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

[gloryaccordy]

Kind of ironic posting that right after the post above yours.

He walked away from that accident.

No he didn't, he said it almost killed him.

As for the rest of your post, yea I would say a car that does better to keep its occupants safer in a crash is a safer car. They make cars better now than they did back then- case in point, disappearance of the rust monster. Coming back to dude's crash- back then they didn't even test for side impact. Now they do, and manufacturers build to protect occupants from it better. And you don't have to believe me about cars being safer... the folks who rate cars for crash safety agree, and more importantly the statistics showing the continual drop in accident fatalities per mile driven agree. Liking older cars more than new ones doesn't make them safer. Newer cars are much safer than older ones, period

[Ralphie]

No he didn't, he said it almost killed him.

As for the rest of your post, yea I would say a car that does better to keep its occupants safer in a crash is a safer car. They make cars better now than they did back then- case in point, disappearance of the rust monster. Coming back to dude's crash- back then they didn't even test for side impact. Now they do, and manufacturers build to protect occupants from it better. And you don't have to believe me about cars being safer... the folks who rate cars for crash safety agree, and more importantly the statistics showing the continual drop in accident fatalities per mile driven agree. Liking older cars more than new ones doesn't make them safer. Newer cars are much safer than older ones, period

But it didn't kill him.

You can hang onto that wording, but he walked away and as you can see, that is a pretty bad accident.

And funny you mention side crash testing.

Im going to assume your right about not testing back then, since I don't know, and im not going to bother looking it up right now.

He was hit on the side at over 50mph.

The fact that he lived to talk about it just shows how strong they already were before needing to be improved.


Look im not trying to say that they are so much safer then modern cars, but the same people on here continually like to argue that they are deathtraps compared to cars built today and I just don't see it.

I see a shit load of accidents ranging from 10mph rear ends, to the 80 mph highway spin outs, and we haven't really lost any members that I know of, or if so, less then 3.

The major changes that the IHS and DOT have made have been how they TEST and how they REGULATE and the manufactures have rethought where they need to focus on....

but it's not like they reinvented the automobile.

Yes metal fatigues and they have come up with better models to help them in R&D but it just isn't as big as you make it out to be.

If it was, then we wouldn't have ANY fatalities today, and yet we still do.

[Ralphie]

On a side note im not hanging on the cb7s nuts...

Its just that were on a cb7 forum....

my same argument applies to a lot of late model vehicles.

Some were death traps like the Ford Exploder....

Others were built so well that not only do they have low fatality rates, they are STILL being sold and bought and driven(cb)

[Ralphie]

And in any case, side impact testing began in 2003 as I found.


http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810748.pdf

Page 151 and 152.

Covers 90 Accord up through 2000.

From the articles-

Upon initial certification in 1994, TTI(d) didn’t change too much – from 86 in 1992 to 77 in 1994-1997, despite the structural modifications. However, when the Accord was again remodeled in 1998, there was approximately twice as large a decrease in TTI(d), from 77 in 1994-1997 to 59 in 1998-1999. The additional decrease to 44 in 2000 would appear to be due primarily to side air bags, not structure or padding.

So the number was 86 in 1992 and only went down to 77 through 1997....so it got safer, but not by that much being it was a pretty solid design to begin with.

It saw major decrease in 1998-99 models and an additional decrease in 2000 to 44 but was due to side SRS, not STRUCTURE CHANGES.

The drop in 1994 AFTER structure changes, was not that significant.

I don't know about you, but that tells me Honda got it right out of the box.

Does that mean it was end all for the automotive industry? hardly, as improvments are always good, but it was a solid car to begin with.

[Honda_Lady]

@civic_90_08 holy shit so glad you made it out of that. though you didn't literally walk away from that you did "walk away" and I believe that shows how strong these cars are.

[dysfunk]

Most of the pictures above, especially in the first post, looks to be damage from a Semi. You're looking at 45k+ pound vehicle wreaking havoc.

The bus pictures look bad because of the location of the bus' rear bumper.

And to be honest, I feel safer being in my accord than my moms dodge charger.

[deevergote]

We've had a few members in some serious accidents. Most have survived.

These cars seem to be pretty decent in a crash, given their age, and the safety requirements that were standard 20 years ago. Cars today are stronger, as manufacturing methods have improved, technology has improved, and safety requirements have become far more strict.

[Ralphie]

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.

[NightmareCB7]

I have used a few CBs in demo derbys and they are really strong cars. We are talking fast cross track hits and not love taps. There the best mini car I've ever used for demo. I feel much safer in a CB.

Even in my DD 90 CB I feel safer then my 98 ZJ. I'm just not a fan of airbags or ABS. Yea, the newer cars are made "safer" but thats just because people now days are scared of their own shadows. I would rather have metel around me then plastic and fabric.

I had a 94 XJ that was totaled at 60mph and walked away. They say they where death traps too.

[AAPOQ]

CB'S aren't that bad really

I used to drive a 79 impala, that thing was a tank, a floating couch if you will. The only safety it had was seat belts and a really hard steering wheel
I loved that car though, I actually miss it. They weren't very many dummy lights and it was easy to work on under the hood. Manual windows/locks, that thing was simple and beautiful. And it was safe because it was a "boat", but thats it... a steel boat..

[illinois_erik]

our chassis was luckily made before they decided to make cars crumple so significantly in a "minor" accident that theyre usually totaled. They still are designed to crumple just more stout than todays cars, hence the side airbags and other gizmos, the car absorbs the majority of the energy by crumpling as the air bags cradle you while your body is accelerating/decelerating. Our cars would fair a bit better in a fender bender. But theyre all still a lot safer then the Detroit steel of yesteryear sure you could get rear ended hard and not really see much damage but your neck gets jackhammered or youre thrown into a hard non forgiving dash.

I think the CB7/90s hondas are very safe, but it cant be like a semi blasting into you, any car will be demolished and youll need extracted. I just like that our cars wont crumple like a can so you can at least salvage it, the newer cars theyre just tin foil origami

[JonnyD]

I feel pretty safe in My cb. I crashed one of my old cb's into a huge tree at 35mph and it crumpled pretty good and kept me safe, I hopped out to inspect the damage and obviously it was a write off. I feel safer in my cb than my 2012 veloster.

[Leung]

Damn... mine doesn't have an air bag.

[gloryaccordy]

But it didn't kill him.

You can hang onto that wording, but he walked away and as you can see, that is a pretty bad accident.

And funny you mention side crash testing.

Im going to assume your right about not testing back then, since I don't know, and im not going to bother looking it up right now.

He was hit on the side at over 50mph.

The fact that he lived to talk about it just shows how strong they already were before needing to be improved.


Look im not trying to say that they are so much safer then modern cars, but the same people on here continually like to argue that they are deathtraps compared to cars built today and I just don't see it.

I see a shit load of accidents ranging from 10mph rear ends, to the 80 mph highway spin outs, and we haven't really lost any members that I know of, or if so, less then 3.

The major changes that the IHS and DOT have made have been how they TEST and how they REGULATE and the manufactures have rethought where they need to focus on....

but it's not like they reinvented the automobile.

Yes metal fatigues and they have come up with better models to help them in R&D but it just isn't as big as you make it out to be.

If it was, then we wouldn't have ANY fatalities today, and yet we still do.

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.

[foamypirate]

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