A "modern" car is actually designed to be destroyed in an accident. The front
and rear of the car are intended to smash in and act as a giant shock absorber
thus sacrificing the car and saving the people. This is called the crumple
zone for obvious reasons. Older cars were built with the idea that the more
rigid the car is, the safer it would be. Hey, if the car survived, so would
the people. In fact what happens is the car comes to a very sudden stop (no
shock absorption) and the passengers fly forward. The car may survive with
minimal damage but the passengers could suffer far worse injuries than the
newer car that is now totaled.
David Gates
'73 Spitfire 1500 (rigid, but love it anyway)
Hawaii
In a message dated 98-07-31 21:10:07 EDT, you write:
> This whole safety issue hit home yesterday when I was driving home. As
> I started around a bend in the road, I noticed all sorts of flares
> burning on both sides of the road. As I rounded the bend, I saw the
> rear of a chrome bumper MGB on one side and the front of some
> nondescript modern car on the other. The modern car's bumper and grill
> were well caved-in. As I passed the MGB, I noticed that very little
> damage had occurred to it even though the accident was obviously a
> head-on.
>
> So, I must conclude that although safety standards have been updated in
> recent years, the cars are not necessarily any stronger because of it.
|