Safety in the 50's

[Brian Austin]

I think you're looking at the safety car prototypes the wrong way round.

 

Two of those were built by independent individuals not connected to the auto industry who noted the statistics relating to automobile deaths and injuries and decided to act on increasing awareness of safety features.

 

"The Sir Vival was a concept car created by Walter C. Jerome of Worcester, Massachusetts in 1958. Jerome created what he termed a "revolutionary vehicle" due to concern about what he saw as 1950s  Detroit's lack of concern for safety and focus on planned obsolescence. While never produced commercially, the Sir Vival featured many innovative car safety concepts that would later become standard such as seat belts, a roll cage, sliding side doors, rubber bumpers, and side lights. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Vival

 

"Aurora was an American automobile prototype manufactured by Father Alfred A. Juliano, a Catholic Priest, from 1957 to 1958. The Aurora is arguably the first Experimental Safety Vehicle ever made, even before the coinage of the ESV initialism. ... Juliano had studied art before entering the priesthood, and expressed a lifelong interest in automotive design. His family said that he had won a coveted scholarship from General Motors to study with Harley Earl, which arrived only after he had already been ordained. He maintained his interest in automotive design, however, which he combined with a belief that there was much which could be done to make current automobiles safer. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(1957_automobile)

 

People focus on the unconventional appearance and dismiss the entire concepts without a second thought.  I see it as the quintessential mid-20th Century dream--a grass-roots effort to improve the lives of those around them. You just have to admire that two amateur car guys got off their butts and each built something.  ?

In the end they were advanced prototypes with features not found on production cars until many years later. 

 

By way of contrast there have been countless hot rods and show car customs that are all looks but might be deathtraps on the road.

[stitchdup]

The aurora still exists. its was shared on an american magazine during the early 90s and while most people were still asking what is that? a british guy called andy saunders had bought it and rstored it. He also built his own dream car using an old galaxy

[Ace-Garageguy]

7 hours ago, Brian Austin said:

 

...People focus on the unconventional appearance and dismiss the entire concepts without a second thought.  I see it as the quintessential mid-20th Century dream--a grass-roots effort to improve the lives of those around them. You just have to admire that two amateur car guys got off their butts and each built something.  ?

In the end they were advanced prototypes with features not found on production cars until many years later. 

Thing is, though, "safe" doesn't have to be as ugly as a pig's rump.

A little applied aesthetic ability would have gone a long way towards selling the concept.

Yeah, it's admirable some independent builders tried to address "safety" issues, but they really might have had a thought as to the appearance.

Edited January 16, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[T-Ray]

13 hours ago, StevenGuthmiller said:

Agreed!

Same reason I’m no fan of “resto-mods”.

I want my “old cars” to feel like old cars.

I can get all the “mod” I can stand with my 2023 Acura.

 

 

 

Steve

See, I don't know. I feel like there's a fair amount of nuance in this situation. Like, I agree that dropping the skin of a '57 Chevy over a new Corvette is kinda stupid, why not just drive the Corvette at that point? But like, installing IFS in an Advanced Design pickup is something I can understand so that it will ride more like the cruiser you want instead of an old farm truck. However, that's entirely subjective. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

44 minutes ago, T-Ray said:

See, I don't know. I feel like there's a fair amount of nuance in this situation. Like, I agree that dropping the skin of a '57 Chevy over a new Corvette is kinda stupid, why not just drive the Corvette at that point? But like, installing IFS in an Advanced Design pickup is something I can understand so that it will ride more like the cruiser you want instead of an old farm truck. However, that's entirely subjective. 

"Entirely subjective" is the key.

Some guys want old trucks to ride like old trucks. Some guys want 'em to ride and handle like Jags. Some guys even like both approaches equally.

One of my favorite builds from a couple decades back was a stock-appearing late '50s C1 Corvette on a well engineered tube-frame that carried C5/C4 guts. Wonderful car. Vintage appearance, contemporary performance.

But I like driving a completely stock C1 just as much. Completely different experience, every bit as much fun.

 

Edited January 16, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[espo]

I'm in favor of many of the safety advancements on many of the new cars and trucks. The biggest problem is that the drivers have not seemed to advance at the same rate as the equipment that seems to be trying to compensate for the drivers of today. Put down the phone, you're really just not that important, are you? Many drivers are trying to "multitask" when their main focuses should be operating a vehicle, not having lunch or talking to everyone else in the car or doing any number of other tasks. Should these other things be that important, pull off the road and take care of them and then return to the job at hand when you can concentrate on driving.   

[Brian Austin]

14 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Thing is, though, "safe" doesn't have to be as ugly as a pig's rump.

A little applied aesthetic ability would have gone a long way towards selling the concept.

Yeah, it's admirable some independent builders tried to address "safety" issues, but they really might have had a thought as to the appearance.

I guess in the case of the Aurora, its creator fancied himself a car designer.  He became ordained before he could follow his dream to Detroit with General Motors.  I can only presume he genuinely thought in his own way he was putting thought into the aesthetics of his design.  His approach was just a bit...unorthodox.

 

For those interested, there are more pics and info on the Aurora here:

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/design/curbside-catechism-1957-aurora-sins-of-the-father/#

[stitchdup]

28 minutes ago, Brian Austin said:

I guess in the case of the Aurora, its creator fancied himself a car designer.  He became ordained before he could follow his dream to Detroit with General Motors.  I can only presume he genuinely thought in his own way he was putting thought into the aesthetics of his design.  His approach was just a bit...unorthodox.

 

For those interested, there are more pics and info on the Aurora here:

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/design/curbside-catechism-1957-aurora-sins-of-the-father/#

what could make your car safer than having god (new testament, not old) on your side? lol