Reply from Insurance Institute: Crashing '59 Chevy

Discussion in 'The "Other" Bench' started by Bob Palma, Oct 7, 2009.

  1. Bob Palma

    Bob Palma Silver Level contributor

    :Comp: A couple folks asked that I post any reply from The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, regarding the letter I sent them, protesting their intentional destruction of a nice 1959 Chevrolet Bel-Air 4-door sedan a month or so ago.

    I did, in fact, get a surprising, although unbelievable, personal response from them. It may be found on our Racing Studebakers forum, as the topic of this thread:

    http://www.racingstudebakers.com/stl-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=18734#18734
     
  2. 68TriShield

    68TriShield Have a Cigar!

    This was a great read. I found their line of thought mind boggling to say the least.
     
  3. Dale

    Dale Sweepspear

    Talk about rubbing salt in the wound by essentially saying,
    "I see you are upset by our destroying this fine '59 Chevy. For your enjoyment, here is a calendar featuring the car, and a glossy photo of it being destroyed suitable for framing."
    :puzzled:

    You made a good point in your letter I hadn't considered.
    The fact that the results of this test can be used against our hobby by those that would like to see our cars off the roads.
    :Smarty:
     
  4. 69SkyInNJ

    69SkyInNJ Resto Neophyte

    Bob, thanks for taking the time to write what many of us already thought. Too bad they don't share our views.
     
  5. jjaguars84

    jjaguars84 Spammer

    Very well thought out letter Bob. Their response was less than adequate, and I thought he was a little oblivious to what it means to the collectors to see these cars on the roads.
     
  6. whamo

    whamo 454 71 skylark custom

    I thought the test was kind of stupid but hey, they bought and paid for the car. You had the opportunity to buy that car and "save" it. They can do whatever they want with it. I bought my mostly original 71 Skylark and then changed rear ends, transmissions, and engines. A purist wouldn't approve of my treatment of this car but hey its mine. I suppose it would be better if public opinion dictated to all of us what we can do with our own private property? I know it hurts to see a classic car destroyed but I doubt we want to go down the road to a place where we need to get approval from others before we exercise our own property rights.
     
  7. 71skylark3504v

    71skylark3504v Goin' Fast In Luxury!

    Someone commented on Youtube that there was no engine in the Bel Air. I wonder what a Skylark with a full frame would have done to a Malibu.:laugh:
     
  8. Brad Conley

    Brad Conley RIP Staff Member

    Since the '59 Chevy has a full frame, probably about as well. About equal size and weight, however I will give that the Skylark has a perimeter vs. "X" frame of the '59. The GM A body "should" do a little better, if nothing else because of 10 years of engineering advancement. That being said, I'd rather be in the '09 Malibu in that type of crash.
     
  9. sailbrd

    sailbrd Well-Known Member

    The Malibu would destroy the Skylark. Anyone that thinks that our old cars are safe compared to new ones is in denial.
     
  10. 71skylark3504v

    71skylark3504v Goin' Fast In Luxury!

    Don't tell my parents! :spank:
     
  11. BlackGold

    BlackGold Well-Known Member

    The two cars were obviously very close in weight, since the two of them did not move appreciably from the point of impact. (I'm assuming they were both traveling the same speed.) It would be interesting to see the same test with a much lighter new car, since that's the direction the government and tree huggers want us to go. Safety features or not, you can't fight the laws of physics, and the occupants of a lighter car will feel the impact much more than those in a heavier car. Conservation of momentum, and all that.

    I am impressed the guy at the Institute (institution? :) ) took any time to reply. They must be government-funded. :puzzled:
     
  12. Ken Riebel

    Ken Riebel Well-Known Member


    Check their website (there is a link at the end of their letter to Mr. Palma). They get their funding from the auto insurance companies. So I guess that everyones insurance premium money went to buy and destroy that old Chevy. Remember that when you premiums go up.

    The new cars are safer for the passengers than the old ones. Seems like common sense to me considering all the technology advances (not to mention the mandatory safety regulations) in the last 5 decades. If we couldn't build a safer car in 50 years time well then shame on us.
     
  13. Tom Miller

    Tom Miller Old car enthusiast

    I still want to see them re-do this test with a 73-77 4 door malibu with the 25mph chrome rail road tie front bumper:Smarty:
     
  14. John Brown

    John Brown On permanant vacation !!

    When a young lady made a left turn in front of my 76 Monte Carlo, I hit the 82 Olds 98 she was driving square in the right front tire at about 40 mph. The whole front end of the Olds was moved over about a foot, far enough you could look straight down on the top of the rf tire. I drove my Monty on to work with nothing more than a bent up front bumper and a barely cracked headlight bezel. When their insurance man called me to see where he could see my wrecked car, I asked him if he wanted me to drive it to his office on my lunch break. He had already seen the Olds and couldn't believe the Monte Carlo was even drivable. I just trimmed off the bent end of the bumper with a fire wrench and drove the car another year and a half. They totaled the Olds.
     
  15. Ken Riebel

    Ken Riebel Well-Known Member

    They would never want to pick a car like the mid seventies Malibu or Monte Carlo. The results would be much less dramatic. With 50 years of data in crash tests to chose from they will pick a car that fails miserably and find one of those to use in their comparison.

    I also owned a 1975 Monte Carlo and it was a tank. That front bumper was killer.
     
