Greater percentage of wrecked cars being scrapped rather than repaired

I'm for *properly implemented* safety features. Airbags as implemented in
North America are not proper, because they are **REQUIRED** by Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 to be designed and calibrated to "save"
an UNbelted 50th-percentile-male size/weight dummy in a 30mph frontal
barrier crash.

This calibration perforce makes US airbags significantly more likely to
kill or inflict injury in less-severe crashes. Less-severe crashes are
vastly more common than anything equivalent to a 30mph frontal barrier
crash. This requirement means "saving" those too stupid to buckle their
seatbelts *at the expense of* those smart enough to do so.

And yes, this is the legal requirement for all vehicles sold in the US and
Canada. Even the "depowered" ones. Even the "multi-stage" ones. Even the
"smart" ones. Despite all the "Airbags are a supplementary restraint"
PR, the fact is the law *requires* them to be designed as primary
restraints.

In other parts of the world (Europe, Australia, Japan) airbags are
designed and calibrated truly as supplemental restraints. They won't save
an unbelted 50th-percentile male, but they also won't kill or injure.

Since a 3-point (lap/shoulder) seatbelt does over 90 percent of the job of
reducing morbidity and mortality in traffic crashes (across all occupants,
across all crashes), the rest-of-world approach is right and the North
American approach is wrong.

 

| ABS doesn't reduce insurance claims because people don't know how to use ABS
| properly.

[SNIP]

I guess the answer to this then is to keep the ABS and get rid of the people.
Hogwash! Personally, after owning three cars with ABS, I went back to
non-ABS cars and have _better_ control over the behavior of the car as far as
I'm concerned. Sometimes controlled skidding is a desirable directional
control maneuver in a evasive response situation...which is very difficult type
of maneuver to do when the vehicle has ABS.

 

| On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
|
| > What damage, besides killing smaller occupants, are airbags causing?
|
| -Windshield
| -Dashboard assembly
| -Sometimes side glass
| -Often steering wheel
|
| All frequently destroyed or damaged beyond re-use in a bag deployment. And
| that's without counting the airbags themselves.
|
| > >car insurance rates. Again, I ask why don't the car companies come out
with
| > >vastly simpler models?
| >
| > They build what people buy.
|
| And people buy what they build. C'mon, now, did anyone *demand* $100 car
| keys?
|

I've been asking for $100 car keys for 30 years now!! ;-) I'm so happy!!!

 

|
|
| "Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
| >
|
| >
| > There're at least three of us (I'll let Mister Three nominate himself if
| > he so chooses).
|
| Just call me miss Four
|
| Lisa

Mr. Five! Too much gimmicky stuff in cars these days!

 

Interesting. I didn't know most of that. Being significantly smaller
and lighter than the hypothetical 50th percentile male, I'm a bit less
enthused about airbags at the moment.

Sounds like I'm still safe being enthusiastic about seat belts though

Lisa

 

All ABS does is make sure that you hit what you hit square on.
It does NOT reduce stopping distance in my experience. When it gets
slippery using ABS brakes is like stepping on the clutch or throwing
the car in neutral.

 

From my experience in the insurance industry (I am in an insurance
(broker's) office 2-4 hours per day) I don't believe ANYyTHING that
comes out of insurance company studies

 

Boy, This is SCARY!!!!
I'm agreeing with Dan Stern, and he's agreeing with me!!!!!!!

 

Actually Dan the topic is the costs of high tech equipment in cars including
expensive xenon bulbs. Re-read the original post.

 

What annoys me about the keys (besides cost and size) is the cars that use
them which still also use worthless steering wheel locks.

 

I agree with you 100% on this Dan. In fact I would suggest an
improvement..... if the seatbelt is not latched, the air bag doesn't go off
at all. That should help take care of the genetic pool of non-bucklers.

 

Are you referring to traffic statistics or crash tests or both?

 

Heh heh! That'll be a special feature of the new 2006 Daimler Chrysler
Darwin LXi!

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

There's definitely some truth to that. I'm now in the process of
negotiating with another motorist's insurance company on totaling out my
daughter's car from a 15 mph accident last week.

The value of the car is - errr - was - $3k, give or take. Here's what
needs to be replaced: Left fender ($45 CARTA certified aftermarket),
bumper cover ($107 aftermarket), left front turn signal assy. ($45
aftermarket complete), and possibly a strut ($85 higher end aftermarket
- if that's needed, will replace left and right to keep things balanced,
so $170). So right at $370 in parts. But the labor for install and
especially the cost of painting calculates out to a total loss! I was
amazed, and others who know and see the car are too. I put $400 in
medium quality brake parts three months ago (parts cost only plus my
labor), and literally 1-1/2 weeks ago put $350 worth of tires on it!
(And before anyone asks - yes - I plan on buying it back for 15% of
salvage value after the settlement offer.)

