"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/31/2016 at 23:31 • Filed to: None
16
66|
"Jayhawk Jake" (jayhawkjake)
10/31/2016 at 23:31 • Filed to: None | 16
| 66 |
Because fuck you, you’re wrong
gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
> Jayhawk Jake
10/31/2016 at 23:36 |
|
“they were just built better” herr derr
gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
10/31/2016 at 23:39 |
|
Sure, built better, and were considered basically clapped out when they were five years old with 60,000 miles...
CB
> Jayhawk Jake
10/31/2016 at 23:40 |
|
“You young people wouldn’t survive driving our cars! None of you know how to drive without all of your technology.”
Says the boomer who drives an SUV so they “feel safer”.
bob and john
> CB
10/31/2016 at 23:42 |
|
thats true though. I can think of 4 people in my HS that probably would NOT have died in a older car if they had one.
|
gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee
> Jayhawk Jake
10/31/2016 at 23:45 |
|
I’m seriously impressed with modern cars’ collision behaviour. I picked up an insurance write-off 2003 Liberty for parts last winter. I can’t imagine what happened, but you could pretty well draw a straight line from the front driver’s side headlight to the passenger’s a-pillar, and everything had been pushed over to the driver’s side, with the driver’s side fender nearly intact. All the doors still opened, even. On the inside, the dash was slightly misaligned, and some of the trim on the centre console was askew because the trans had been rammed up into the floor, but other than the airbags hanging out, you wouldn’t have been able to tell what happened from looking at the interior. Hell, the windshield wasn’t even cracked.
Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
> Jayhawk Jake
10/31/2016 at 23:46 |
|
Oh yeah you’re dead in the old Sentra. I still would have to get used to a new car. even though it’s much safer, I feel I can’t see out of it.
DipodomysDeserti
> gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee
10/31/2016 at 23:55 |
|
Weird. I daily drove a ‘63 Corvair all last year on the orginal drivetrane, have a ‘66 GMC that I swapped out the tranny on using three sockets and a floor jack, and ride a forty year old motorcycle without issue one a daily basis. What sort of shit cars did your grandparents drive?
The AE86 of Mt. Akina (Hachi)
> Jayhawk Jake
10/31/2016 at 23:56 |
|
This doesn’t change the fact that I don’t really like cars made after the 90's.
The lack of crash protection is a risk I’m willing to take.
Flavien Vidal
> Jayhawk Jake
10/31/2016 at 23:57 |
|
No one ever said that... in case of a crash, modern cars are A LOT safer. Now, go daily drive a car that you know will kill you in case of crash. That risk you’re taking, hanging in the back of your head all the time, will make you skip a couple of texts you may have to answer to... Or you might stop to change your destination on Google Map instead of doing it while driving, cruise control turned on... You might also keep both hands on the wheel as the lack of power steering promises to rip the steering out of your hands in case of a problem...etc etc etc.
All these factors push people who daily drive 30+ year old cars to be, I think, better drivers than the regular Joes who feel all safe and secured in their 5-star rated Corolla.
VW Max
> Jayhawk Jake
10/31/2016 at 23:59 |
|
Meh. My bus is fine as long as no one hits it. Moose test? Rollover is fantastic.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 00:02 |
|
I have definitely seen people say that. I saw someone say they’d rather be in an old S class than a new compact because it has more crumple zone. I’ve seen too many people say they don’t wear seatbelts because “THEY COST MORE LIVES THAN THEY SAVE”, and I’ve seen a handful bemoan airbags.
I disagree that an old car makes you safer because you know it’s dangerous. Wholeheartedly. Being a good driver makes you safer. A smart and responsible driver avoids being distracted, keeps their hands on the wheels, pulls over to mess with Google maps...I do all these things and I’m in about as modern of a car as you can get.
The problem with a regular teen isn’t that they feel safe, it’s that they aren’t properly educated.
|
Flavien Vidal
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 00:09 |
|
I’m sure there are a couple of people who believe it, just like a few people believe Obama is in fact a reptilian from space, here to annihilate the human race lol. But they are a massive minority that is not worth caring about.
For a HUGE majority of humans on this planet, in order to properly learn and understand, they need to be scared. That works for everything, cars included. Getting scared in an old car, will happen a lot sooner and a lot slower than in a regular 2016 Hyundai Somethang.
To get scared in your Hyundai, you have to be a bit of a numbnut lol
|
bob and john
> DipodomysDeserti
11/01/2016 at 00:09 |
|
most of them.
lets be real here, the main reason those cars are still around is because people took care of them. or they were rebuilt. modern cares take the abuse the regular joe throws at them SO much better
TheLOUDMUSIC- Put it in H!
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 00:12 |
|
I’m a way worse driver in my 30 year old pickup than in my 7 year old Accord, mostly because I’m distracted by having to work to keep the Ranger running.
gmctavish needs more space
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 00:13 |
|
The 2015 Yaris I drive for work performed really well in an accident I had in it. It wasn’t that bad a crash, but it would’ve been a lot worse in a 20 year old compact Toyota. That said, the combination of tiny mirrors for fuel economy, and massive pillars that create even more massive blind spots, make a quite small car feel about twice its actual size. I like my 2006 Legacy a lot better. Reasonable pillar width, essentially no blind spots, but would still perform very well in a crash.
|
Flavien Vidal
> TheLOUDMUSIC- Put it in H!
11/01/2016 at 00:15 |
|
Driving a car broken to the point that you need to take care of it while driving is not exactly smart either...
facw
> Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
11/01/2016 at 00:26 |
|
Scary thing of course is that that “old Sentra” is a 2015 model year car.
RallyWrench
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 00:32 |
|
You’re right, of course, but this doesn’t diminish my want for a good B13 Sentra SE-R.
Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 00:33 |
|
SILENCE, HERETIC
Sam
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 00:34 |
|
But not all accidents are avoidable by paying more attention. And why would you want to be in constant fear of dying every time you go out on the road? That’s just a recipe for clinical depression and anxiety.
But in all, there’s never been any proof that driver of new cars drive more dangerously than those in older cars.
|
Sam
> DipodomysDeserti
11/01/2016 at 00:48 |
|
Yes, but you’re also an enthusiast driving a car that is considered a classic nowadays. They made 1.8 million Corvairs. If even a fraction of them survived this long, you’d see them on the road all the time.
New cars can survive with basic maintainence after the initial “lifetime” of the car. 60s and 70s cars required a ton of work to keep them running past a certain point, so people just dumped them. Some of them ended up in the hands of enthusiasts who preserved them over the years, and eventually they became collector cars.
Source: My dad used to buy cheap 60s and 70s cars in the 80s, because they were very clapped out and super cheap after 10-20 years.
|
Sam
> CB
11/01/2016 at 00:51 |
|
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but SUVs and trucks are objectively safer. In most states, SUV and truck deaths are 40%, or lower, of total deaths in vehicle collisions (including motorcycle and pedestrian deaths).
Birddog
> gmporschenut also a fan of hondas
11/01/2016 at 00:52 |
|
X frame GM cars were notoriously weak.
Buick frame pictured but identical to that Impala frame.
|
Sam
> gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee
11/01/2016 at 00:53 |
|
A bonus of this is that cars are more likely to be repairable after a mild to moderate collision, because the damage is contained within one part of the overall structure.
Sneaky Pete
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 01:02 |
|
Dead. They’re all DEAD!
|
CB
> Sam
11/01/2016 at 01:04 |
|
But what percentage of vehicles on the road are SUVs and trucks versus smaller vehicles? I’d want to see a per capita style comparison before a conclusion is made (such as x accidents out of total accidents in sedans/small cars are fatal versus x accidents out of total accidents in SUVs/trucks are fatal). Make sense?
|
Flavien Vidal
> Sam
11/01/2016 at 01:18 |
|
True, but an immense majority is. And it’s not about driving in fear, it’s about keeping that in mind.
And older cars are more involving to drive, require more attention, maintenance and do punish your lead foot. They do create better drivers, I don’t see how they would not. Same goes on with automatics drivers vs manual drivers...
derf
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 01:24 |
|
Seatbelts? Still?! I could at least understand “I can’t be arsed” - it’s not a good reason not to wear a seatbelt, but it makes more sense than actually thinking it’s a bad idea.
Accident reports that include the phrase “ejected from the vehicle” never end well.
|
Sam
> CB
11/01/2016 at 01:26 |
|
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html
I can tell you that for new vehicles trucks and SUVs massively dwarf cars.
|
gogmorgo - rowing gears in a Grand Cherokee
> DipodomysDeserti
11/01/2016 at 01:34 |
|
What’s already been said.
Sure, they may not have been burning huge amounts of oil or anything, but given how many wear items existed and how many things needed adjusted... A tune up was something literally every car required at least once a year, and if it didn’t get it it wouldn’t run very well at all. We’re talking adjusting points so it actually runs, adjusting valve lash so the valve train doesn’t rattle itself apart, in addition to regular oil changes, filters, etc. Skip a couple and the car’s done. The few remaining examples of each model have either been very well maintained, or else require a nearly full rebuild to get back on the road.
