|
Dreadite posted:"Drive old cars" is great advice until you get into a car accident and shatter your pelvis and have to spend a bunch of money learning to walk properly again. This comes up every time we talk about cars and it's a boogieman. The increase in standard safety features over the last 10 years is fairly negligible. The cost of the car increases exponentially over that same time period. Nobody is suggesting you drive a 1979 Gremlin. But a 2004 Honda Civic will do just fine.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Weatherman posted:Wait wait wait. You mean ignition locks as in "insert the key and turn to unlock the steering wheel and start the car"? And cars didn't have them in the 90s? What a strange country you live in. I think that is called the wheel lock or some other. What I'm talking about is the RF ID (or whatever) in the key that is required to start the car, so you can't just shove a screw driver in the ignition and start it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Actually there is a very substantial increase in safety features over the timeframe you area discussing. The 2004 Honda Civic was pretty crashworthy for the time frame. Here are the substantial improvements since then, on an LX trim, in 2014. Active safety: Traction and stability control ABS and EBD Braking assist Passive safety: Side airbags Whiplash protection Significantly higher use of HSS/UHSS in body structure Are you going to drive a 2004 Civic and die if anyone hits you? No. But there are a number of types of accidents (side impact, especially) where your odds of escaping injury, serious injury, or death, are much higher in a 2014 version of the same car. You can look at it this way from a BFC perspective: the difference between going to the hospital and walking away from an accident is definitely worth a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Actually there is a very substantial increase in safety features over the timeframe you area discussing. The 2004 Honda Civic was pretty crashworthy for the time frame. Here are the substantial improvements since then, on an LX trim, in 2014. My piece of poo poo 98 Lumina has ABS and traction control. No side airbags, but driver and passenger front airbags. When you say braking assist, do you mean the thing that applies the brakes for you based on object proximity, or something else? Is there some new whiplash control besides a proper height headrest available only in newer cars?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:My piece of poo poo 98 Lumina has ABS and traction control. No side airbags, but driver and passenger front airbags. When you say braking assist, do you mean the thing that applies the brakes for you based on object proximity, or something else? No stability control on your Lumina, I think. That's the important one. Also, two-stage airbags have been introduced since then, so new airbags are much less likely to gently caress you up. Brake assist applies different braking force to different wheels based on the load on the vehicle. The new whiplash control hotness is that the headrest will actively move up and forward in an accident.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
I like how lots of people are willing to blow thousands of hard earned dollars on the newest vehicles under the veil of "safety", but yet they haven't taken a driver's training course of any kind since they were 16. I'm not saying every accident can be prevented by good driving, but some can. Accidents have to be someone's fault. Gaining skills in accident avoidance is a better way to hedge your bets (the bets you make every time you get behind the wheel) than accident suppression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:I like how lots of people are willing to blow thousands of hard earned dollars on the newest vehicles under the veil of "safety", but yet they haven't taken a driver's training course of any kind since they were 16. How am I supposed to avoid an accident when I'm either dozing off at the wheel or texting/surfing the web on my smartphone? My car should do the braking and steering for me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:I like how lots of people are willing to blow thousands of hard earned dollars on the newest vehicles under the veil of "safety", but yet they haven't taken a driver's training course of any kind since they were 16. No denying that the most important part of vehicle safety is the attentiveness of the driver, but there's still a lot to be said for passive safety systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Actually there is a very substantial increase in safety features over the timeframe you area discussing. The 2004 Honda Civic was pretty crashworthy for the time frame. Here are the substantial improvements since then, on an LX trim, in 2014. I don't consider those to be substantial safety features. And of those, only side airbags, body structure improvements, and stability control are actual "new" features. Everything else was fairly common 10 years ago, just not standard. So you'd have to be a little picky about which model of 10 year old car you bought. I don't think that's unreasonable. Electronic Stability Control: <1% By requiring that ESC systems be installed on truck tractors and large buses, this proposal would prevent 1,807 to 2,329 crashes, 649 to 858 injuries, and 49 to 60 fatalities at less than $3 million per equivalent life saved, while generating positive net benefits. ABS and EBD: ABS has been around for like 20 years. I didn't find easy data on EBD. Braking Assist: <1% I couldn't find data. I expect that this is around the numbers for ESC. It's actually probably less valuable because it should have the