Crash. Old car versus...old car...

[Mr G8]

I for one, do pull over to the side of the road to make a turn, as i trust no one. I feel more safer/confident doing it that way rather then sitting in the middle of the road as cars whizz by you at 80 to 100 KPH. I've been hit in the rear by an AU once, because the driver was adjusting his rear view mirror. wasn't a bad crash, but one none the less. Every time i get into my car(s) and go for a drive, i'll portray every driver as a bad driver, that way i'm twice as attentive, looking for any difference in the behavior of the cars around me, and ahead. No matter how good you think you are... it takes one mistake to loose it all...

[mik]

Modern cars are a bit better in some ways, but when push comes to shove they are all mostly folded sheetmetal with a few heavy bits bolted on and if you hit something solid enough with a lot of speed chances are you will end up road kill on the roadway and no amount of air bags or safety gadgets will help you end of story.

[MAD]

Why did the XY get so sideways?
A rear brake lockup shouldn't cause that much of a trajectory change, maybe a dodgy brake upgrade/repair and incorrect brake bias.

[Mr G8]

Originally Posted by MAD

Why did the XY get so sideways?
A rear brake lockup shouldn't cause that much of a trajectory change, maybe a dodgy brake upgrade/repair and incorrect brake bias.

OR he was swerving (along with locking up) to avoid rear ending the car in front, but failed to see the oncoming traffic

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by MAD

Why did the XY get so sideways?
A rear brake lockup shouldn't cause that much of a trajectory change, maybe a dodgy brake upgrade/repair and incorrect brake bias.

Only last Sunday I drove an old Chevrolet on a cruise and it had a nasty pull in the front under braking. The problem was its original flex hoses were blocked and replacing them fixed the problem. So there is one possibility, but the Falcon driver may have also swerved deliberately to avoid rear-ending the car infront without seeing the EK Holden coming the other way.

The release of this video came at a rather odd time for me as it alerted me of what could have happened to myself.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

The weak body structure (by modern standards) of the XY would probably allow the smaller, lighter Kia to compress the front of the XY, penetrate the cabin and seriously injure whoever was inside. That's my guess. It's been proven time, and time again that the illusion of old cars being solid is just that, an illusion.

Absolute rubbish. The modern car that met the front end of my ZD received 10000 dollars damage. My car drove away with a bent bumper and bonnet.

[block58]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Correct me if I'm wrong...but I don't even see a crumple in the roof of that XY, something that's very common with modern cars in even fairly low speed solid impacts. I also think you could very likely still open the passenger side doors...another thing that become a problem with more modern vehicles in front corner impacts like that XY had.

Look up the concept of a safety cell. From the a-pillar to the c-pillar and everything in between it, the car uses much higher strength steel to protect the occupants no matter what.

When I went to the Ford Discovery Center earlier this year, they had a pre-production FG which had been in a crash test, where about a half of the bonnet was crushed, yet the doors still opened just fine. This is because the safety cell is so strong, and stops the metal bending where it matters most.

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by noosacuda

WTF!!!! Well pardon my ignorance then! I've only had my licence for 32 years and have NEVER heard of that before. Except in Melbourne city because of the trams.

With respect, I think Magpie is a Kiwi and in NZ that has been the rule on rural roads since I the time got my licence there in 1978.

Pretty sure its the same rule in NSW too on unmarked rural roads. In fact, rule or no rule, I'd rather complete a turn from the curb rather than sit in the middle of the road waiting with traffic whizzing past at 110.

In fact I've been rear ended twice while waiting in suburban traffic so makes sense on rural.

[LeadFoot81]

Originally Posted by Ford_The_Win

Probably something very similar. Having a full frame and no rust wouldn't stop the non-collapsible steering column from getting rammed into your head, along with those knife-like blade chrome trims cutting your face and neck. And if you're unfortunate, the all-metal dash and glove box lid might slice into your torso if you're the front passenger. Who'd choose a flimsy Kia over that?

I strongly suggest all you skeptics watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_7zEVujB6s

In that video the focus is on wearing seat belts...but I don't think a seatbelt would stop the flimsy door latches from breaking open or the bench seats from dislodging themselves and going out the car. Absolute disaster.
Older cars are not as solid or safe as newer ones, it's a result of 50+ years of automotive engineering & improvement and billions of dollars of development money spent.

There's all the proof anyone needs. Identical brand new (old) cars crashing into each other and practically exploding.

The 'classics' were death traps when they were new, and even more now after years of degradation. This doesn't mean they should be denigrated. It means they should be treated with respect by those driving them AND those sharing the roads with them. The person in the driver's seat should always be aware of the older car's shortcomings and the person in the newer car should give the old girls some space and enjoy the view!!

All the owners/aficionados of old cars that get their backs up and attack new(er) cars every time advancements in safety are mentioned should show respect for just how far the automobile has come in the last 50 years. I've owned an old car before (1970 ZD Fairlane) and whilst it was beautiful to look at and fun to cruise around in (I got many admiring looks) when I drove it it's shortcomings were blatantly obvious and living with it day to day I couldn't help but think it was designed to maim it's occupants.

While small bingles result in more damage (and cost) for newer cars, they are infinitely more practical, comfortable and safe than their ancestors (and they're not all boring to drive!!)

The automobile will continue to evolve, and engineers will improve on those three core values.

To complain that any car past a certain date is just a soulless white good smacks of ignorance and childishness. There are 'classics' from every decade.

[block58]

Originally Posted by superyob

Absolute rubbish. The modern car that met the front end of my ZD received 10000 dollars damage. My car drove away with a bent bumper and bonnet.

All that means is that more of the impact of the crash was absorbed in your body, which in a higher speed crash can do a lot more damage. I would rather my car be written off than have my heart go through my ribs.

[Olbucko]

Originally Posted by karj

Yeah it's been a practice on rural roads for many years, much in the same way that you would complete a u-turn.

I live on, and have driven daily on rural roads for the last 25 years, I have never seen this happen in NSW, It's not in the rule book.

[Ford_The_Win]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

All the owners/aficionados of old cars that get their backs up and attack new(er) cars every time advancements in safety are mentioned should show respect for just how far the automobile has come in the last 50 years.

To complain that any car past a certain date is just a soulless white good smacks of ignorance and childishness. There are 'classics' from every decade.

This thread gives me flashbacks of trying to explain evolution to my creationist Nanna
"But if we evolved from monkeys, then how come there are still monkeys?! Got ya stumped there, eh!". The facts are there but it's easier for some people to just not believe.

[karj]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

I live on, and have driven daily on rural roads for the last 25 years, I have never seen this happen in NSW, It's not in the rule book.

As I understand it, you are right that it's not an Australian Road Rule. It seems to be something that some people have been taught to do and others not.

In my opinion though, it is generally best practice. I see it as a safety measure similar to pointing your wheels straight ahead whilst waiting to complete a turn across traffic (that is, so that if someone goes up your rear, you don't get shunted into oncoming traffic).

The question is this: Would you rather be "legally" waiting to turn right by sitting in the middle of a long straight stretch of high speed country road like a sitting duck with the real possibility of being made mince meat by the person behind you not paying attention... or would you rather just negate the risk by simply "legally" pulling over to the left and completing the turn when the coast is clear?

Interestingly enough, it is a rule in New Zealand: http://www.drivingtests.co.nz/roadco...rn-on-a-narro/

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by block58

Look up the concept of a safety cell. From the a-pillar to the c-pillar and everything in between it, the car uses much higher strength steel to protect the occupants no matter what.

When I went to the Ford Discovery Center earlier this year, they had a pre-production FG which had been in a crash test, where about a half of the bonnet was crushed, yet the doors still opened just fine. This is because the safety cell is so strong, and stops the metal bending where it matters most.

image

Thanks, that's good to know seeing as how we have an FG. I hope the production ones are like that. I was commenting on that point because I've seen way too many other types of new and near-new cars that get a pronounced crease across the roof in a good frontal impact, sometimes jamming the doors shut on one side or the other.

Pulling off the side of the road to turn right...as a motorcyclist, I shudder when I see people do that. If you do it all the time, I'd trust you somewhat more, but if you tried to make it a general rule, I've seen way too many people up ahead pull off with their right indicator going, and concentrate too much on the oncoming traffic and forget what is coming behind them...possibly as a psychological thing that when you stop to turn right across oncoming traffic, you "normally" don't have to worry about what is coming behind you as it will pass to your left if it goes by you where you sit. My biggest fright was a car and van out near Longreach...approaching on my GSX1400, he pulls off and indicates to do a u-turn just outside town..."that's courteous of him", I thought. Then once the traffic coming the other way cleared, he started to turn. I swerved to the right where there was thankfully no oncoming cars and missed his bullbar by a whisker.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Anyway, back to the crash in the video...I seriously doubt a little flimsy Kia would have crushed the XY like a tin can and gone through into the passenger compartment...mass always wins, and I think it would be more like the passengers of a modern smaller car being able to admire the Cleveland which has suddenly interposed itself into their laps...

A number of Kia models weigh more than an XY. Would much prefer to be in a Kia than an XY in any crash.

[TZENU]

I really do feel for the driver of the EK... It just goes to show that it could happen to anyone, anytime.

As for the old vs new, I would rather be in my FG or the Fez rather than the XY should something like the above occur.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by MAD

Why did the XY get so sideways?
A rear brake lockup shouldn't cause that much of a trajectory change, maybe a dodgy brake upgrade/repair and incorrect brake bias.

Many years ago I had a 1976 Cortina. On one occasion, I had to hit the anchors due to complete inattention. The car went sideways and darted to the right, much like that XY - ironically, if it hadn't, I probably would have rear ended the car in front of me. First thing I did with the 15 odd cars I bought since was to jam on the anchors during the test drive.

I love my old cars including a very missed XW GT I owned 15 years ago. I'd feel very vulnerable in one today, though.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by TZENU

I really do feel for the driver of the EK... It just goes to show that it could happen to anyone, anytime.

I am impressed, especially given the dent in his door from some part of his body and him wearing much of the impact that he was so quick to attend to his passenger (which I assume was his wife..). Kudos to him.

[Silver Ghia]

One thing in the back of my mind when it comes to the classic cars that are driven only occasionally, is the condition of the tyres.

Besides having older style higher profile tyres, perhaps even crossplies, the tyres may have been on the car for some years, the tread has hardened and therefore grip suffers. So when it comes to doing an emergency stop, the lockups happen a lot easier, and braking distances increase substantially. Having drums on the back doesn't help either.

As far as turning right from the left shoulder, there have been several times on country roads over the years where a vehicle has pulled out in front of me to turn right. wtf?? The driver turning right should be educated not to turn the front wheels toward the right when waiting for oncoming traffic, but keep the car and the wheels parallel with the road so they dont get pushed into the oncoming traffic if hit from behind. At least that's what I was taught nearly 40 years ago. Something else not taught these days.

[fakegt]

You can find some words from the owner of the EK on this thread on OzRodders forum. His user name is: purpleek
http://www.ozrodders.com/forum/viewt...hp?f=4&t=52310
The EK does a bit of Dukes of Hazard airbourne action. Any word or photos on the XY anyone?
Cheers, Dave

[gtfpv]

THANK GOD FOR HEADRESTS . I WOULDNT BE HERE IF IT WASNT FOR THEM , i gotrear ended 7 years ago driving a laser built in the 90's it had headrests . my head hit it so hard it bent right down behind the seat . an old bench seater and id of been buried 7 years ago . incidently the car had no rear occupents in it luckily , as the rear seat got pushed forward .
the amazing thing was the doors would still open and close and the car was able to be driven up the ramp onto the tow truck . . the commodore that hit me at around at high speed , the driver was able to drive off and do a runner . this is testament to newer car design . and even now its so much better . i like this post . it truly rings home the benifits of modern technology myths with real evidence .
IT'S quite humbling to be able to look at your life and say that i'm alive today because i am in this erra . if i had the same life 50+ years ago i wouldnt of made it this far .

[El Caco]

Originally Posted by block58

All that means is that more of the impact of the crash was absorbed in your body, which in a higher speed crash can do a lot more damage. I would rather my car be written off than have my heart go through my ribs.

Actually it's the opposite, more of his impact was absorbed by the other car and unfortunately the people travelling in the other car. This has been shown in many new vs old and heavy vs light crash tests and accidents.

There is a prevalent myth that new cars are made from weaker materials and more likely to crumble than older vehicles but that is not the case, newer vehicles may often be made from thinner lighter materials but in most cases that material is also stiffer and stronger. Gone are the days of pressing every panel on a car out of mild steel of varying quality, these days many of the panels on cars are made from hardened metals and alloys, this is why body repairers must not only know what material is used but what panels they are not allowed to heat as it can weaken the car.

New cars are heavier and stiffer and that's why in most cases of new vs old a new car will drive through an old car suffering little damage while the old car absorbs the impact and there are times when the airbags will not even be required to deploy in the new car.