Plus the economy lead to cars simply being less expensive in general, so they were a tossable commodity to most. Why drive around in an old, outdated car (just about every model year was different) when you could just get a new one?
|
Sam
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 01:35 |
|
But those things are also distractions. Having to keep an eye on your gauges and rowing your own gears does not mean more attention to the road, it means more attention to the gauges and the gears. I drive a car from 78, and it is not at all safer because I am paying more attention. It’s even less safe, because something catastrophic that causes a crash is more likely to happen than in a late model Camry or something.
|
Sam
> derf
11/01/2016 at 01:36 |
|
You’re lucky this isn’t the FP. Some Luddite would reply with link to crashes that a person survived *because* they were ejected. Ignoring the fact that they only survived because they won the Casualty Lottery that day.
|
Sam
> Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
11/01/2016 at 01:40 |
|
You do get used to the sight lines eventually (Source: Drove a bunch of Jags and Volvos with a rear window that only showed a sliver of the sky). Honestly, most of the hatred for modern visibilty is because people like us drive cars without them and aren’t used to them. (They are getting pretty ridiculous, though) I mean, if they’re that difficult to see out of, how do people drive them all the time without crashing into things?
slipperysallylikespenguins
> Sam
11/01/2016 at 01:52 |
|
They are constantly crashing into things. Just go to a Walmart parking lot and see how many bumper corners are pushed in and how many fenders are creased. Just because you get used to it doesn’t make it acceptable. Example: Herpes. You’ll get used to having it, but you still don’t want it.
Amoore100
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 01:52 |
|
Meanwhile, Volvo’s almost-fifteen-year-old design still beat many newer ones when it came to a test introduced but a few years ago:
vs Honda’s all-new design that year:
Yes, it doesn’t tell the full story, but it does give me some ease when we’re driving around in our decade-plus old Vo’s.
Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 02:08 |
|
This is known as “risk homeostasis theory”: humans in aggregate are pretty good at assessing risk and adjust their behaviour to maintain a “comfortable” level of risk. The poster child for this was the “Munich Taxi experiment” in which half of a fleet of taxis were equipped with abs and the other half weren’t. Over 3 years the accident rate for both halves was identical, because the drivers with abs drove more aggressively.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20071121093703/http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
|
Flavien Vidal
> Sam
11/01/2016 at 02:10 |
|
Then you need to properly maintain your cars. If you drive an old car and remotely think, in 2016 that because it’s old, something might brake down causing you to die, then you’re better off with a modern car indeed. I daily drive a 31 year old car and I’m 100% confident that nothing will fail catastrophically. It’s called maintenance and it’s required, whether the car is old or new.
Same thing goes for gauges. If you need to monitor gauges like this, then you don’t maintain your car properly. Keeping an eye on gauges and liquid levels is not something more important in newer or older cars and neither require more attention unlesss they are not properly maintained.
Also, if shifting yourself means you’re not paying enough attention to what’s going on the road, you would need driver ed classes and shouldn’t be driving a manual. A manual allows you to brake harder, cancels the risks of terrible kickdowns at the wrong moments and allows much better throttle response. If driving a manual is not an automatism (pun intended), then you need to get back to driving school and take a lot more lessons before going on the road on your own with a manual.
|
Flavien Vidal
> Distraxi's idea of perfection is a Jagroen
11/01/2016 at 02:30 |
|
Interesting read! And here we are talking about an experiment where the actual risks of death are the same between both cars. Potential death was not a factor of the experiment as they were driving downtown, where solely risks of accident were factored.
A bit hard to explain what I have in mind, but the goal of those taxis was to use their cars to the maximum of their abilities, keeping the risks to an acceptable level, knowing that accidents would most certainly only cause material damages to their cars. Make them understand that accidents would put their lives in joepardy a lot more, I’m sure their behavior would change accordingly (and maybe they’d stop driving like the taxi drivers they are lol).
ie: “Alright guys, your new taxi might get you killed in case of an accident, while your older taxi was a lot safer. Your new taxi also has no computerized driving helps whatsoever. Enjoy your day at work!”
I did laugh at this part too: “No difference in accident or severity rate between ABS and non-ABS vehicles was observed, but ABS taxis had more accidents under slippery driving conditions than the comparison vehicles.” :)
AMGtech - now with more recalls!