  16. 2manybuicks

    2manybuicks Founders Club Member

    I don't see any evidence that there was no engine in the Bel-Air. The guy that made that comment was probably one of the people this was targeted for -- people in denial about crash-safety improvements in modern cars.

    I think the letter back was actually pretty well written and though out. I doubt the letter writer was oblivious to old-car people's love of old cars -- it's just that they though crashing the two vehicles would make a valid and important point.

    If they used a junker 59 everyone would cry foul and say the test was not valid. If they used computer simulation everyone woul cry foul and that the test was not valid. If they just pulle out ol phtographs and statistics people would say "so what".

    If, on the other hand, they used a perfect rust-free car, no one could complain about the validity of the test and a lot of people would take notice, but they would have to tolerate the hand-wringing and whining from car-lovers.

    I suppose they could have bought a POS, restored it perfectly, and then crashed it so it was a POS again, but that just seems dumb and would have resulted in the same response from the old car lovers.

    I think they made the right call and handled the whole thing pretty well.

    -- Steve
     
  17. Bob Palma

    Bob Palma Silver Level contributor

    :Smarty: Well, Steve, my point was, and remains, "Why do this crash at all?"

    Only a few, if any, of the small number of people who think old cars are safer are going to be convinced by this destruction, so what's the point of it?

    Are insurance companies seeing such a resurgence of people driving 1961 Pontiacs or 1965 Fords for daily drivers that they want to alert people to the "danger" of doing so, "convincing" them to quit driving their 1962 Plymouth to work everyday because it is so unsafe, lest the insurance company have to pay out more on a bodily-injury claim? Not hardly.

    There was just no legitimate reason to destroy that car. What they proved is well-established fact; new cars are safer. Destroying that nice '59 Bel-Air was simply useless overkill that served no good, and plenty of "un-goods."

    I received the following reflection on this situation from a good friend and fellow automotive writer who is well-known to just about everyone on this board. (However, I'll not mention his name, in that this was in a private e-mail.)

    Regardless, I think he hit the nail squarely on the head with these words:

    "If thats how he [Mr. Zuby] celebrates birthdays, I think Ill skip parties at his house.

    Why dont we celebrate how much better we build skyscrapers today by blowing a few up?

    Or how about celebrating our advances in cancer treatment by carving up a few elderly victims using 1959 procedures?

    How about having Pete Townshend bust a couple 59 Les Paul sunburst guitars into toothpicks to demonstrate todays improved CAD machining?

    Lets crash an old Ford Tri-Motor or Lockheed Electra or maybe just an old 707 to show how much safer air travel is today.

    How about running the Mona Lisa through a Laser Printer to show advancements in digitial imaging?

    Theres no end to the fun we can have destroying irreplaceable things to prove meaningless points to people who dont care anyway."


    As far as I'm concerned, that says it all.

    By doing this, The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave ammunition to our hobby's enemies while destroying one of our cars...not to mention the money spent by policy-paying insurance company customers who were involuntarily (and unknowlingly) forced to finance this stupidity.
     
  18. whamo

    whamo 454 71 skylark custom

    The point is..... its really none of your business. The car doesnt belong to you.
     
  19. photobugz

    photobugz 1965 Skylark

    I'm really on the fence over this one.

    On one hand, it's THEIR car. They bought it after countless other's passed on it. It's theirs to do as they wish, whether it be a nice resto, a tacky mod, parted out, or crashed into bits. How many tacky mods have we seen with glow-in-the-dark paint and clown shoes? How many decent survivors have been scrapped for metal or parted out instead of restored or sold? How many nice cars have been destroyed in tv/movie car chases? (think "General Lees" + countless movies). How many cars are rotting under a tarp waiting for a resto that will never happen? Whamo is right; I don't want anyone telling me what to do/not do with my car. I bought it, you didn't, so no complaining.

    On the other hand, another old friend will be missed... and the cars we have in the garages are worth a little more.
     
  20. 2manybuicks

    2manybuicks Founders Club Member

    Some of your friend's analogies are laughable. His mastery of analogies is on a level with Alanis Morisette's grasp of irony.

    Crashing th cars proves a point about saftey at a low cost, and may actually convince some people to buy safer cars and hence save lives.

    Blowing up skyscrapers -- not too cost effective.

    I am not sure what smashing a guitar has to do with CAD machining.

    I don't at all understand the Mona Lisa thing. The cancer thing is kinda unclear too.

    The only ecent analogy is the airplane one, which is still somewhat invalid for more complex reasons.

    The worst statement is

    "Theres no end to the fun we can have destroying irreplaceable things to prove meaningless points to people who dont care anyway."

    True dat, we all like to smash stuff, but that sentence does not at all reflect what the IHS was doing.

    First, I guess the car is technically "irreplaceable" in that you can't go to the dealer an get one just like it, but so is a Pinto or any of a legion of crappy old cars that aren't full-blown $100,000 collector classics. We all throw away irreplaceable stuff every time we clean out the attic, and plenty of "irreplaceable" buicks get parted out every day.

    Uh, evidently people do care -- that's why there are a ton of responses on YouTube. People in my office were shocked by the carnage in the old car and definitely were impressed by the advancements in crash protection. So it doesn't seem meaningless.

    That old car died for a good cause. If you don't want the calendar, I'll take it.

    -- Steve
     

Share This Page