I've seen the result of Hyundai vs WB Statesman in a panel shop I worked in, the WB belonged to my boss and he was devastated that it was written off by the Hyundai that was repaired in his shop. That said I rear ended a VS Commodore in a XA Falcon, I closed the rear gaps on the Commodore and did a few thousand damage but the only damage my Dads XA suffered was a cracked indicator lens, the bar required adjustment but was not damaged so there are exceptions but a 90's commodore isn't a great indicator of modern safety standards anyway..

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

One thing in the back of my mind when it comes to the classic cars that are driven only occasionally, is the condition of the tyres.

Besides having older style higher profile tyres, perhaps even crossplies, the tyres may have been on the car for some years, the tread has hardened and therefore grip suffers. So when it comes to doing an emergency stop, the lockups happen a lot easier, and braking distances increase substantially. Having drums on the back doesn't help either.

As far as turning right from the left shoulder, there have been several times on country roads over the years where a vehicle has pulled out in front of me to turn right. wtf?? The driver turning right should be educated not to turn the front wheels toward the right when waiting for oncoming traffic, but keep the car and the wheels parallel with the road so they dont get pushed into the oncoming traffic if hit from behind. At least that's what I was taught nearly 40 years ago. Something else not taught these days.

I've got drums all around haha. Seriously though she stops hard just as good as more modern cars it just doesn't do it more than 5 times consecutively. If you can lock your wheels the limitation is not the brakes, it is the tires.

[noosacuda]

Originally Posted by GT0132

With respect, I think Magpie is a Kiwi and in NZ that has been the rule on rural roads since I the time got my licence there in 1978.

Pretty sure its the same rule in NSW too on unmarked rural roads. In fact, rule or no rule, I'd rather complete a turn from the curb rather than sit in the middle of the road waiting with traffic whizzing past at 110.

In fact I've been rear ended twice while waiting in suburban traffic so makes sense on rural.

Well i appologise to Magpie, sorry, didn't realise he was actually a Kiwi, (yes, pun intended) and that was a road rule in NZ.
Nothing was said about performing a "U" turn, that is obvious you pull off to the left and turn when safe, i was denying the existance of a rule saying to pull off to the left on rural roads to turn right- that's absolutely ridiculous idea,not very safe at all i think.
As for old cars V's new, most of the new are definately safer, but not all. It's a psychological thing about having "all that metal around you" in an old,large car.

[El Caco]

Unless you knew the road it would be a dangerous practice to pull left to the shoulder when turning right. You indicate your intention to turn in advance and begin to slow down, the first thing cars following you do is assume you are about to turn the direction you have indicated and check if it is safe to pass you on the other side. Now if you suddenly turn in the opposite direction to which you have indicated you could cause an accident. If you knew a road had a safe shoulder to pull onto while you wait for traffic to pass you could put your left indicator on to signal your intention, wait for the traffic to pass then indicate right to turn. Yes it would be safer but only if you knew in advance that it was safe to do that because unless you know the road has a safe shoulder you never know which way is the correct way to indicate.

[Auslandau]

Would much rather be stuck in a crumple zone of a new car and have $15,000 worth of damage done rather than have the engine sitting on my lap! Old cars feel safe but hit a brick wall and the front bumper hits your forehead and the rear bumper slaps you across the back!

As for pulling to the shoulder to turn right ...... never heard of it done as the norm? Only ever pull over if slowing others down and can see a line forming. Country road shoulders 2 feet from the tarmac can be pretty frightening! Been driving and lived in the country for just a few years too. Weird one that idea really but if that makes you feel safer by all means but just don't get T boned doing the turn or fall off the shoulder, or brake too hard with a wheel on the bitumen and one in the dirt ...... and watch those white posts while your at it. Indicate early and slow down earlier ..... seems to have worked for 25 years so far. If some numpty wants to take you out, it wouldn't matter where you turned or what you were doing at the time.

Would suppose this is getting off the actual subject at hand though ........ Crash. Old car versus...old car...

Feel for the 2 blokes. Things really can turn to crap soooooo fast. Which of the 3-5 cars involved were to blame is a hard one but am sure its not for any of us to judge. Soooooo lucky.