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 02:37 |
|
Dude. They all died. In flaming wrecks. Not cool, bro.
pip bip - choose Corrour
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 04:35 |
|
i like how in the Tsuru when they hit , the centre vents detach and end up flying out the passenger window.
jimz
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 04:37 |
|
“No one ever said that...”
oh yes they do. but it’s in one of two forms:
1) “well, old cars were better because a parking lot fender bender didn’t cost $2000 to fix.” that doesn’t mean they were safer, you cantankerous old fuck.
2) “Well, we never wore seatbelts and were running around mom’s station wagon while she was driving 80 miles per hour down the highway, and we survived just fine!” Yeah, tell that to the people who didn’t. the rate of on-road fatalities in the late ‘60s-early ‘70s was almost three times higher than it is today.
“’member berries” are very, very intoxicating.
|
Flavien Vidal
> jimz
11/01/2016 at 04:40 |
|
As I said in a precedent answer, this tiny minority of peopleis to be ignored... Seeing how they talk, they won’t be living very long anyway as they are either too old to last or too stupid to wear seatbelt and they should their fate should come pretty soon :)
It reminds me of this guy:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/york-rider-dies-protesting-motorcycle-helmet-law/story?id=13993417
|
jimz
> DipodomysDeserti
11/01/2016 at 04:41 |
|
Survivorship bias. a few meticulously-cared-for survivors don’t mean the car was somehow “better.”
it’s like people saying “they don’t make ‘em like that anymore” when a restored ‘57 Bel Air shows up at Barrett-Jackson or Mecum. Uh, no, one lovingly-preserved Bel Air doesn’t offset the hundreds of thousands of 150s and 210s which were wrecked and scrapped or just rotted away.
|
jimz
> Amoore100
11/01/2016 at 04:44 |
|
the Fusion did fairly well also. you know why?
Luck. Watch what the Volvo does. The shape of the front end deflects the car away from the barrier when it hits. Cars that did poorly on that test didn’t deflect, they let the barrier ram full-force into the A-pillar/door aperture.
cluelessk
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 04:57 |
|
My Dad always says you don’t buy a car planning to crash it so crash test ratings don’t matter.
I’ve been trying to get him to replace my Mom’s Montana for years.
LongbowMkII
> jimz
11/01/2016 at 06:12 |
|
Volvo designed for the partial offset test before it was required. Volvo engineers saw that it was a deadly type of accident and worked to fix it before it was mandated.
|
LongbowMkII
> cluelessk
11/01/2016 at 06:15 |
|
That should be replaced on general principle. Your mother has a heart of gold putting up with that.
VonBootWilly - Likes Toyota, but it's still complicated.
> Amoore100
11/01/2016 at 07:10 |
|
I do consider the offset results, but it’s also worth noting the likelyhood of offsetting into a steel block at a somewhat low~ish speed. It’s far more likely you are going to be offsetting into another vehicle at a much greater speed anyway. But I do value these results no less. Main reason why I got rid of my Pontiac Montana (har har).
I commute on a 2-lane highway filled with bad driving. I had to give up the older DD (350hp 1990 Cressida) for that time I might need science and progress to save my ass.
XJDano
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 07:19 |
|
I have seen a few metro crash test videos, & after looking over the sub-frame that was starting to rust rot out, it was only a matter of time before something catastrophic happened. Plus as a work car with a bunch of tools it’d be more dangerous with flying objects. Although I was sad to see it go, it needed to go.
j250ex
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 07:27 |
|
Some people just just plain dumb. Hell you have a surprisingly large amount of people who think the world is flat.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 08:09 |
|
The whole more attention required thing is bullshit, sorry.
The manual thing is so dumb, I drive manual and it certainly doesn’t stop me from eating while driving or playing with my phone. I just choose not to do those because they are dangerous, not because I drive a manual.
People who will drive distracted will always drive distracted.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Sam
11/01/2016 at 08:15 |
|
I daily a Mustang, the visibility doesn’t affect me at all anymore
|
Jayhawk Jake
> slipperysallylikespenguins
11/01/2016 at 08:15 |
|
How do you know they wouldn’t do that anyways?
|
Flavien Vidal
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 08:36 |
|
Sorry, can’t properly text when driving... Maybe on the freeway? Glad you can though. How about doing it with no power steering this time? And what if it rains? Snowing maybe? And no abs?
