Health Today ran an article concerning teens getting hurt and/or killed in older cars. Seems the percentages are higher for personal injury in them. Now it's modern's their talking about. Cars from 11 to 15 years old. Their claim is the cars aren't as safe as newer models. The first thing that came to mind was thank the Lord the author wasn't concerned about really old cars. She would have had a real campaign issue if she did and you know how, once these folks get their teeth into what sounds like good press, they hang on like rabid dogs. It's the kind of story that worries me. Some day some body will get on a high horse and cause trouble for the collector car set.
I would think there are more injuries with teens in older cars, because that is what they drive. Teens can't afford brand new vehicles - some can, but most can't.
Maybe I am thinking the wrong way here? Did the author actually compare apples to apples?
If I remember correctly, those teen years were my crazy years and it did not matter if the car was old or new. I would do things that probably were unsafe and could and did result in a few accidents. Lucky for me and my friends, no one was hurt.
Life is a learning experience and sometime we have to learn things the hard way. (with accidents)
Some people thought that younger people were bad drivers, so they raised the age to get a driver's license. In Idaho years ago, you could get a day time license when you were 14 (the same age you can fly an airplane solo) and a full time license at 16. This allowed young drivers to get experience while their reaction times were better and by the time they were allowed to drive at night, they had experience. Now the driver's license is at 16 and they are turned loose with not restrictions with out experience. T number of accidents in the 14-16 year old range went to almost zero but strangely enough, the accident rate went up among the 16-18 year old drivers,
Remember Cash for Clunkers.
It was meant to get gas guzzlers off the road but it had another purpose.
Some say it was a success, others say it was not.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-the-safety-adv antages-with-new-cars/index.htm
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204884404574366664026140786
I think most of us started out with older, used or hand-me-down vehicles for a reason. Our parents were wiser than to let us go out and beat on the new family sedan. When I see kids head out of the school parking lot these days, most of them accelerate pretty hard. I wasn't any different at that age. However, after trashing a couple of rear ends, transmissions, and engines along the way, I not only learned how to repair things but also the merits of taking it easy on my vehicles. My vehicles last a whole bunch longer now and look better too. Lesson learned.
Sometimes I wonder if there is as much incentive to drive carefully when you have seat belts, air bags good insurance and good brakes. I'm glad I learned to drive a Model A in the 60's.
Rich
Locally, out here in Southern California, Standard Oil of California-Chevron was the sponsor of the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
They would pay up to $750 for any pre-1975 auto that could be driven under it's own power to their "Reclamation Center" and the owner would receive cash. They said they were just doing their part to help clean the air.
Another thing that they were doing but not advertising was, for every car they took in, they were allowed to dump more pollutants into the air from their refineries. Sort of a carbon credit plan.
What the article states is exactly what you guys are saying: can't afford a new car/not going to allow junior to wreck the family bus but it states also that the older cars are less safe than newer ones and she's only talking about cars from 11 to 15 years old never mind Model T or collector car vintage in general. I hope she doesn't look into that because she'll have a book out of it for sure ala Ralph Nader.
Why take personal responsibility for one's driving when we can blame it on the machine, right ?
My first car in 1970 was a 1950 Plymouth 4 door Delux. No Seat Belts, Turn Signals, Airbags, Metal Dash. The Only safety feature was Brakes. How did I survive??
You could be in a army tank and still get hurt if you did something stupid enough like text and drive.
I know for a fact that as a young man I was a bit reckless. My 1974 Lincoln left the longest black mark on record at that time in 1984 right in front our high school my senior year. A tad over a 130 feet long without breaks in it.
And thankfully I was well hid in the parking lot the next day as the numbers came from the highway patrol that measured it and the statement was made,"we want this sucker!"
But you know,after it was explained to me that tires cost money, and then it was shown to me as to money leaving my wallet,I learned better.Now the old car has good tires on it and they stay that way. 30 years later and I think that was the last black mark I made with it.
Mack - I thinking that that 130 foot long black mark was probably without breaks and, without brakes, right?
.......sorry,........couldn't resist,.........harold
Remember Cash for Clunkers? What do you mean by that? They are still doing it.
I just turned in my '90 Ford Aerostar for $1,000
this summer.
Then this fall I turned in my daughter's '94 Saturn for another thousand.
I did the same with a Plymouth Voyager, a Toyota pickup and a Chev Nova, only some of them got me $1500.
I paid less than that for them when we first got them.
The government loves to piss away money.
Without interruptions in the mark I guess would be a better way to explain it Harold
So Aaron, you turn in for destruction a running van for that little money? wow.
I forgot the exact amount of cars that were destroyed in just Michigan alone because that debacle,cash for clunkers, but I remember 3 Maserati's were on the list. Some people have poop for brains in a case like that.
Some people turned in their clunkers for cash, then saw them later in a used car lot...