[karj]

Originally Posted by El Caco

Unless you knew the road it would be a dangerous practice to pull left to the shoulder when turning right. You indicate your intention to turn in advance and begin to slow down, the first thing cars following you do is assume you are about to turn the direction you have indicated and check if it is safe to pass you on the other side. Now if you suddenly turn in the opposite direction to which you have indicated you could cause an accident. If you knew a road had a safe shoulder to pull onto while you wait for traffic to pass you could put your left indicator on to signal your intention, wait for the traffic to pass then indicate right to turn. Yes it would be safer but only if you knew in advance that it was safe to do that because unless you know the road has a safe shoulder you never know which way is the correct way to indicate.

I don't think anyone was ever saying indicate right and pull over to the left with your right indicator on - that would obviously confuse people. The suggestion was indicate left to pull over, and then when the coast is clear indicate right and complete the turn. Exactly the same as you would complete a u-turn on a rural road, except you're turning right. You should be able to tell in advance if the shoulder is safe to pull over on... generally if people are going to be overtaking you on the left whilst you sit just left of the centre line to do a right turn, then the shoulder should be safe enough for you to pull over on. At the end of the day though, people need to make their own decisions about what the safest thing to do is in these situations.

[xtremerus]

On a 2 lane country road there is usually no room for a car/truck to pass you on the left, as you are sitting in that lane to turn right. He would have to stop behind you if you had to give way to an oncoming vehicle before you could make your right hand turn.
Trusting souls some of you.

I would not stop, just to the left of the centerline to turn right into a farm, with a Semi baring down on me. No use being dead, but in the right.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Would much rather be stuck in a crumple zone of a new car and have $15,000 worth of damage done rather than have the engine sitting on my lap! Old cars feel safe but hit a brick wall and the front bumper hits your forehead and the rear bumper slaps you across the back!

As for pulling to the shoulder to turn right ...... never heard of it done as the norm? Only ever pull over if slowing others down and can see a line forming. Country road shoulders 2 feet from the tarmac can be pretty frightening! Been driving and lived in the country for just a few years too. Weird one that idea really but if that makes you feel safer by all means but just don't get T boned doing the turn or fall off the shoulder, or brake too hard with a wheel on the bitumen and one in the dirt ...... and watch those white posts while your at it. Indicate early and slow down earlier ..... seems to have worked for 25 years so far. If some numpty wants to take you out, it wouldn't matter where you turned or what you were doing at the time.

Would suppose this is getting off the actual subject at hand though ........ Crash. Old car versus...old car...

Feel for the 2 blokes. Things really can turn to crap soooooo fast. Which of the 3-5 cars involved were to blame is a hard one but am sure its not for any of us to judge. Soooooo lucky.

i dunno about the rear bumper hitting you in the back, it depends on the car i guess,
i had a loaded bedford van slam into my pristine 67 xr 289 while stationery , he hit me square on and hard enough to crease the roof which you could see through the vinyl roof and push me out onto the road, it flattened the rear bumper and damaged the boot, tail lights ,pushed the dog leg very close to the rear doors, but i drove it home with a bruised scone and stiff neck, i`d much rather be in my xr than smallish car with no sheetmetal behind or infront.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

There's all the proof anyone needs. Identical brand new (old) cars crashing into each other and practically exploding.

The 'classics' were death traps when they were new, and even more now after years of degradation. This doesn't mean they should be denigrated. It means they should be treated with respect by those driving them AND those sharing the roads with them. The person in the driver's seat should always be aware of the older car's shortcomings and the person in the newer car should give the old girls some space and enjoy the view!!

All the owners/aficionados of old cars that get their backs up and attack new(er) cars every time advancements in safety are mentioned should show respect for just how far the automobile has come in the last 50 years. I've owned an old car before (1970 ZD Fairlane) and whilst it was beautiful to look at and fun to cruise around in (I got many admiring looks) when I drove it it's shortcomings were blatantly obvious and living with it day to day I couldn't help but think it was designed to maim it's occupants.

While small bingles result in more damage (and cost) for newer cars, they are infinitely more practical, comfortable and safe than their ancestors (and they're not all boring to drive!!)

The automobile will continue to evolve, and engineers will improve on those three core values.

To complain that any car past a certain date is just a soulless white good smacks of ignorance and childishness. There are 'classics' from every decade.

Don't know about 'comfortable'. I'd rather cruise around in my ZD than many other modern cars. It is a far more comfortable car to ride in than many modern offerings. I know it does not handle, go around corners or stop and that the power of the almost stock 302 is woefully inadequate compared to modern engines, but I drive it within its limits and I don't feel it's a 'death trap'.