I can drive a modern automatic in the snow all while texting... No problem. With the rx7? Nope sorry. I could try, sure but id just stop to get it over with because it would a pain in the ass. Same goes in the dry, having to shift, downshift, all while keeping track with what’s going on. Yes I can and could do it very occasionally, but overtime? Fuck no. Give me a 2016 automatic Corolla for that.
Also it’s not necessarily about being able to do it. It’s about doing it in enough comfort that you can spend quite a bit of time doing it while not really caring... Modern automatics provide that comfort. Old manuals don’t.
|
Daily Drives a Dragon - One Last Lap
> facw
11/01/2016 at 08:47 |
|
I’m well aware that they stopped making it for the Mexican market this year.
Bourbon&JellyBeans
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 08:51 |
|
C’mon Jake. You *ARE* less likely to be injured during an accident while driving an older car...because you’re probably dead.
|
CB
> Sam
11/01/2016 at 09:10 |
|
Cheers. just prefer easily identifiable ratios to raw numbers.
|
Amoore100
> jimz
11/01/2016 at 10:52 |
|
Yep, Longbow is right. The reason every Volvo since the 1999 S80 has had the sculpted body lines is because of the curved rails they put along the body to deflect energy in offset impacts. They were doing small frontal overlap before it was cool. Also, Ford was working with Volvo on the EUCD Platform to make the Fusion, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some extra features worked their way into Fords.
|
Amoore100
> VonBootWilly - Likes Toyota, but it's still complicated.
11/01/2016 at 10:53 |
|
Agreed. I keep thinking I’d love to DD a classic someday, then I realize how much I preserve my life and that the statistics of not being in an accident would likely not be in my favor.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> jimz
11/01/2016 at 11:25 |
|
When people say “they don’t make them like that” I think they’re usually referring to the level of craftsmanship and style that went into designing old cars, not necessarily whether the fifty year-old paint could prevent corrosion, or whether it could protect you in an accident.
Having road tripped a few times through the rural American West and Mexico, I can tell you that there are tons of old trucks still being used today. Their owners aren’t enthusiasts, and while they’re cared for, it definitely can’t be described as meticulous.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Flavien Vidal
11/01/2016 at 12:31 |
|
All of those conditions wouldn’t prevent you from texting while driving if so inclined. Leave it in a gear and lug around. One hand on the wheel. Shift with the hand holding the phone if necessary. Is it easy? No. Would I recommend it? Absolutely not. But do all your conditions make it IMPOSSIBLE? Fuck no.
My point is that modern cars aren’t to blame for modern drivers. Modern drivers are to blame for modern drivers, and our lazy drivers education and simple licensing don’t do anything to help the matter.
If you take an idiot teenager that texts while driving and teach them to drive a stick and force them to I guarantee it won’t stop them from being an idiot and texting while driving
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Bourbon&JellyBeans
11/01/2016 at 12:33 |
|
Guess that answers the “does it hurt?” question.
Rykilla303
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 14:43 |
|
meh. commuted in my 77 k15, zero safety systems, lap belts only. none of these arguments crossed my mind, i just enjoyed my drive.
i think most old car owners are similar, these arguments don’t often get made, we’re too busy enjoying our vehicles.
|
Flavien Vidal
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 19:50 |
|
Yeah, it’s like gun laws. If the result is not zero, then it’s useless...
Again, I could probably drive using my feet to steer and my hands to accelerate, brake and shift if I wanted to. It’s not impossible.
The point is that you need both handsif you have no power steering, you need to use your hands to shift and your car is more prone to kill you if you crash. That doesn’t make texting and distracted driving impossible, it makes it very uncomfortable and for a majority of people it’s already enough to stop doing it. I’m sure some people will keep on trying, but get my wife to drive a car with no power steering that she has to shift herself and it’s way enough for her to even stop talking to me while she drives.
Also, not everyone is American here and get a driver license in a couple weeks with no substantial training. For many of us, getting our license took months of practice, studying and tests.
|
slipperysallylikespenguins
> Jayhawk Jake
11/01/2016 at 22:03 |
|
Oh they would for sure. I just like to imagine its worse now due to visibility issues and distractions.
Gonemad
> Jayhawk Jake
11/10/2016 at 11:28 |
|
Here’s a tip for the paranoids out there:
If you can’t see a spot around the car, assume someone is there. With a silent motorcycle, waiting to be rammed, and will end up under your rims if you are not looking. Like a suicidal Mario Bros. ghost.
Because some assholes DO like to hide in your blind spots with near-silent scooters and inconspicuous clothing.
Presto, you became a better driver.