greatest impact at the slower speed (e.g. least dangerous) collisions, given the range of those sensors. Side airbags: 3% "NHTSA estimates that if all the vehicles on U.S. roads were equipped with head protection SABs, 700 to 1,000 lives would be saved per year in side impact crashes" Whiplash protection1: <1% (People rarely die from this. But it causes injury. So the NHTSA gives it a cost conversion matches that of ESC, so I'm giving it the same % number.) Based on the benefits from increasing head restraint height, and an estimate cost of $6,485 per whiplash injury, the cost per equivalent life saved is: $3.0 million in front seats. And the cost effectiveness is even worse for the back seats. HSS/UHSS N/A. This is an efficiency feature more than a safety feature. You can make cars lighter for the same safety. Roof Crush standards ~1-2% (I'll substitute this in for HSS/UHSS.) The equivalent fatalities prevented are 39-55 fatalities for the 2.5 load factor and 122-171 fatalities for the 3.0 load factor. At the 3% discount rate this translates into 32-46 fatalities prevented for the 2.5 load factor and 100-140 fatalities prevented for the 3.0 load factor. At the 7% discount rate this translates into 26-37 fatalities prevented for the 2.5 load factor and 80-113 fatalities prevented for the 3.0 load factor. It's really difficult to quantify safety, but the NHTSA does it as best they can. If I were going to make numbers out of it then I think I'd be safe (heh) in saying those features add a <10% increase in overall safety. Meanwhile, the price difference between a 2004 and a 2013 vehicle is roughly 400%. We can quibble about my 10% number all day, but I don't think you can argue that a new car is even twice as safe as a decent 10 year old car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:No stability control on your Lumina, I think. That's the important one. Also, two-stage airbags have been introduced since then, so new airbags are much less likely to gently caress you up. Your definition of brake assist is ABS, BTW. I've been in multiple high speed front and rear ending accidents. The only time I got whiplash was this most recent one, because I was at a stop and actively turned 45* to the right and my head wasn't on the headrest. 60 into a tree, no whiplash - headrest correctly adjusted. Rear ended at 40, no whiplash - headrest correctly adjusted. It's really not that hard. I'll take my excessively strong chassis and minimal added protections. Btw I think we did it again, CARCHATDERAIL!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Based on what I skimmed through, I think we could permanently kill the car safety derail. If you go with the "cost per equivalent life saved" metric that the NHTSA uses, then we should be able to reduce that to a dollar value for each safety feature based on your individual actuarial present value. What would the equation look like? There's got to be a math nerd here among the goons that can figure that out. My last calculus class was like 16 years ago. Edit: NM, you just divide, right? Substitute your APV in for the life value in the for Cost/Life value and then divide it by the number of cars that the NHTSA things would get the feature and you have the cost per car. Calc is only needed for figuring out your APV. Edit2: gently caress, that's not right. Someone help me out here, this is embarrassing. Folly fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
I like when people advertise ridiculously stupid things about themselves while trying to make the opposite point - I've been in dozens of accidents I don't see why safety features matter at all!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
"Look at these morons paying a premium for their own safety" is stretching the definition of "bad with money" to the breaking point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Dickensian Aspect posted:"Look at these morons paying a premium for their own safety" is stretching the definition of "bad with money" to the breaking point. I absolutely disagree. Paying a premium for safety is only "good with money" so long as there is a reasonable correlation between the price of the premium and the increase in safety. Otherwise, lottery tickets would be good investments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Dickensian Aspect posted:"Look at these morons paying a premium for their own safety" is stretching the definition of "bad with money" to the breaking point. My point was, if you're going to spend a very large portion of your annual take-home pay on a new vehicle and justify it because of safety, then at least back that up by spending <2% of your annual take-home pay and a weekend of your time by taking an advanced driver safety course every time you get a new vehicle. The two should go together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Folly posted:reasonable correlation I get that you're trying to do this above, but I don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to tell someone how they should value their own safety relative to, say, retiring slightly earlier or buying some luxury good. With entertainment expenses, it usually comes out to "well if they've got the money to spare and that's what they value, so be it" and I'm not sure why you are resisting that idea here. The separate point that it is possible to more cheaply buy per dollar increases in safety is better. It's probably true, for many people, but 1) that doesn't mean getting a safer car is a bad idea, just possibly not the best idea, and 2)such changes might require an investment of time or lifestyle change that they wouldn't want to make (though this is a bit of a stretch for the specific example of a driver safety course).
