Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

Except that this is compared to the total population of the united states... not the actual number of people actually driving. That number would probably be hard to be anywhere close to accurate.

So herein again it goes back to my previous post stating that there are many variables... and truthfully I'm not sure how we can see the "survival" rate ever figured out to be completely dependent on vehicle construction/and or safety measures.

I believe a very good portion of serious accidents could have been avoided/and or lessened in severity if people actually knew how to drive.

SSCamaro99_3

iTrader: (1)

The respresentation I used is vehicular deaths over population. Basically your ultimate probability for dying in a car accident, unless you never ride in a car. I would bet that if you bolied it down to just drivers you would play with the percentages, but not the delta between the percentages. The fact is that fewer people die in car accidents as a percantage of any population you wish to choose, than 60 years ago.

True. Isolating exactly which factors have the biggest impact on the decrease is difficult. Aribags, construction, medical response time, and a host of others. however, if you have ever seen the crash pictures between an old an new car, it is striking.

I am in total agreement on this point.

Lethal Z

Nobody said CEO's were gonna take a pay cut for anything. I would never suggest that a CEO would ever put himself in a position to lose money. My point speaks to the exact opposite. I said if the goverment mandate went away and the company was no longer FORCED to put those features on the vehicle by way of a goverment mandate. I don't buy into the logic that the car is suddenly going to get cheaper. I believe said company would now in the name of profit strip those features out of the car and charge you the same price. The money now being saved by not having to put that stuff on the car is now going to go into the companys pocket. You ain't gonna see it on the sticker. We on the same page?

Lethal Z

I don't deny the fact that people do dumb things behind the wheel. I see it everyday when I drive to work. I see people reading the paper, I see women putting on make up, talking on the phone etc. And nothing gets under my skin more than seeing some moron texting while there driving. So we can agree that people do some not so smart things while driving. Do people have a false sense of security because of features on there vehicle? Perhaps, I wouldn't thow everyone in that catagory. People are human and even when they're paying attention people make mistakes. You can find yourself in a severe accident and you did nothing wrong. Everybody isn't going to wake up tomorrow and pay attention and figure out how to drive. Sounds great in theory but it ain't gonna happen.

You drove a vehicle for years without abs or airbags and never had a problem? Thats great, glad to hear it but everybody ain't you. Now that we got that out of the way. The fact is that there are way more people on the road driving today. More people driving means more accidents. And since neither of us can wave a magic wand and make people drive safer and pay attention then we have to depend on the masses driving cars that are designed to be safer. I believe mandating a safer vehicle is a smart idea even if it costs a little more.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

Based on your argument here, I think we've always been on the same page. My original comment was on the lines of "Day 1" in car manufacturing. If government had never started mandating safety requirements, cars would cost less today. I completely agree that if government stopped mandating as of "today," prices would not drop in the least bit. Maybe on a base model, but the savings would not equal the cost of the parts that were not installed - maybe half that amount at most.

2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

I don't think people have a false sense of security. More like they just don't care or think about it. Most people, if anything, are pansies and don't want to get hurt. They are just too dumb to exist because we don't let Darwin work his magic.

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

I guess I think more about the "government" mandating things for "my or your" "safety." Without turning the thread political it's not their place for them to do that.

91Z28

I disagree.

25% downpayment on a car is a reckless waste of money IMO.

All cars depreciate heavily even though some fare better than others. My personal strategy is to put as little into them as possible, thus I'm a fan of leasing.

2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

Any loan on a car is a "wreckless" waste of money IMO. You are basically saying that you enjoy giving money to corporations as a gift because you have nothing better to do with it. If you can buy a 40K vehicle without comprising any part of your lifestyle then you can wait a couple of years and pay cash for it.

Leasing is throwing your money out the window each month. BUT if you are just going to buy a new vehicle anyways and want something different every couple of years then it is a better option than buying. Less loss and you won't have to worry about selling it. For me leasing has never been an option due to the number of miles I need to drive each day. It isn't uncommon for me to clock in 80 to 100 miles on multiple days each week.

Felix C

Poor use of statistics. Manufacturers do not intend to have a single car appeal to everyone. They look at how much profit per intended market group. My company does CPG and we have good, better, best and all are marketed for specific groups and incomes.

Every organization is a revenue pyramid. Top tier have specific purchasing patterns and so it is with every level of pay. I recall being shocked at how much a 2001 Camaro SS SLP retailed for and just a few years later after promotions and substantial pay increases a more expensive GTO was easily in hand.

wannabess00

iTrader: (1)

Bottom line, Options lists have once again inflated the cost of the average car and therefore put far too many models beyond the reach of younger buyers. However it needs to be said that employers have a responsibility to start paying their employees higher wages to keep up with increasing costs. Productivity has gone up through the years and CEOs and Execs now make 400X what their employees make as opposed to 80X 30yrs ago. That means one group is hoarding all the money and not reinvesting it back into population and therefore endangering domestic companies whos survivals based solely on a large amount of people able to afford their products

Felix C

What a CEO earns is minimal to the bottom line of a large MNC.
People hate on CEOs due to their own inability to earn similar income.

Older vehicles from the 70s/80s/90s were, with few exceptions, either unreliable or fuel inefficient. Higher long term operating costs compared to recent generation and the newest ones appear to be even more resilient and efficient.

The overall amortized price of a vehicle if owned long term will be lower than previous ones which needed replacement within a decade. You are paying for the added value in each vehicle.

2QuikTA

Moot point if nobody can afford the sticker price anyway.

will82

FYI it isn't CEOs keeping the average American down, it's the political snakes who say "look over there" and demonize CEOs while they pass laws and institute regulations that make things costs more and that make using American labor more expensive/less attractive. That institute economic polices leading to merely pitiful economic "growth" during a "recovery" when growth should be strongest/fastest. The 400x vs. 80x is a natural product of economic growth. Income disparity is a meaningless measure unless one is motivated by things other than the well being of those who earn less. Overall growth is key, lower income individuals and families always enjoy the most REAL income growth when the economy is booming, and when the economy is booming income disparity also grows. That's how multiplication works. If a guy making $1,000,000 a year and a guy making $10,000 a year both enjoy equivalent income growth over time, the gap between the two will grow exponentially. And their income growth and decline WILL mirror one another over time, no matter how high or low top tax rates are, no matter which party and what policies are in place. See our own statistical economic history:

will82

Back to the topic at hand, the fact that most Americans cannot afford the average new vehicle price is mostly a function of our current poor economic conditions.

Yes, the growing list of mandated "safety" features hurts. But the effect would probably go unnoticed if we were experiencing consistent 4%+ growth in GDP less the government spending portion of GDP, i.e. the private economy, and we were experiencing healthy income growth.

Basically, the problem will go away when we undergo an actual recovery that sees employment improvement, wage improvement, REAL income improvement, etc. and not just an inflated stock market.

WHEN we will finally get a real recovery and enjoy another economic expansion is anyone's guess. Hunker down and weather the storm.