|A modern car, so pulverised it is unrecognisable. (actually, modern cars look|
so much alike these days that one has to look at the name badge even when
they are completely intact, to see what kind of car they are)
The first is from the recent flood, which occurred only two years after the previous one. (Ellicott City is only about an hour from where I stay when I am in the States) The second picture is from a flood in the same place from 1952.
|This picture, from 1952, is at the same bridge, but this view is looking down-|
hill, into town, whereas the first picture is from the other side of the bride
looking up-hill away from the town
The point of this post is the comparison of the state of the modern cars in the first picture to that of those in the older picture. (every car I saw from this new flood was in a completely destroyed state) I have to admit that I am a fan of "antique" cars. (my own definition of which are cars from before 1960) and In my opinion they were much better made in many respects. Here is some evidence of that. I would definitely feel safer in the 1952 Buick which is on top of the the other car and only has minimal dents on its side. In fact, every single car in this picture could be started and driven away once they were put back on their wheels. Even the electrical systems were much simpler, and a car that was briefly flooded, once dried out, could be driven without problems, (I know because I had a 1954 Ford that had been in a flood) unlike modern ones which have too many computers that get completely ruined when submerged.
Just a casual observation...