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
I can't find that video..but wasn't there a video of a 1957 Chevy and a 2012 Chevy doing a driver-to-drivers side head-on collision at like 35MPH or so? The 1957 looked a bit better, but the entire front of the car collapsed into the drivers seat, immediately "killing" anyone that was there. The 2012 has crumple zones and was way more messed up, but the driving cabin was almost untouched, with the worst injury registered being possible broken bones and bruises. I'll take New and Modern over Old n' Bust any day. Bad with money is thinking Old n' Busted is as good as New and Modern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Stability control is a very useful feature for most drivers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I can't find that video..but wasn't there a video of a 1957 Chevy and a 2012 Chevy doing a driver-to-drivers side head-on collision at like 35MPH or so? But we're not really talking about 2012 vs 1957 in this thread. We're talking say, 2010-2014 compared with 2000-2004.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I can't find that video..but wasn't there a video of a 1957 Chevy and a 2012 Chevy doing a driver-to-drivers side head-on collision at like 35MPH or so? Sounds like we can officially add 1957 Chevy to BFC's list of cars you shouldn't buy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Learn to drive? Stability control is a joke, as could be argued that ABS is a joke. This is the weirdest statement so far in the thread. Someone proclaiming that other's should "learn to drive", that additional safety driving features are a joke, and then immediately follows it up with "I've been in tons of at fault accidents!". This thread took a weird turn today. Can we just get back to posting about people who are bad with money?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:But we're not really talking about 2012 vs 1957 in this thread. We're talking say, 2010-2014 compared with 2000-2004. Last car chat detail: watch some small frontal overlap videos on iihs.gov. There is a giant difference in bodystyles that are 5 years old vs recently redesigned cars. Bad with money story: my dad offered to buy me a used Mercedes. He's retired and not that well off. Wait poo poo that's still car chat
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Bugamol posted:This is the weirdest statement so far in the thread. Someone proclaiming that other's should "learn to drive", that additional safety driving features are a joke, and then immediately follows it up with "I've been in tons of at fault accidents!". This thread took a weird turn today. Seriously, that post is just baffling. I've been furiously scouring /r/personalfinance to find something to talk about that isn't cars but internet people seem to be behaving themselves this morning. Damnit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:I can't find that video..but wasn't there a video of a 1957 Chevy and a 2012 Chevy doing a driver-to-drivers side head-on collision at like 35MPH or so? It's a Bel-Air vs a Malibu http://youtu.be/xtxd27jlZ_g And I don't think it really applies here, seeing as the argument is 10 years won't make much of a difference, which it does. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vz63sQ8jZEO_34g I still wouldn't pay $10k extra for the safety features, but I'm young and poor, so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
To get away from Carchat (Well, this is still carchat), everyone bear witness: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3368604&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=26#post433546456 (props to throatwarbler in the AI/BFC car thread) TL;DR: Guy sees the most impractical MB on earth (ultra high performance SUV based on a 30 year old military chassis), $50k used at a dealer. He test drives it and the supercharger cuts out due to heat issues, and the head unit is broken. Everyone says "turn left you loving idiot" so of course he buys it with his dad as a cosigner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:It's a Bel-Air vs a Malibu Hey! That second link is some drat good info. Based on that report, I'll adjust estimate to about 30-40% aggregate change in safety over all vehicles over the last 10 years. I'm pulling that number mostly from the aggregate change in fatalities per billion miles driven. Most of it seems to come from improved side impact standards, since side impact testing started in 2003. The other major trends seems to be that lighter cars are getting safer (or safer cars are getting lighter). So if you're big on fuel efficiency and reducing total cost of ownership, then this matters to you. But remember, a new car is like 400% more, so we're still talking about 10x than the value of the safety. And probably more like 3x to 4x as much once you discount the cost of ownership on a new car vs old based on fuel efficiency and expected maintenance. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:To get away from Carchat (Well, this is still carchat), everyone bear witness: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3368604&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=26#post433546456 (props to throatwarbler in the AI/BFC car thread) The difference is at the extremes, as demonstrated above. I mean, my bookmarks says this thread (which I can't load) is about a guy that paid something like $45k for a Nissan Altima? And we all agreed that it was stupid and "bad with money" because he paid so more than twice the price of the car. I'm saying that there is a calculable value of the last 10 years of safety features. I think it's around $500 to $1000, depending on the features themselves. I assume that if I can make fun of somebody for spending more than $45k on the Altima, then I should also make fun of someone for paying $5k for a side impact airbag. There's a hierarchy on "bad with money" comedy, right? Personally, I base it on how objectively bad the decisions are. 1) Actions contrary to their own goals: "I'm going to take a new job because it pays more, even if I lose more money in the commute than I gain by the raise." 2) Stupid poo poo that we all agree is stupid: "Hey guys! I'm going to cash out my 401k to buy into this MLM scheme." 3) Just plain misplacing money. Like the guy earlier that didn't realize his roommate had quit paying rent. 4) Overpaying for something of known value: "Eh, $45k sounds reasonable for a Nissan Altima" 5) Stupid luxury: "Well OF COURSE I should put air conditioning in the dog house." (I put some levels of food expense here, which is my other pet derail.) -- This is there the line gets subjective and prone to derail. -- 6) Overpaying for something of less defined value: "Most people wouldn't spend $15k on a Carnival cruise. But to me, the first class flights and the cabin upgrade make for better memories." 7) Buying stupid, useless poo poo. Everybody will have their own ideas that qualify. 8) Stupid poo poo bordering on sad, "Well, payday loans aren't so bad if I pay them off on time." blahblahblah, etc Not Funny: Cyclic poverty decisions. "This heroin stuff looks like something I could get into." The bigger the dollar value, the greater the entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:It's a Bel-Air vs a Malibu Thanks for both links. It does seem that either way, the newer is safer. Diminishing returns and all that, but its not a waste to spend more on safety.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:To get away from Carchat (Well, this is still carchat), everyone bear witness: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3368604&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=26#post433546456 (props to throatwarbler in the AI/BFC car thread) It's fine guys, he's got the finances, the dealer will set him up with a 6% loan!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:To get away from Carchat (Well, this is still carchat), everyone bear witness: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3368604&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=26#post433546456 (props to throatwarbler in the AI/BFC car thread) It's not often in this thread that we get to watch bad financial decisions unfold before us like this. I wonder how old this chucklefuck is. No age makes this ok, but if he's <25 then it makes a bit more sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:I'll make one last post cause this is kind of insulting. So he's only paying 3%, because dad cosigning is "no downside."
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Folly posted:So he's only paying 3%, because dad cosigning is "no downside." In fairness, there's not much downside to the buyer but there is a lot of potential downside to the dad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Folly posted:Hey! That second link is some drat good info. Based on that report, I'll adjust estimate to about 30-40% aggregate change in safety over all vehicles over the last 10 years. I'm pulling that number mostly from the aggregate change in fatalities per billion miles driven. Most of it seems to come from improved side impact standards, since side impact testing started in 2003. The other major trends seems to be that lighter cars are getting safer (or safer cars are getting lighter). So if you're big on fuel efficiency and reducing total cost of ownership, then this matters to you. But remember, a new car is like 400% more, so we're still talking about 10x than the value of the safety. And probably more like 3x to 4x as much once you discount the cost of ownership on a new car vs old based on fuel efficiency and expected maintenance. I think one of the things that is interesting to me is the difference between an objectively bad deal (45k for an Altima is stupid for everyone from a South Sudanese villager to Warren Buffett) and what might be an objectively fair or reasonable deal (say, 24K for a new Altima) but which is a horrible idea for a specific person's set of circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Folly posted:I'm saying that there is a calculable value of the last 10 years of safety features. I think it's around $500 to $1000, depending on the features themselves. You keep saying this, but it just doesn't work as a means of evaluating an individual's purchases. If I valued those safety improvements, as a means of protecting my own life, at (for example) twice that, how on earth could you say I was wrong?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Dickensian Aspect posted:You keep saying this, but it just doesn't work as a means of evaluating an individual's purchases. If I valued those safety improvements, as a means of protecting my own life, at (for example) twice that, how on earth could you say I was wrong? You can use NHTSA human life valuations to monetize the value of safety in the aggregate but you're right everyone has their own individual weighting for that type of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Dickensian Aspect posted:You keep saying this, but it just doesn't work as a means of evaluating an individual's purchases. If I valued those safety improvements, as a means of protecting my own life, at (for example) twice that, how on earth could you say I was wrong? Safety has an objective value. If your subjective value is far enough off of that, then it's something to make fun of. If we didn't have some kind of objective baseline, then I could use my subjective preferences to justify any expense. I'll try to make my point clear with hyperbole: "I really like food, so it's totally worth it to me to pay $36/lb for sea salt. I value the increase in quality of life to be worth the additional cost of this salt. How on earth could you say I am wrong?" So how big a difference is enough to be made fun of? I'd say it happens around when the subjective value is more than triple objective value. Ok, I think I can get us out of car chat. It's inchoate "bad with money" but it's all I got. My brother enlisted in the reserves, which isn't a bad decision for him per se. But, he signed because he wants to work in the defense industry. He found a military job post (MOS) that gets him the résumé bullet points he wants, and it's roughly 5 hours away from the house that he just bought this year. He chose this MOS specifically because he will be able to complete his commitment without having to move to another city, even if it means roughly half of his pay will be eaten up by his commute. Here's the catch: He didn't check whether there were any defense industry employers in his city. I can't find any. He'll probably have to move anyhow. He could have gotten a much better military job if he'd been willing to move from the get go. Folly fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
The 'Value of a Statistical Life' is anything but an objective value of any given individual's life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Folly posted:Safety has an objective value. No. Safety has an objective value from the standpoint of an organization or industry. Safety has a subjective value from the standpoint of an individual. Dollars cannot replace a human life. EDIT: Sea salt and a human being are not the same thing. You are trying to make a correlation that can't exist. EDIT: Think about it this way: You're standing in a line. Everyone in this line can either pay $50 or die. The objective value of your life in this line is $50. You get to the front of the line and they say you have to pay $150 or die. 10,000 people before you and 10,000 people after you only had to pay $50. Therefore the objective value is still $50. Paying the extra $100 to live does not make you bad with money. Bugamol fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Bugamol posted:No. Safety has an objective value from the standpoint of an organization or industry. Safety has a subjective value from the standpoint of an individual. Dollars cannot replace a human life. I will sell you a bullet proof vest for $1 million. It is for safety, so the price is irrelevant, even if you probably will never need the vest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Bugamol posted:Dollars cannot replace a human life. There's definitely a line to be drawn somewhere; your disagreement is just where that line is. And remember, this is about risks - obviously everyone would pay $100 to avoid certain death, but paying $100 to reduce chance of death by 0.0001% is much less clear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
I'm not trying to make that argument at all. Folly is stating that a human life is worth $X from an objective stand point (it's an agreed upon number guys!) why would you spend more! EDIT: He even literally uses the value of sea salt as a comparison to the value of a human life. Bugamol fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Aug 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 20:49
|
|