Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover
Family responsibility is vehicle spec in a nutshell. That’s all family members in one vehicle. If unmarried, then it’s the other relatives in need. If it isn’t fitted to this purpose, first, the test doesn’t matter (there was no point in being indebted and slave to its requirements).
This is today passed over without comment society-wide. But was understood as central the first half-century in the auto age.
When it is used is also passed without comment. The fault line around here. “Responsible use” is pretty funny. What days of the week or month are you proscribed from using the car? Plan use that way. Would be, itself, useful.
FE is only one marker of low cost. Long life and high reliability trump it, especially when coupled with safety-related statistical data on design.
Choosing FE over safety, . . hell, buy a motorcycle.
Cars subsidize the entire range of jobs, home locations, etc. But they’re no longer cheap. Fuel is still cheap. Why it (and mass produced food ) are cheap is a better avenue to look at the problem. Details over which air-conditioned go kart is tail-chasing.
Car accidents are like being gunshot. Takes once for life to end or be irrevocably-altered. So, add millions of sorta-humans to the population who can’t reason their way out of a wet paper bag to crowd and worsen the roads to make this conundrum more interesting. Fifty years ago they couldn’t keep up with maintenance requirements, today they’re befuddled by repairs but cars of today are able to go tens of thousands without breakdown. Fifty years ago the cities hadn’t sprawled relative to today, and this dangerous segment didn’t cover the roads. Today their percentage representation is past ignoring (by every category worth positing).
Restrict the use. Not the specification. Quit making it about “ME!” If you’re the man tasked with maintenance and some repairs, sure, you should like the car choice. After the vital questions of family need & safety are addressed.
In other words, start farther back in the logic chain. Assumptions will get one killed. Which is better for a family than permanent disablement. (If you don’t understand that, I’m sorry for you).
.
|
Safety is a concern of mine. Of course anything +Y2K has to be safer than the '85 VW that I'm driving right now.
But I live in a rural area where there's a small town with 25 to 30 mph speed limits. And the driving I do over the highway is usually during hours that I'm completely alone, not another single car on the highway. The main problem are deer, avalanches, mudslides, snow and ice with steep deadly revenes right off the edge of the road. Going the speed limit goes a long way. Between 50 and 60mpg you double your stopping distance. Just the other day a mother deer and her fawn jumped right in front of the '85 Golf as I went around a corner. But since I observe all advisory speed limit signs I was able to stop in plenty the time.
Plus, where can you find absolute safety statistics? Not the old "SUV's are for headons and cars are for avoiding rollovers" rule of thumb statistics. I was surprised that back when I had my Chevy Astro, a van that was criticized for being terribly unsafe, the odds of me dying in one was nearly half that as in a Ford Explorer, a "safe full sized SUV". And a late 90's VW Golf had about the same odds of being in a deadly accident as a Chevy Suburban, the statistically safest SUV to ride in. I haven't found any recent studies on the statistics though so who knows what's truly safer. Everyone assumes full sized SUV's are the safest, but statistically there's no fine line between them and cars in protecting their occupants, at least according to data from 15 years ago. But in an SUV you're twice as likely to run someone over. That means I would be more likely to run over nieces and nephews accidentally in an SUV than in a car.
I think looking for a newer name brand car, like a 2013 or newer Toyota, is going to be about as safe as it gets. Yes, there are different crash test ratings and different odds in different situations between different cars. But without the absolute number on odds of getting into a deadly accident, there's no way of knowing what car is the safest. It would be like saying flying by a commercial airliner is more dangerous than in a car because you're less likely to die in a car wreck than a plane crash.
But if I have to buy a Suburban to be "safe", that's it. I might as well as commit suicide or something. I have to drive some 30,000 miles per year on a $30,000 per year salary. I understand safety being of upmost importance, but if it costs a fortune then forget it. I'm not spending half my paycheck on a vehicle. There's no point in buying the "safest" vehicle out there and letting the family starve to death and have to live in the street. And public transportation doesn't exist here so that's not an option either. So it can't be all about safety and nothing else. I have to balance between safety, cost, and functionality. Going from a 1985 VW Golf to a 2013 or newer Prius C isn't cheaper, but is safer.
This reminds me of several years back when I tried to get health insurance for my wife and I. I was quoted the cheapest premium that we could get was a little over $500 each per month. So $1,000 per month for both or $12,000 per year. But that was with a $6,000 deductible each, and a family deductible of $12,000 total per year. At the time I was making $2000 per month or $24,000 per year. So basically, if we got hurt, 100% of my yearly salary would go to health insurance, assuming I didn't stop working due to the injury. Things since then things have changed, but sometimes all you can do is just try not to get hurt.
Yes, I could go find a job that pays more, o go work two jobs. But then it wouldn't allow me to the things that are important to me. If it's all work and no time to care for my aging parents or support my friends when in need or spend time with family, what's the point in living?