“Modern Cars have better safety features? Who knew!” but I can see that would have been missed on a lot of people.

Accidents might have increased due to mobile phones, but that’s about the only factor that would make roads more dangerous than they used to be. Safety standards have come a long long way. Crumple zones are designed to leave your car un-drivable and you in tact. Not much point in being able to drive away if your head contains windshield, steering wheel and a lot less brain matter. Factor in seatbelts (and improvements to them), airbags, abs braking systems and traction control, etc and there are not only less accidents, but people are far more likely to walk away from them than they used to be.

On top of thing (again at least in Australia) laws concerning speeding, drinking while under the influence (both drugs and alcohol), etc are all much much stricter.

The best statistics I could find on this were from 1970 and 2006 in Australia.

The road toll in 2006 of 1,601 was less than half the 1970 figure, while the number of fatalities per 100,000 people (8.0) for 2006 was less than a third of that of 1970. Also, while there were 8.0 road fatalities per 10,000 registered vehicles in 1970, this rate has decreased to 1.1 in 2006.

The ’59 Bel Air used an uncommon “X” frame where the main frame rails meet in the middle under the passenger compartment. Take a look at the frame by itself:

http://image.superchevy.com/f/10374397+w750+st0/sucp_0810_09_z+custom_stainless_steel_lines+61_impala_x_frame.jpg

And then decide if you’re surprised it folded in an off-center impact.

I do believe newer cars are safer in an impact, but this particular demonstration gives an easy out to eh doubters.

Good idea. Or all cars could be designed like the Ford Pinto.

a) “Wow, those are some impressive safety improvements that you people of the 21st century enjoy” or,

b) “You still use gasoline-powered automobiles to get around? What happened to hovercars?”

They would also wonder where our moon bases are and why we aren’t traveling to other solar systems on a daily basis.

New cars get messed up in a frontal collision. They’re supposed to. It takes a lot of people (even after all of these years) a while to come around to the idea that the front end flattening back to the firewall is okay as long as there’s not intrusion in to or buckling of the passenger compartment.

When you look at crash test footage of a really poorly-performing modern car, you see that the front end starts to flatten, but then you see that energy transferred to the door sills and A-pillars, and roof, whereupon they crease and compress the passenger compartment. Front wheel intrusion is also a big problem, because it’s hard to build a crumple zone (I like the crumble zone thing, actually) in to a wheel. There are some really horrific crash test videos on YouTube showing Chinese-market cars and SUVs that just turn in to an unrecognizable blob of sheet metal, even when hit at relatively low speeds. Actually, watch the Ford Escape vs. the Chinese 4wd.

Escape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZtajbutAjI

Chinese 4wd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWy_fASSiQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmpDM8wVrUQ&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPpU5azjCB8&feature=related

1) What the hell are they doing smashing a gorgeous antique like that to bits for crying out loud, and

2) METAL FATIGUE. Not only was the 1959 Bel Aire not designed to be safe like cars are today, but it’s probably not as durable as it was when it was manufactured over 50 years ago.

This test was conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Those are the people who rate how dangerous the cars we drive are so that insurers can bill us accordingly. How much should they charge for full medical coverage if you’re driving a ’59 Bel Air? More than if you drive a 2009 Malibu, apparently.

How have the laws of physics changed? Point here is, had they done this with another car of similar weight, size, and a less unusual frame, the modern car would have lost, i dont care how good the crumple zones are, the little 2009 malibu would shoot backwards and the driver would have a snapped kneck.

“The Insurance Institute chose a “corner-to-corner” 25-30 mph accident to make the 1959 look bad (it has no collapsable steering wheel and was designed to resist a head on collision, not a corner impact).”

And say it as if it was a fact, when they have NO CLUE about what they are saying. Just a few minutes of research would show you that the IIHS ALWAYS does a 40 mph (not 25 to 30)offset test these days, because in the real world, there is ALMOST NEVER SUCH THING AS A ‘TRUE HEAD ON CRASH’. Most head on crashes are similar to that test. The odds of 2 cars actually crashing perfectly head-on is astronomical. You would have to do it on purpose in order for that to happen. And another post above was right – most pre-1990s cars would fail as well, to a varying degree. It’s in the last 5 to 10 years that the greatest advances were made. The 1959 was not ‘designed’ to resist anything – it was designed to look a certain way, and to be able to be assembled easily at the factory. Crash protection was not though about in 1959, except by Mercedes and Volvo, and even they would not do well against their modern equivalents. And this test is important – those people who are driving a car that old to a car show or cruise night, as is done all over the US all summer long, need to be very careful. If they do get into an accident, it will most likely be with an ordinary, average newer car like that malibu, not something from way back when. Or worse, with a modern SUV or pickup truck, most of which are heavier than most old cars. And those in the newer cars will walk away, and those driving their antiques will likely be dead. And don’t even start with the badly located fuel tanks. Held under the trunk where the crumple zone should be by 2 thin sheet metal straps, and a fuel filler neck behind the license plate. All ready to catch fire in a rear end collision.

I love this statement because it shows how truly how ignorant some educated people can be when they have no basis for what they are saying other than “because I said so”. That worked when I was 12 not now. Not when I can look at prior comments with links that show for one thing your version of physics is about as outdated as the car you drive. Bigger and more rigid does not always mean safer. Sure your car might come out looking better but again, where does the kinetic energy go. AND please look up the modern information on the physics of kinetic energy before you go spouting off that it is government propaganda. It does not just go away it runs right into the passenger compartment. So no matter how your car turns out looking on the outside, in a loss like this you will still likely be breathing or eating steering wheel and dash panel.

“Look at the giant rust cloud coming out from under the ’59 as they collide. I have a feeling things would be different if you took a brand new ’59 off the line and did this test with the Malibu.”

Nope. No matter how clean it is it still can’t escape modern physics.

“Dave Trent This test was quite unfair in that the 59 used the x-frame, which had no side rails, despite beefed up rocker panels (below doors).”

I keep hearing this but no one is bringing up the fact that the Malibu has a uni-body frame The only rails it has are in the front and rear and they meld into the body. With a “beefed up” rocker panel and pillars that adsorb that kinetic energy and reroute it around the passenger compartment. So essentially the frame is just as weak as the X but it uses that weakness to its advantage to save the squishy human inside.