I thought new cars were safer? What happened?

sgoldperson

You really need to stop trolling. First off no one in their right mind is going to believe this. Second that WAS safer then you realize. The front end in CRUMPLED, so it took the impact from hitting the driver. Had that been a car with a METAL FRAME and bumper hitting a Caddy it would have done more damage AND would have put the impact on the drivers and caused injuries.

That's a total crock of Shiites. If this car hit you with enough force to do that much damage, you would have felt more than a slight bump.

When you decide to tell one of these stories in the future check around and make sure that no other vintage car owners are in your audience.

oklatom

He hit you. That makes it his fault, so you don't have anything to worry about there. But do call your insurance and make a report.

The safety feature of the 2010 Civic is the crumple zone, that did its job by absorbing the impact of the hit and keeping the driver safe.

PMack

I'd guess maybe he was unconscious before he hit you, and that's why he hit you. that and/or he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. It sounds like he went under the back of your car, but you are comparing a sub 3000 lb car with a car that weighs over 5000 lbs.

You shouldn't worry about getting sued, it sounds like the accident was his fault anyway, and you should get your car checked out, I'd guess there is some damage that isn't apparent.

pbleek

Very funny story, i cant believe some people took this seriously.

StephenWeinstein

Possibility one:

New cars are safer. That is why he is alive. Being in front (in any car) is safer than being in back (in any car). Being in front in a new car is safest, and is safer than being in an old car in front. Being in back in an old car is the most dangerous, and is less safe than being in a new car in back. Position makes a bigger difference than vehicle age. In any particular position, a new car is safer than an old car would be in that position, but is not safer than a new car is a safer position. If the Civic in back was from 1964, he might be dead now.

Possibility two:

He was not wearing a seat belt. New cars are safer. That is why he is alive. Wearing a seat belt (in any car) is safer than being in back (in any car). Being in a seat belt in a new car is safest, and is safer than being in an old car in a seat belt. Being in an old car without a seat belt is the most dangerous, and is less safe than being in a new car without a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt makes a bigger difference than vehicle age. If he had been wearing a seat belt, then he would not have been unconscious.

Possibility three:

He faked it. His Civic was already damaged, perhaps on purpose, and he rammed you because he wanted to sue. He was not really unconscious; he was pretending. Or he was really unconscious, but only because his attempt to crash on purpose went farther than he intended.

Possibility four:

He hit something else, besides your car. The damage to his car, and his injuries, are from a serious accident involving something other than your car. Hitting your car did not cause the damage to his car or the injuries to him. New cars are safer. That is why he is alive. If the car in the serious accident was from 1964, he might be dead now.

If your 1964 Cadillac had been in that collision, you might be dead now. The reason that everyone lived is that the 1964 car was only in a very minor accident and only the 2010 car was in the major one.

Tuto

YEP!!

Dimo J

The apex was the 5mph Federal Bumpers. New cars are engineered to maximize collision damage, 20 mph hits will up $5,000. Collision body shops make big money.

The Federal people keep showing the death drops -- but they have the rate of collisions. The death rate per collision is UP. The decades of heavy steel had 28 deaths per thousand collisions. The new "safe" cars have 37 deaths per thousand collisions.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: