How well do CB's fair in accidents? *pics*

[Ralphie]

A CB would hold up in a crash just as well as a modern production car? Sorry Ralphie, that's just wrong. And the idea that the better a car holds up = the safer it is for the occupants is also wrong. Modern cars are designed to contain all the impact energy into the crumple zones, and not the whole car, which makes for more visual damage but more safety for the occupants. Plus new cars have safety equipment CBs don't have. For fucks sake 50% of CBs don't even have airbags. Most crashes are frontal impact. How is it even a comparison?

And like I said already, CB7tuner anecdotes are statistically useless. Furthermore, what IHSA stats did you cite? Stats for the CB from 20 years ago, comparing it to other 20 year old cars? Unless you have stats comparing 100-200K mile CBs to new cars those aren't very useful either.

CBs are not terrible cars but I wouldn't call them "safe". Driving one is taking on needless risk.

I hear what you're saying, and im not arguing with the fact that new cars are safer then cb's. Obviously it would be pretty silly of me to think otherwise.

Im referring to your last line.....

I disagree that cbs are unsafe and that driving one is taking on needless risk.

Your arguing that the car is a death trap and it's risky to be driving one????

I don't know man, I rode with you in yours with a swap and you didn't seem too concerned with it's safety.

If you don't want to put your newborn kid in it, that's fine, but spewing garbage about it being an unsafe car and needlessly risky I just think is a little overblown.

But, that is your opinion, so I can't really argue it anyway.

I can agree that comparing IHS stats from 20 years ago to stats for cars now is a waste, as it is unfair, but at the same time it shows how well they were made from day one, not needing so much improvement structurally.

SRS and secondary, yes, but no major overhaul.

Your "feelings" of it being unsafe JUST because it is an older car, is as useless as my claims that it's safe due to the cases we've had from the forum.

I can only speak of what I have witnessed, and considering the different stages of vehicles on this forum, I still think it's pretty strong evidence that people can wreck multiple times and come away pretty unscathed in such a risky car.

[gloryaccordy]

I hear what you're saying, and im not arguing with the fact that new cars are safer then cb's. Obviously it would be pretty silly of me to think otherwise.

Im referring to your last line.....

I disagree that cbs are unsafe and that driving one is taking on needless risk.

Your arguing that the car is a death trap and it's risky to be driving one????

I don't know man, I rode with you in yours with a swap and you didn't seem too concerned with it's safety.

If you don't want to put your newborn kid in it, that's fine, but spewing garbage about it being an unsafe car and needlessly risky I just think is a little overblown.

But, that is your opinion, so I can't really argue it anyway.

I can agree that comparing IHS stats from 20 years ago to stats for cars now is a waste, as it is unfair, but at the same time it shows how well they were made from day one, not needing so much improvement structurally.

SRS and secondary, yes, but no major overhaul.

Your "feelings" of it being unsafe JUST because it is an older car, is as useless as my claims that it's safe due to the cases we've had from the forum.

I can only speak of what I have witnessed, and considering the different stages of vehicles on this forum, I still think it's pretty strong evidence that people can wreck multiple times and come away pretty unscathed in such a risky car.

Nobody called the CB7 a death trap. Don't exaggerate my stance. My opinion on the CB's lower safety compared to new cars is based purely on fact:

- the decrease in on road fatalities per driven mile since the CB was new (nearly 30% since 1994)
- the increase in safety regulations and crash test standards
- the difference in safety design & equipment in new cars vs the CB

And me having one or you riding in one is irrelevant. By that logic, since I ride a motorcycle now, I must not care or have an opinion on safety. When really I am just stating my opinion. My 650 is a death trap compared to any car, but I ride it anyway, because to me the reward outweighs the risk. But that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge or downplay the risk. If I were to say stuff like, "motorcycles aren't any less dangerous than cars" "I know people who crashed and walked away" "Its not that risky" you would justifiably call bullshit and probably use facts to counter my opinions. That is pretty much all I am doing here.

Nearly every argument you made for the CB's safety is either based on your opinion, your statistically insignificant observations, or speculation. For example if the CB was structurally sound + didn't need any structural improvements, then Honda wouldn't have changed anything about it safety wise with the CD. They did- dual air bags standard, stronger body structure etc. A couple of people walking away from crashes doesn't mean much. On average more people walk away from crashes in modern cars, based on federal crash statistics, not a couple of posts on a message board. Etc. etc. Note, I never even said the CB's poor safety compared with what is out there would keep me from buying one for myself- again, I ride a motorcycle- but it is a factor and I don't think it should be downplayed. The whole idea that "old cars are tanks and new ones crumble and aren't safe", which is the undertone of your whole argument, is complete BS. Fatalities are dropping and safety regulations + designs have changed A LOT for good reason.

[Ralphie]

Nobody called the CB7 a death trap. Don't exaggerate my stance. My opinion on the CB's lower safety compared to new cars is based purely on fact:

- the decrease in on road fatalities per driven mile since the CB was new (nearly 30% since 1994)
- the increase in safety regulations and crash test standards
- the difference in safety design & equipment in new cars vs the CB

And me having one or you riding in one is irrelevant. By that logic, since I ride a motorcycle now, I must not care or have an opinion on safety. When really I am just stating my opinion. My 650 is a death trap compared to any car, but I ride it anyway, because to me the reward outweighs the risk. But that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge or downplay the risk. If I were to say stuff like, "motorcycles aren't any less dangerous than cars" "I know people who crashed and walked away" "Its not that risky" you would justifiably call bullshit and probably use facts to counter my opinions. That is pretty much all I am doing here.

Nearly every argument you made for the CB's safety is either based on your opinion, your statistically insignificant observations, or speculation. For example if the CB was structurally sound + didn't need any structural improvements, then Honda wouldn't have changed anything about it safety wise with the CD. They did- dual air bags standard, stronger body structure etc. A couple of people walking away from crashes doesn't mean much. On average more people walk away from crashes in modern cars, based on federal crash statistics, not a couple of posts on a message board. Etc. etc. Note, I never even said the CB's poor safety compared with what is out there would keep me from buying one for myself- again, I ride a motorcycle- but it is a factor and I don't think it should be downplayed. The whole idea that "old cars are tanks and new ones crumble and aren't safe", which is the undertone of your whole argument, is complete BS. Fatalities are dropping and safety regulations + designs have changed A LOT for good reason.

Im pretty sure most people factor in safety when buying and restoring older cars.

Im not saying to downplay it, but I also don't think it's as unsafe as you try to make it seem.

Motorcycles are a whole different topic all together.

My argument is not based on new cars crumble/old cars are tanks.

I do feel there is some truth to that, but that is just my opinion.

Your hung up on the notion that I think older cars are safer then newer cars, and I don't believe that.

I do believe the cb is quite a safe chassis, despite it's age,but again just my opinion.

A lot of things have changed in 20+ years and definitely for the better.

No big deal. Just two differing opinions.

[crazymikey]

CB was a safe car in it's day. Front and rear crumple zones, active front headrests, available antilock brakes, available driver and/or passenger airbags. It was up to par, or above safety standards of the time.

Today, it is still a reasonably safe car. When you consider the way cars have gotten larger, due to increased safety regulations, it will put any older car at a disadvantage.

[owequitit]

Yes, I have felt safer in my 93 then in my 2002.

My 93 SE had a passenger airbag(only cb7 to have one), so I felt especially safe in mine LOL.

My 2002 is a great car, but it just feels light and feathery.

Not the heavy tank my 93 was.

A good anology is that cars of yesteryear did more damage whereas cars today take more damage.

It makes sense, if you get hit by a 57 Chevy your going to get fucked up, but the occupants of the 57 chevy will get just as fucked because of the build of the frame and lack of safety equipment.

Cars today are made so the occupant zone is all that matters, and rightly so.

Also they are made to be more safer for pedestrian safety, as 20+ years ago It wasn't such a concern but now these damn bicycle gurus are out an about and more people are deciding to run crosswalk lights etc.

Old cars doing damage is actually juxtaposed to safety. If you are curious, read Hugh DeHaven's packaging principles. He was the father of crash-worthiness (starting mostly with aircraft, but it was also developed into cars). His principles are still the foundation today.

A car plowing through the train is not necessarily "safe." An accident is a kinematic event, and the dissipation of crash energy is the key to the whole process. If the car doesn't absorb the impact (as in the case of the old boats), then the occupants will. If those forces are sufficient enough, then the occupants will be killed (hence the high number of fatalities in those cars). The trick is to dissipate as much energy into the car's crash structure as possible while keeping the occupants properly restrained and protected from intrusion into their space. If you think about all of the major safety advances in the last 50 years, you will see that every single one of them works to achieve one of those three objectives.

The ultimate goal is to deform the car so that the occupants don't. However, it has to be done in controlled fashion and it has to be dissipated BEFORE it compromises the passenger vessel. Once the occupiable space is compromised, the passengers start absorbing what is left.

You are basing this on a pretty faulty statistical model.

In the context of the # of CB7s on the road, the # of folks here is a pretty small cross section. Not to mention, there are a lot of inactive members. Some might have died and not had a huge announcement made. You're basically saying, since none of the 1,000 or so regular members here hae died, deaths among the millions of CB7 owners out there is rare. Not very strong logic.

We can argue whether or not the CB7 is a death trap. I mean I ride a motorcycle. Some would say it is a death trap but I have been down twice and literally walked away. However nobody would say a motorcycle is basically is as safe as a car. Thats asinine. Likewise a 20 year old car is a death trap compared to a 5 or even 10 year old car. Your very biased selection of stats from CB7tuner doesn't hold up to all the federally mandated crash tests or dropping fatalities.

You brought up the old Cadillac or whatever. Those cars were fatal because despite their size, they had shit like sharp metal edges in the car, and steering columns that would impale passengers on a front impact. Likewise the crumple zones are safer because, as you said yourself, they absorb the impact and leave the passengers safe. So yea the car is more likely to get totaled, but you get to walk away, rather than have where you are sitting be a part of the crumple zone. Again nothing wrong with liking the CB. But you are trying to argue your subjective preference for the CB as an objective argument for it being safer. That is just not the case.

Honestly, you have no valid statistical model to counter it. How many CB accidents were fatal? If you can't answer that, then you have no stronger a base than he does.

The reality is that within the thresholds of a "normal" crash (the majority of which are relatively low speed events) a CB would be plenty capable of protecting its occupants. Where the difference comes in is in the higher energy impacts, but then again, even a modern car isn't going to save your ass if the forces are high enough. Part of the problem is that people are getting to the point where they just assume their new car with 75 airbags is so safe they don't have to heed reality.

The added weight and size are also counter to collision avoidance, so it isn't exactly all upside as you present.

Good point.

And a roll bar could fold down and break your neck if it's not properly installed, or part of a cage.
A cage can result in major head trauma, especially in cars like ours with relatively low rooflines (my Fit could have a cage and I'd be safe... I could wear a tophat in that thing!)

You don't want to be anywhere near a roll bar without proper racing gear.

I am all about trading risk for reward. I would drive a rattle trap like an old Civic for example, because at least then you trade some safety for performance. I love CBs but they are too heavy

The CB is too heavy, but the current Civic Si isn't bad? Consider that a new Accord V6 weighs about 500-700lbs more than a CB7. The CB7 wasn't even that heavy for its timeframe.

Well it's convienent that Yaw failed to recognize my posting of IHSA stats, but that's ok.

Im not trying to sit here and say that the 4th gen is much safer then a current production car, but based on what I have witnessed, heard, and read myself, my conclusion is that a well maintained cb7(maintained meaning cared for and not stipped and gutted and one that would pass smog and safety inspections) would hold up just as well as a production car today.

It would take and give damage differently then a production car of today's standards, but the occupants would walk away with no more injury then a current car.

My proof is by the people just on this forum alone that have had accidents and are here to talk about it, like I said earlier, from fender benders to the dude who rolled his cb and it landed on it's roof.

Yes this forum is a SMALL SMALL % of cbs out there, but that makes them no less credible.


This is not based off of my personal like or dislike for the platform, im strictly talking from a statistical standpoint.

There is no hard evidence to show otherwise. Again, not saying that they are so much safer then today's standards. It is apples to oranges, but I vote strongly for the chassis because I feel it was a very well made chassis and imo, seems to hold up pretty fucking good.

You know what, I totally forgot. LOL

Another reason why I feel so passionate is because I hit a tree head on at about 35 mph with 3 passengers.

NO ONE WAS RESTRAINED.

This was a 91 Accord. It was my fathers and I didn't have my own car yet. We were out driving and a group of thugs from the neighborhood tried to run me off the road.

In my new driver newbness, I tried to outrun them(they were driving a Early 90s box chevy).

Took a left hand turn at 35 lol and hit a tree.

All 4 of us walked away with minimal injury. I had 0 injuries AS THE DRIVER.

My front passenger bruised up his knee/leg on the Ac vents.

Both back passengers had struck the seat backs and had bloody noses and swollen lips but lived to see another day.

That moment forever changed my life and taught me early on the respect to have for motor vehicles.

It also showed me how solid 4th gens are.

Sometimes the safety advances are blown a little bit out of proportion. Let us not forget than the CB had the following safety features:

1) 3 point restraints in all 4 outboard positions. Of all safety devices, the seat belt is without question THE most important. It is the foundation of keeping the occupants put so the rest of the devices can work.

2) All CB7's were equipped with front and rear crumple zones. This is a huge factor in dissipating the crash energy into the structure. This also goes a long way toward dissipating energy prior to the passenger cell.

3) All CB7's had submarining engine mounts, which ensured that during a massive frontal collision the powertrain would rock and exit the car BELOW the floor, keeping it from intruding into the crash structure. Not only did this greatly reduce the likelihood of cell intrusion, but it also gave a few more precious inches of crush space.

4) Many CBs were equipped with AT LEAST a driver's airbag. Some were equipped with dual airbags.

5) The gas tanks were well protected, and IIRC, the electrical system was designed to disconnect in the even of a major frontal collision that affected the battery.

That said, there are a few areas where there have been some pretty major advances since 1990. Some are more significant than others.

1) Side impact protection. This is without question the CB's weakest side. In the event of a large intrusion on the side, you are pretty much screwed. Not that the structure won't absorb anything, but it won't do it nearly as well as a car build to meet the 1997 side impact standards. Take the modern cars with side impact airbags and the difference is even larger.

2) Multiple threshold airbags. The CB's single stage airbags were effective, but they were also expensive and tended to do more damage in minor collisions. With the development of multi-sensor, multi-stage and multi-threshold airbags (many of which Honda pioneered) the likelihood of injury being greater due to safety devices dropped. The systems became smart enough to detect a small passenger, a passenger in the path of deployment and were smart enough to differentiate between a minor collision where the airbag would not be of benefit and a major one where it would. The curtain of airbags around the cabins of modern cars also works to reduce blunt force trauma, lacerations etc and also buys more controllable crush space for the impact sequence.

3) ABS/VSA both worked to keep the car more controllable during an avoidance sequence, or near the limits of traction/performance which makes the accident more likely to be avoided. Even the best race car drivers can't consistently outperform modern ABS systems, and realistically, VSA is going to be there when you most need it, but are least prepared to use it.

4) IMO, beyond this point, we start to get into diminishing returns. Yes, they are effective, but they are more effective in situations a car shouldn't have been in to begin with.

A) Rollover protection. Yes, cars rollover. However, the odds of a rollover in a car that isn't being handled well outside of its limits are fairly small. Ironically, the additional roof strength adds weight at the top, which raises the CG and makes the car more unwieldy to handle.

B) I am not sure what standard it is, but the TL meets an impact standard that requires the car to survive an impact going BACKWARD and SIDEWAYS into a pole at 40-50MPH. Sorry, but if you are going backward and sideways that fast, something else went wrong on the driver level.

c) About the only recent one I don't disagree with is the new offset impact standard, of which the new Accord is among the first cars to meet it. That one makes sense, because the reality is that most of the impact force in a frontal collision will be absorbed by the driver's side frame rail.

d) Pedestrian crash standards. This is great for pedestrians, but again, I have a hard time accepting the principle that there was nothing that could be done. The only exception would be people that are seeing impaired.

A CB would hold up in a crash just as well as a modern production car? Sorry Ralphie, that's just wrong. And the idea that the better a car holds up = the safer it is for the occupants is also wrong. Modern cars are designed to contain all the impact energy into the crumple zones, and not the whole car, which makes for more visual damage but more safety for the occupants. Plus new cars have safety equipment CBs don't have. For fucks sake 50% of CBs don't even have airbags. Most crashes are frontal impact. How is it even a comparison?

And like I said already, CB7tuner anecdotes are statistically useless. Furthermore, what IHSA stats did you cite? Stats for the CB from 20 years ago, comparing it to other 20 year old cars? Unless you have stats comparing 100-200K mile CBs to new cars those aren't very useful either.

CBs are not terrible cars but I wouldn't call them "safe". Driving one is taking on needless risk.

No offense, but you are both sort of out of your elements.

They are actually quite safe. You make it sound like a 47 Olds with no seatbelts.

As for your experience with CB's a couple of notes.

1) Steel doesn't fatigue as long as it remains in the elastic region (which is generally true of all metals, but steel especially is not greatly prone to fatigue which is why steel structures last so long). Unless there are mitigating factors such as rust, then it is a non-issue. Of course, the steel in new cars will rust just as easily if not for better anti-corrosion properties. However, my CB has 260K on it, and every one of those miles have been earned. It is still as structurally solid as the day I bought it. In NY where rust becomes a consideration, that is a bit different, but then again, it doesn't just apply to CB's.

And no offense, but some of your CB's were beat to hell and modified. You can't fault Honda or period car design for vehicle degradation caused by operating the car outside of its intended design limits.

That said, I have seen CB's survive some crazy shit and bring the occupants home safely. However, I would not support the notion that a new car is not safer. However, I also wouldn't support the notion that the CB is a death trap. In fact, Honda has traditionally done so well safety wise that they often perform with much newer cars in terms of overall safety.

[Honda_Lady]

This was supposed to be a picture thread. I was not wanting it to be a thread where someone would write a novel in and I also didn't want it to be a fight thread fighting over whether or not the car is "safe" or not. I wanted PICTURES but I guess since we are on page 3 now with minimal posts of pictures that is a moot point now. Of course in the 20 years since our cars have been made, safety standards have gone up and our cars are not as safe as new cars but IT WAS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THEY WERE SAFE OR NOT it was just supposed to be about PICTURES. oh well this will be the last time I try to start a new thread.................

[Ralphie]

This was supposed to be a picture thread. I was not wanting it to be a thread where someone would write a novel in and I also didn't want it to be a fight thread fighting over weather or not the car is "safe" or not. I wanted PICTURES but I guess since we are on page 3 now with minimal posts of pictures that is a moot point now. Of course in the 20 years since our cars have been made, safety standards have gone up and our cars are not as safe as new cars but IT WAS NOT ABOUT WEATHER THEY WERE SAFE OR NOT it was just supposed to be about PICTURES. oh well this will be the last time I try to start a new thread.................

LOL!!

Im sorry, I did post pictures in the beginning but then I kind of started the argument too lol.

And it's "whether" not weather.


Ill find some pictures to bring this thread back!.



Oh and for the record, I have nothing to counter against Scott.

This is neither my or yaw's field. Were both just speaking from our own experiences and opinions...

I never said cb's were safer mile for mile, then current production cars, just that for it's time and NOW, 20 years later, the cb is still a safe chassis and I would feel comfortable driving cross country in one. That is all, nothing more.

[toycar]

Personally, I still maintain that avoidance is the best policy (can't be injured in an accident that never occurs), but overall, if you were to be in one, you would want to be in an newer car without question.

This


100% this



Ralphie, i am with you in the sense that the cb design was far ahead of its time and probably doesn't fall into the same stereotype of most 90's vehicles that are categorically being described as death traps compared to todays standards.


I also agree with scott both that avoiding an accident is the best policy and I would rather be in a new(er) car vs my rusted out shitbox if I was going to be in an accident.



Just saying, 7 safe air bags(wifes car) vs 1 that is 100% for sure going to break my face.


I'd rather crash in something that crinkles the way it was designed to crinkle to absorb the impact and also has soft cushy pillow for an airbag then something that I will probably survive in but will most likely break my face.

[AAPOQ]

For the people that think "old iron" is safe, I leave you this video...

That is freaky.

Let me rephrase... They are as safe as a steal boat can be...
And mine was 79 not 59, I'm sure there was an improvement in twenty years.

But yes, older cars aren't as safe as newer, but with the older vehicles you can bump things with minimal damage to body...

[Ralphie]

In this accident, 5 people were killed instantly. RIP

[tutsuo]

Thread... page 1... my heart broke.

i hope to never see a wrecked CB7 again.


Oh and some not so sweet news from the medical world... no death is instant even getting shot in the head isnt instant though atleast for them enough of the brain is damaged so you cannot feel pain.

Seeing all of this just makes we want to help them.

[Ralphie]

Thread... page 1... my heart broke.

i hope to never see a wrecked CB7 again.


Oh and some not so sweet news from the medical world... no death is instant even getting shot in the head isnt instant though atleast for them enough of the brain is damaged so you cannot feel pain.

Seeing all of this just makes we want to help them.

Ya it's pretty crazy.

Some death is instant, not sure what you do in the medical field, but trust me you can be killed instantly.

Not to many people feel anything when they jump on a grenade.

[tutsuo]

Ya it's pretty crazy.

Some death is instant, not sure what you do in the medical field, but trust me you can be killed instantly.

Not to many people feel anything when they jump on a grenade.

Im a Navy Corpsman (Marine Medic). Very few deaths are instant, vaporization or total head destruction. But if the brain is intact its not instant. Even when decapated you'r brain can, at a minimum, stay alive for 15 seconds. In Iraq we have enemies being eviscerated and they try to pick up there insided and stuff them back in while shooting at us. Thats more shocking then getting shot at.

[Ralphie]

Im a Navy Corpsman (Marine Medic). Very few deaths are instant, vaporization or total head destruction. But if the brain is intact its not instant. Even when decapated you'r brain can, at a minimum, stay alive for 15 seconds. In Iraq we have enemies being eviscerated and they try to pick up there insided and stuff them back in while shooting at us. Thats more shocking then getting shot at.

Yea well no doubt.

I was an EMT and now I am an X-ray Tech.

Someone who is eviscerated just needs to bleed out, but wouldn't be dead instantly.

That's fucking crazy though.

[owequitit]

Im a Navy Corpsman (Marine Medic). Very few deaths are instant, vaporization or total head destruction. But if the brain is intact its not instant. Even when decapated you'r brain can, at a minimum, stay alive for 15 seconds. In Iraq we have enemies being eviscerated and they try to pick up there insided and stuff them back in while shooting at us. Thats more shocking then getting shot at.

This is also not true. You are in a field that sees a lot of injuries, but apparently not one that sees a lot of instantaneous death.

Put someone in a 3,000G impact and they die literally instantly.