Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Studebaker fatal accident in 1965

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Studebaker fatal accident in 1965

    If you haven't already noticed these photos for sale on ebay take a look and reflect on the advances made in highway and automotive crash protection.
    Hope you've all had a safe and happy Christmas. All the best for the new year.
    http://cgi.ebay.ca/1965-Studebaker-C...item439c57cd66

    Allan - Ontario, Canada
    1963 GT Hawk
    1964 Daytona Convertible

  • #2
    I won't argue that cars aren't safer nowdays, BUT... a piece of guardrail like that - striking like this piece did - it would've gone straight thru a 2009 whatever in exatly the same fashion. And Dr. Marie would STILL be dead. Crumple zones and air bags would be neutered in this case.[B)]


    1957 Transtar 1/2ton
    1963 Cruiser
    1960 Larkvertible V8
    1958 Provincial wagon
    1953 Commander coupe
    1957 President two door

    No deceptive flags to prove I'm patriotic - no biblical BS to impress - just ME and Studebakers - as it should be.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hello Mr. Biggs. A horrific accident. One wonders what, if any, sort of end treatment was used with this guardrail or whether rub rail channel was installed under the w-beam. On today's roads a run of rail exposed to highway speed traffic would have some sort of crash attenuation device installed. But in the end it's all physics!

      Allan - Ontario, Canada
      1963 GT Hawk
      1964 Daytona Convertible

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah...I don't think it was an engineering issue.

        From deep in the Ozarks...

        Fred

        Comment


        • #5
          As a firefighter for 32 years, I always cringe at photos like these; I sometimes dread having to look in a smashed car and see what we need to do. At least w/seatbelt use, airbags, etc., I see a lot less bad stuff now, than when I first started in 1977.
          Interesting photos, though: sort of "anti-eye candy"!

          Bruce Newell
          Yakima Wa.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mr.Biggs

            I won't argue that cars aren't safer nowdays, BUT... a piece of guardrail like that - striking like this piece did - it would've gone straight thru a 2009 whatever in exatly the same fashion. And Dr. Marie would STILL be dead. Crumple zones and air bags would be neutered in this case.[B)]

            I agree, Bob, but...these from a recent email, apparently they survived, but I have zero of an idea how:

            [img][/img]



            [img][/img]



            Comment


            • #7
              I got in a wreck about a yr ago and broke me leg thanks to the new safe cars.Airbags suck,cars are made like soda cans now a days.We weren't going but 35 when it happened to and I car looked like the one in the pic.

              Comment


              • #8
                quote:Originally posted by newoldstude

                I got in a wreck about a yr ago and broke me leg thanks to the new safe cars.Airbags suck,cars are made like soda cans now a days.We weren't going but 35 when it happened to and I car looked like the one in the pic.
                And yet you walk the earth. At 35 MPH in an older car (like that Stude) you'd be dead. Maybe you need to watch the video of the Malibu & Bel Air again to get a dose of reality.

                [V]

                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Tom - Mulberry, FL

                1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2161.27)

                1964 Studebaker Commander 170-1V, 3-speed w/OD (Cost to Date: $623.67)

                Tom - Bradenton, FL

                1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
                1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

                Comment


                • #9
                  Mebbe we all need to just remember that new cars are designed and engineered around crash-worthiness and ALL old cars were not. Period, end of discussion.

                  I'm not sure how protracted discussions on this subject promote the hobby. Mebbe more productive and timely discussions, in the "Stove Huggers" forum, should be about how many passengers, especially children, have been killed in a relatively minor wreck by modern vehicle safety devices. This is a current, very serious problem and hopefully all are well aware of how to avoid the dangers involved.

                  In ANY event, I dunno how anyone could predict the outcome of a wreck, even with the benefit of a thorough NTSB type investigation, prior to the event. I dunno what the number of variables are in a wreck, but I believe they would be more involved than allowing a casual declaration that death would be the automatic outcome in an old car....

                  Sonny
                  http://RacingStudebakers.com
                  Sonny
                  http://RacingStudebakers.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From the looks of the angle; I'm thinking it was a six cylinder car. it doesn't seem like there's room in there for a V8. If she would have had a wider engine in there, the rail might have gone past her and out thru the driver's door and she could have survived...dang.. she coulda had a V-8.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm still trying to figure out why a person would want to buy these photos? [?]

                      <h5>Mark
                      '57 Transtar Deluxe
                      Vancouver Island Chapter
                      http://visdc.shawwebspace.ca/ </h5>


                      Mark Hayden
                      '66 Commander
                      Zone Coordinator
                      Pacific Can-Am Zone

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We had a 66 Mustang around 1978. When we were rear-ended in the rain by a plow-nosed mid-Sixties full-sized Pontiac we discovered that the Mustang was configured just like the rear-end exploding Pinto. The rear bumper really hangs on sheet metal, and its mounting bolts punch two neat holes into the gas tank behind it. The filler neck can shear off. The rear quarter panels get shoved over the rear edge of the front doors, trapping you inside with all that gas spilling in back. I suspect the Maverick was the same as the Mustang and Pinto in this respect, but you will never hear Ford admit that the problem went on for years, even before the Pinto. It was good that it was raining that day, except that the rain was the cause of the collision: the two little turn signal indicators (slots in the hood facing the driver) let rain run down onto the engine, making it prone to stall in the rain. We have indeed come a long way, but it depends on whether you are hit by a squishy new car or you hit a hard, fixed object.

                        Regards,
                        Clarence

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          quote:Originally posted by Mark57

                          I'm still trying to figure out why a person would want to buy these photos? [?]
                          I was wondering the same thing, especially with a Buy it Now of $24.99... for a couple of newspaper clippings of an accident, involving an unknown person, that happened 45 years ago. What a steal![B)] LH

                          P.S. HUB, you sure know how to serve up some lousy tasting eye candy![xx(] I hope you don't bake often!

                          Straight from the horse's mouth

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            My better half does all the baking in this house!
                            Hard to imagine these photos finding a buyer but then again I knew a chap who drove truck back in the 50's and 60's and he had an album full of snapshots he'd taken of accidents he'd come upon while driving. To each his own I guess!
                            I've bought a few Stude related photos over the years but this is too morbid for my tastes.

                            Allan - Ontario, Canada
                            1963 GT Hawk
                            1964 Daytona Convertible

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I have seen the 59 vs 09 Chevrolet video and wonder what the integrity of the 59 Chevrolet was. I don't completely trust the video and would like to see the same accident with a 57 Bel Air and an 09 Chevy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X