 5.2 fatalities per million miles traveled. Last year, with our population having grown from 179.3 million in 1969 to an estimated 300 million today, the year 2008 saw 37,261 highway deaths. U.S. motorists drove 2.9 billion miles last year and averaged 1.27 fatalities per million miles traveled.

In rough numbers, there were 120 million more of us, we drove four times as many miles, and we killed one-fifth as many people. That is beyond outstanding.     

But at what cost? In 1959, the average cost of a new car was $2,200 and the average worker made $5,010. In 2008, the average worker earned $40,532 but had to pay $27,958 for a new car. In other words, the buyer paid nearly 40 percent of a year’s take for an automobile in 1959 but had to pay 69 percent in 2008. That’s a stunning rise, and you can bet that a large part of that increase in car prices is due to the inclusion of safety equipment. Imagine how much money the bean counters could thrift (their word) out of a car if they removed all the safety devices added in the past 50 years.

The real question is: Is safety worth it? I think you have to say it is. Otherwise, using the historic yardsticks for fatalities per million miles traveled, you’d have to add about 150,000 motorists a year to the Grim Reaper’s tote board. I say spend the money.


 
Discuss
1 - 5 of 202 Comments
sonyfan13 Nov 23, 2009 4:40 AM
This test was not about which car was sturdier, but which car affords you the greater chance of survival in a crash. The Malibu's front engine compartment up to the firewall will crumble up far more easily because it's designed to do that in a crash; the crumble zones dissipate energy, which reduces the blow the passengers will feel. Between the front and rear of the Malibu is the safety cage, which is designed to be the strongest part of the car that is not supposed to crumble or collapse; it has to be the strongest part that is most resistant to collapse as that's the area where you occupy inside the car. In a crash, I'm less concerned about which car survives the impact and more concerned about how the people inside the car will fare. I'd rather prefer a design which sacrifices the car in protection of the occupants. As for an offset crash versus a head-on crash, an offset crash is actually worse because the full amount of impact energy is being acted upon only on about half of the structures of the vehicles. More energy on a smaller area whereas a full head-on crash will distribute the forces across the whole front of the structure, minimizing the stress on the structure. This is why you may have cars and trucks that may perform splendidly on an NHTSA full-frontal test but end up failing the IIHS frontal offset test, such as the late 1990s Ford F-150 pickup. As for the speed of the collisions, both vehicles are traveling at about 40 MPH towards each other. This will be roughly equivalent to one of the vehicles colliding offset into a stationary collapsible barrier at 80 MPH. And even if the Bel-Air had fresh metal, it still would not perform as well in protecting passengers as the Malibu because of ENGINEERING. The level of design and testing, including simulation testing, done on today's vehicles as well as metallurgy, the use of materials available today that didn't exist back then, and the implementation of various safety features, such as active and passive restraints; all of the aspects are simply more advanced and more precise than what they were back in 1959. In short, more could be done to make more effective use of the same amount of materials with a car made today than 50 years ago.
Report This
legveinsaresexy Oct 28, 2009 11:42 PM
While GM may have gilded the lily a bit by crashing an old rust bucket into the new Malibu, I do believe that on the whole, today's cars, with their padded interiors, passive restraint systems, and engineered crumple zones provide far more occupant protection than the land yachts of yesteryear. As for durability, I beg to differ. While today's vehicles may go longer between brake jobs, tune ups, and engine rebuilds, there is no way these rolling cartons of thin unibody sheet metal, plastic, and computer chips can match the potential life span of cars from the 40s and 50s, with their study ladder frames, heavy gauge bolt-one body panels, and simple to repair designs. One must remember that the postwar era into the early 60s was one of prosperity and optimism. In the Auto industry, this was reflected in yearly body changes, a horsepower war, and the appearance of features such as power steering, auto trannies, and air conditioning. As such, many 8 or 10 year old vehicles need minor body work or mechanical repairs were scrapped simply because they looked old, went too slow, and lacked amenities. That is why today's cars can be expected to have a longer average service life
Report This
roara2k1 Oct 28, 2009 3:01 PM
There's seems to be inconsistency in this article. It says over 150,000 deaths were avoided by reduced alcohol consumption. Later, it says that the 150,000 lives saved are worth the increased price in cars. Unless car companies are giving all the extra money into anti-drunk driving campaigns, or unless the increased safety features save about as many lives as drunk driving awareness does, I don't think that's the right number to use there.
Report This
jplava Oct 20, 2009 6:30 PM
I own a body shop and I've spent the lasr 30 years working on cars. They are absolutely safer now than they were when I was a kid. I lived beside a hazardous intersection and saw many accidents where the steering wheel would collapse column would smack them in the chest and chin. I saw the corner of a hood come back through the passenger side winsdshield far enough to take a head off if someone were sitting there. I saw a little girl not seatbelted into her seat get her teeth knocked out when she hit the METAL dash, yes METAL! Padded dashboards didn't exist till the mid 60s. Notice the door of the old chevy fly off the latch. That happened all the time in accidents. In the "old days" they built cars with the idea they would never get into a collision, and if they did... sorry for your luck. Crumple zones work! That tough old iron really is tough. Watch the fender refuse to crumple and push the bottom of the windshield post back into the pasenger. Look for old photos of accidents sometime and you'll always see the same theme. The passenger compartment is where everything folds in to. Look at the new cars, they fold up before they reach the passenger compartment. Those old vintage cars are great for cruising in, but I'll choose the new ones for my next accident. John
Report This
play11dg Oct 20, 2009 2:49 PM
The video is full of craps! There is no way, body of BelAir is crushed than 2010 Malibu. Someone MUST have had replaced sheet metal on BelAir because the way its hood and fenders could be able to bend back and forth after accident. It was supposed to be stiff metal. I dont buy that crap, nice try! BTW, I work at body shop.
Report This
1 - 5 of 202 Comments
 
Leave A Comment?
Please keep your comments relevant to the Video Proves Cars Are Safer Than Ever article.
 
Fetching latest post ...
 
Fetching latest post ...
 
Fetching latest post ...
car.com
AOL Autos on Facebook
blackbook

Research a New Car

Find Used Cars For Sale Near You

Avoid getting a lemon for your next used car.
Powered by
Get a free CARFAX record check for a used car
Start with a Free CARFAX Record Check.
No VIN Available? Get a CARFAX Report Package »
Follow AOL Autos on Twitter
The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety crashed a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air into a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, showing how far safety has come in 50 years.
© 2010 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ABUSE REPORT

From:

Your Comment:
Send Report Cancel