I still can't believe that broadsiding a 30 pound, 18" high dog at 55
mph two years ago did $3000 of damage to my Concorde. And I thought
modern bumper design was supposed to cut insurance costs by lessening
damage. I am constantly amazed.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I think a lot of this is due to the continued pressure by the insurance
companies
on states to make auto insurance mandatory. When you go from a state
where 30% of the drivers are insured to a state where 100% of them are
insured, the 70% of drivers that wern't insured before, wern't insured most
likely because they hardly ever had accidents. So the insurance company
gets
a windfall of customers where they rake in a lot more than they ever pay
out,
which funds the small percentage of idiots that kill people or otherwise
cause
the insurance company to pay out giant settlements.

The other thing too is that since cars are so expensive, this makes more of
the customers buy comprehensive insurance, which once again increases money
going to the insurance companies. And since the insurance companies always
make a guarenteed profit (since they raise rates to cover their costs) the
more
money they take in the more they make.

America's insurers declared profits even for the year that 9/11 happened in.
They have a long, long way to go before the rising costs of car repairs will
be felt.

Ted

 

OK: having read the 36 posts on this topic, done bodywork for 30+ years, &
run the website Screwed By insurance (.com - temporarily down due to lack
of hosting funds & complete apathy in this country) for 4 years, I feel
I'm qualified to make a few points. (in no particular order...)
#1 The more expensive parts such as headlights, etc. *do* cost the
insurance cartel more money in low-speed accidents.
#2 Cars are now made to fold up - absorbing the impact - in higher-speed
accidents (this can mean anything from 15 to 20 MPH on up). This causes
more $$$ worth of damage, thus the reason (as per the original post) that
more cars are scrapped. HOWEVER, this also SAVES the insurance cartel more
money than they spend on the cars - in hospital bills!
#3 I personally would rather walk away from a crash & total the car than
save the car & spend some time in the hospital.
#4 I would also never own a car with airbags, or if I did I would dis-able
them. Why? They can go off in a minor bump or off-road excursion causing
you to loose control of the car. I may have to hit the ditch to avoid an
oncoming drunk or something (it's happened). BTW I *always* keep my
seatbelt *tight*! I'm used to it that way; I'm not comfortable if it's
not. I've repaired cars with hair, flesh, & even teeth imbedded in the
broken windshield.
#5 It's the MANDATORY insurance laws that are the reason for high
insurance. When you GO TO JAIL if you don't have insurance, the cartel can
charge WHATEVER THEY LIKE! Now, I know someone will say "but it's state
regulated"; Yeah - regulated by politicians that ALL - & I mean EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF THEM (you can check if you like) get kickbacks - called
"campaign contributions" - from the insurance cartel!!!
#6 The airbags typicly do $1,800 to $3,500 worth in interior/windshield
damage & air bag cost.
#7 I don't think anti-lock brakes have done much (if anything) to reduce
accidents/damage. I know of a couple cases where drivers could *not* stop
("I had my foot on the brakes but the car just kept rolling") in loose
gravel causing some damage. They are probably great in ideal conditions
emergency stops when complete idiots are behind the wheel... Personally I
know how to stop a vehicle as quickly as it can, &/or when to let of to
manuver.
#8 There's been another thread posted adding to this, stating how modified
cars (lowered, etc.) are sooo dagerous & should be illegal (among several
other things just as ignorant). To this I can only say this guy dosen't
have a clue & should move to a dictatorship.
Due to inflation: my 10 cents worth. ;^p
~ Paul
aka "Tha Driver"

Giggle Cream - it makes dessert *funny*!

 

Oh boy...

Not at all. Leasing is the cheapest way for the average person who is
not a mechanic, has no interest in fixing their own vehicle or paying
inflated garage rates to fix it, and who is time-conscious to drive a
car. If you had a job or other situation which *required* reliable,
no-excuses transportation, and you had, say, $400/month, leasing would
be your only feasible option.

If you are an auto hobbyist, if you like modifying your cars or using
them in competition, or you simply have enough time and knowledge to do
it yourself, then congratulations - but you are in the minority.

Used cars depreciate less today than ever before. What was a '55 Chevy
worth in '58? And don't forget what it costs to replace modern parts.

Leasing permits you to *absolutely fix* your vehicle ownership costs.
It isn't for everyone; it makes good sense for a lot of people. If
you can't afford to write a $4000 check on the spur of the moment to
fix a big problem with an older, unwarranted car, and you need reliable
transportation, it makes a *lot* of sense.

....and once people stopped spending "frivolous" money and buying
"frivolous" products, the men and women building, selling, and
marketing those products would find themselves out of work, where they
could enjoy their accumulated savings for as long as said savings
lasted. Eventually, under your vision of spending as little as possible,
we could return to a subsistence agriculture model where every family
grows their own necessities and never wastes a single penny on economic
activity outside their own plot of land.

I'm guessing you are not an economist.

 

ABS does one thing. It makes the most of the available traction. If
there is no traction abvailable, it's not going to help at all. If you
do have traction, it will often produce shorter stopping distances than
your average driver could.

 

Leasing is never the cheapest way for anyone to do anything, ever.