Hey Richard,
My wife and I were on the board of directors of the Magic Valley Safe Kids Coalition years ago. We had access to safety statistics that had not been "cleansed". Some in the group was wanting to push for a primary seat belt law, I point out that the statistics indicated that people who wore seat belts were more likely to be in an accident, and we did not push for a primary law. The director challenged me and I explained that it was the parachute effect. When I was younger and just starting to fly hang gliders in the 70s, there were a lot of fatalities. In the late 70s, a reserve parachute was developed (it has since evolved into a recovery system that has saved people in civil aircraft since). We expected fatalities to drop, but they did not, they skyrocketed. The reason was the added sense of safety would cause flyers to do things that were dangerous because they had a back up system. No safety system is 100%, and even a seat belt and airbag will not save a person doing something stupid.
Most people who wear a seat belt all the time, when asked what they would do if their seat belt was broken and they had to drive to the shop to get it fixed, if they would drive with more care because they were not wearing their belt would answer "yes" This means that they drive with less care because they have a false sense of security.
Yeah,.....no room for "hanky-panky" in THAT program, right Ralph?
I believe they turned the car in to a dealer, receiving the clunker amount for trade in.
I was listening to the local radio station the other day and a caller raised an interesting point. Rather than consign his teenager to an older less safe car to save beating up the new family car, he drove the older car and let the kid have the newer one. His rationale, "I can replace the new car easily. I cannot replace my kid!"
Kind of makes you think. What do we value most?
Allan from down under.
I never wrecked any of my old cars but I ruined my folks new car when I was doing a parts run for my car. My dad drove my car to and from work till his was fixed, Don.
"Now it's modern's their talking about. Cars from 11 to 15 years old."
How stupid can you get? Our 11 year old Mercury minivan has all the safety features of a new car, and has Advance Trac, the traction and stability control that most new cars don't have. It has side airbags, too.
The quality of a modern car is most important. The author should have been writing about quality built cars vs. cheap tin cans.
By Allan Bennett - Australia on Saturday, December 20, 2014 - 11:07 pm:
I was listening to the local radio station the other day and a caller raised an interesting point. Rather than consign his
teenager to an older less safe car to save beating up the new family car, he drove the older car and let the kid have the
newer one. His rationale, "I can replace the new car easily. I cannot replace my kid!"
Kind of makes you think. What do we value most?
======================================
Allan from down under,
Kids can (and are) replaced at an ever-increasing rate. There is no shortage of kids. There IS a shortage of people
with brains (kids included). Just because someone draws air does not make them of value. It is only in their actions
that value is determined.
Kids apparently cost nothing to replace, Some people are throwing them away at an enormous rate.
Mark and others,
When you buy a van for $1000 or less and use it two years and find out it won't pass smog and it has well over 200 thousand miles on it, it leaks oil, needs a transmission or rear end beside and engine rebuild I see nothing wrong on my part for turning it in for the thousand dollars.
I was turning in my daughter's Saturn when a truck pulled up with a 2000 something Jag sedan on it.
I went and looked at the car.
The truck driver said it had bearing noise in the engine, I could see the fenders were all dented, it needed a new windshield and the interior was trashed.
I figured I could rebuild the car for around $20,000 and maybe sell it for 3 or 4 thousand.
So call me poop for brains you dumb ass.
When I turned my '82 Toyota pickup in it had 324,000 miles and needed a new head. It used a gallon of water every two miles and the front bumper, grill and one fender were smashed.
Ya, I should have fixed that worn out rattle trap and kept it I guess.
The cars I have turned in I could not sell as they were too worn out and wouldn't pass smog, in most cases.
In every case I got the same amount or more than I paid for the vehicles when I got them.
Mark and others,
When you buy a van for $1000 or less and use it two years and find out it won't pass smog and it has well over 200 thousand miles on it, it leaks oil, needs a transmission or rear end beside and engine rebuild I see nothing wrong on my part for turning it in for the thousand dollars.
I was turning in my daughter's Saturn when a truck pulled up with a 2000 something Jag sedan on it.
I went and looked at the car.
The truck driver said it had bearing noise in the engine, I could see the fenders were all dented, it needed a new windshield and the interior was trashed.
I figured I could rebuild the car for around $20,000 and maybe sell it for 3 or 4 thousand.
So call me poop for brains you dumb ass.
When I turned my '82 Toyota pickup in it had 324,000 miles and needed a new head. It used a gallon of water every two miles and the front bumper, grill and one fender were smashed.
Ya, I should have fixed that worn out rattle trap and kept it I guess.
The cars I have turned in I could not sell as they were too worn out and wouldn't pass smog, in most cases.
In every case I got the same amount or more than I paid for the vehicles when I got them.
"....I figured I could rebuild the car for around $20,000 and maybe sell it for 3 or 4 thousand. ..."
???
That business model is called:
BUY HIGH - SELL LOW
... been doing it my whole life now and gotten pretty good at it !