What speed did you crash? Definitely not as safe as today's new cars. All the 90's cars barely passed the test at only 40mph, with a mild pillar bend. The lumina wouldn't take a side hit well, no 90's cars would, car makers didn't make the changes until after they got exposed.
I bet what you survived in your 1995 Lumina would have killed you in a 1960s car I will definitely give you that!!!! But...you either had a lucky angle of impact or were at a reasonable speed. Nothing from the 1990s holds a candle to anything from nowadays. That being said, even today's cars are still very very fatal if you have a DIRECT impact at freeway speeds. Once you have an impact speed beyond a hairy threshold there is only so much restraints and airbags can do to slow the deceleration forces for a direct impact with solid immovable object, or T-bone crash. Generally that is around 45mph for frontal crash and 30mph for side pole crash... But all things considered... 2020 vehicles will very frequently save your life in a crash that in a 1995 anything would leave you dead instantly, particularly with side crashes. Deaths per million drivers rates declined between the 1970s and 2010s dramatically, as a result of changes like seatbelt use, followed by structure improvements and safety features. Around 2015 we reached a sort of plateau on increasing safety of structure design... But the hope is that crash avoidance tech will lower it even further in coming years. I have seen the numbers and deaths per million rates by vehicle models were close to twice as many deaths in the 1990s or early 2000s cars compared to late 2010s vehicles.
@@gabesmath105 I was telling him that he is part right and part wrong. a 1995 Lumina would be a lot safer than anything from the 1960s... but mainly about front or rear impacts. Side crash safety was nothing for the duration of the entire 20th century. Only in 2005 and later were new vehicles given side crash safety attention.
They have... but I always remind people even the latest tech is only really effective at low to moderate speed impacts so slow down!!! Useless if you go into a tree at freeway speed and impact directly.
@@WeekendsOutsideFL thats with solid objects you mean. But cars have gotten to be the safest they've ever been. Nowadays people can survive freeway wrecks in cars built today.
You are right... But its more! Its about the type of impacts that you encounter as you lose control until you stop moving. Freeway wrecks that people survive are survivable because of the way the crashes happen and how the forces are absorbed. The combination of spinning and clipping things indirectly as you skid, and impacts that are not DIRECT. If you do a little digging about physics and car crash statistics, look into Head-On crashes as the best example. Your odds of surviving if you have a head-on into a similar car when each car is going 50mph are way way way less than if you simply lose control on the freeway at 65mph and crash, indirectly, into the guard rails and some other cars. Everybody is going the same direction. But if you increase the speed you are travelling from 65 mph to, say, 85mph, the chances that you will experience a fatal impact are soooooo much higher! I spend hours a day digging into this so I just know more about it than most. Modern cars are still much safer because like you said, most impacts are not into solid objects AND... most freeway impacts are indirect. The moral of the story is that even the safest newest car won't save you if you have a head on at 60mph.
@@gabesmath105 Ok Whew I finally think I know how to say what I mean... Modern cars are vastly safer than old ones from the 1970s. But the lion's share of lives saved in newer cars... have to do with crashes of a moderate speed like 30 to 40 mph head-on, and side crashes. These used to always be fatal in the old days... They also help with indirect freeway crashes and spinouts. BUT when it comes to direct impacts at highway speeds... like a wrong-way head on driver... or wrapping around a tree... the "Improvements" of new cars are much less helpful and matter a lot less, it usually kills anyway. I assume most people have a life and dont spend as much time as I do on this but if you spent a lot of time studying you will see the data.
Now this is excellent! Wish this was on NHTSA's Database.
Luminas may have been disposable junk but they were safe. I totaled a 1995 and walked away with only an airbag burn.
What speed did you crash?
Definitely not as safe as today's new cars.
All the 90's cars barely passed the test at only 40mph, with a mild pillar bend.
The lumina wouldn't take a side hit well, no 90's cars would, car makers didn't make the changes until after they got exposed.
I am glad you're OK.
I bet what you survived in your 1995 Lumina would have killed you in a 1960s car I will definitely give you that!!!! But...you either had a lucky angle of impact or were at a reasonable speed. Nothing from the 1990s holds a candle to anything from nowadays. That being said, even today's cars are still very very fatal if you have a DIRECT impact at freeway speeds. Once you have an impact speed beyond a hairy threshold there is only so much restraints and airbags can do to slow the deceleration forces for a direct impact with solid immovable object, or T-bone crash. Generally that is around 45mph for frontal crash and 30mph for side pole crash... But all things considered... 2020 vehicles will very frequently save your life in a crash that in a 1995 anything would leave you dead instantly, particularly with side crashes. Deaths per million drivers rates declined between the 1970s and 2010s dramatically, as a result of changes like seatbelt use, followed by structure improvements and safety features. Around 2015 we reached a sort of plateau on increasing safety of structure design... But the hope is that crash avoidance tech will lower it even further in coming years. I have seen the numbers and deaths per million rates by vehicle models were close to twice as many deaths in the 1990s or early 2000s cars compared to late 2010s vehicles.
@@gabesmath105 I was telling him that he is part right and part wrong. a 1995 Lumina would be a lot safer than anything from the 1960s... but mainly about front or rear impacts. Side crash safety was nothing for the duration of the entire 20th century. Only in 2005 and later were new vehicles given side crash safety attention.
Can you upload more Dateline broadcasts please?
If I had more to upload, I would.
@@carsandcrashtests Oh. So you have no more?
Cars have come a long way for side impact saftey
They have indeed.
They have... but I always remind people even the latest tech is only really effective at low to moderate speed impacts so slow down!!! Useless if you go into a tree at freeway speed and impact directly.
@@WeekendsOutsideFL thats with solid objects you mean. But cars have gotten to be the safest they've ever been. Nowadays people can survive freeway wrecks in cars built today.
You are right... But its more! Its about the type of impacts that you encounter as you lose control until you stop moving. Freeway wrecks that people survive are survivable because of the way the crashes happen and how the forces are absorbed. The combination of spinning and clipping things indirectly as you skid, and impacts that are not DIRECT. If you do a little digging about physics and car crash statistics, look into Head-On crashes as the best example. Your odds of surviving if you have a head-on into a similar car when each car is going 50mph are way way way less than if you simply lose control on the freeway at 65mph and crash, indirectly, into the guard rails and some other cars. Everybody is going the same direction. But if you increase the speed you are travelling from 65 mph to, say, 85mph, the chances that you will experience a fatal impact are soooooo much higher! I spend hours a day digging into this so I just know more about it than most. Modern cars are still much safer because like you said, most impacts are not into solid objects AND... most freeway impacts are indirect. The moral of the story is that even the safest newest car won't save you if you have a head on at 60mph.
@@gabesmath105 Ok Whew I finally think I know how to say what I mean... Modern cars are vastly safer than old ones from the 1970s. But the lion's share of lives saved in newer cars... have to do with crashes of a moderate speed like 30 to 40 mph head-on, and side crashes. These used to always be fatal in the old days... They also help with indirect freeway crashes and spinouts. BUT when it comes to direct impacts at highway speeds... like a wrong-way head on driver... or wrapping around a tree... the "Improvements" of new cars are much less helpful and matter a lot less, it usually kills anyway. I assume most people have a life and dont spend as much time as I do on this but if you spent a lot of time studying you will see the data.
why dont you post anymore
Do you have anymore lea Thompson reports
Unfortunately no, I don’t.
now this is some quality American propaganda !!!