Reply from Insurance Institute: Crashing '59 Chevy

What's wrong with this picture?

One life-long hobbyist is working to preserve and expand our hobby by questioning the motives of an organization that is:

1. Openly documenting our cars as comparatively unsafe, thus providing ammunition for persons who want to remove or restrict the use of old cars.

2. Reducing the number of old cars available by destroying at least one intentionally (like we don't have enough destroyed in accidents and the seemingly-increasing number of collector-car building fires every year).

3. Raising the prices of remaining old cars by destroying even one, creating a perception that may be harmful to the hobby.

4. Reducing the number of potential new hobbyists by raising the prices of entry-level collector cars, thus reducing the number of people involved in the hobby when they may all be needed to "fight the fight."

5. Adding to any existing negative public perception of "those old cars" through the wholesale distribution of an embarrasing video of an old car in a compromising situation in which it is bound to "lose."

So who winds up in the crosshairs of some fellow hobbyists as a result; the hobbyist on the front line, or the organization in question? (What's the old expression; "Who needs enemies when you have "friends"" like these?")

I'd defend to the death the right of every enthusiast to legally own and legally enjoy his collector car(s) no matter what his "take" on the hobby (stock, modified, slammed, rodded, retroed, you name it; we're all in this together), but members of The Insurance Institute for Automotive Safety would benefit greatly if no vehicle over 5 years old ever again saw the light of day anywhere, except to be hauled off and bailed to provide scrap for new Toyotas.

Nobody said they didn't have a "right" to crash the '59 Chevrolet, but in light of The Institute's best interests, my point is that hobbyists would do well to question why they did it, and the likely impact on our hobby, both short and long-term.

 

You hit the nail on the head...As much as I didnt like this "test" and not sure it proves anything...and that it does not help my/our hobby I would rather be in the 09 if an accident were to occur.

The test was to show how a human body acts in an accident. Not how strong or how well a car could hold up. The "dummy" in the 09 would have walked away. Probably not so for the "dummy" in the 59

 

well, i'd say the 59 held up better than this truck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RszRFAbfF04&feature=related

 

Instead of the X frame the IIHS should use a full size perimeter frame, this one held up pretty good considering . http://www.angelfire.com/ca/mineryhomepage/67accident.html

 

Omigosh, what a terrible story. That happened ten years ago. Is there an update as to how David McKewan is doing?

 

Now that was quite a bang...and he survied while others in the other car died.

 

I like the comment about "celebrating" like drunks. Very fitting.

 

If he had had a shoulder belt installed, I bet he woulda been a whole lot better off. Thank God for good ole' American Iron. And a Damm shame about the car-sounded like a real beaut.
Robert

 

Not for the faint of heart, to be sure, but the driver of the 1959 Chevrolet in this Driver Ed training film (the third accident described in the video) actually walked away from the wreck and is seen stepping into the front seat of the ambulance!

Unbelievable.

(And who is old enough to remember these films being shown in "Drivers Ed?") BP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G844qTtTShA

 

Bob, I agree with you 100%. I've watched far too many of these "nanny" organizations operate over the years. The ultimate goal for many in the IIHS is to remove old cars from their owners and to destroy them. After that, we can all ride around in cars like the 4 wheeled outhouse that I passed on I-70 today. The Beavis & Butthead segments in our society will be perfectly happy sitting in the pot till it boils over. Even more amazing to me, is when Beavis brings up private property concerns, regarding an insurance industry organization dedicated to usurping our right to.......what else, private property.o No: