RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] computer and car prices (was Re: [MLUG])

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Ross, Matt wrote:

> > > Cars are somewhat more reliable but from the numbers I've read
> > > from inflation reports etc they are quite a bit more expensive
> > > to start and repairs cost more.
> > 
> > I'd like to see where those numbers are coming from.  Everything I
> > have seen suggests automobile *prices* have basically tracked the
> > CPI since the 1960s, while the cars themselves last almost twice as
> > long.  Total expenditure on cars probably has not reflected these 
> > changes because there are many more cars in circulation per person 
> > than their used to be.
> 
> Twice as long?  Every new car I've seen has lasted at best half as long.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Could you clarify this statement?

To put it another way, do you really think that cars in the mid-60s
really lasted twice as long (measured in miles traveled before the
thing is turfed) as the car that is expected to get 100K miles or
more on it these days?  The data here are sometimes a bit hard to
find to play with, but the effect is huge. 
 
> > > I'm not sure I'd agree cars are safer. They replaced metal with
> > > plastic and I've known way too many people who've died in car
> > > crashes due largely to faulty vehicles.
> > 
> > OK, the big improvements have come due to innovations like seat 
> > belts; I'll check the numbers again some time.
> 
> No, the big improvement was a 55mph speed limit that everyone is
> now used to.  That, and a lot of cracking down on drunk drivers.

Um, the 55 mph speed limit is now history, but fatalities have
continued to improve. (The weird but true fact was that when it
finally went away, traffic fatalities did not increase as was widely
predicted, even by people like me.)  That said, I will certainly
retract my statement as to what the cause was until I see all the
data again.  Seat belts played a role (wearing one basically halves
your probability of dying in an accident), but another big factor
was the increase in the quality of roads that people used, and th
drunk driving campaigns you mention have helped, too.

 
> > > Maybe expensive cars are safer. The cheap bubble cars most of us
> > > seem to end up with aren't so decent.
> > 
> > They're probably better than the cheap cars of yester year, though.
> 
> What would you classify as cheap cars then?  I'd feel much safer
> in a Model T than a 2002 Geo.

I don't really care how safe you *feel*, but how safe you are.  
There are a couple of way you could look at this.  Unfortunately, 
one of the ways is almost certainly not what you're looking for 
(compare the Model T to the cars that are as expensive in real terms 
today; the Geo would be much cheaper).  The other way is to compare
cars of the same relative costs within their time period, but then 
I'm not sure what the comparison vehicle for the Model T would be.

And then there's another huge problem, which is that the historical
data is a Model T driving on roads of the Model T era, while the
2002 Geo is traveling on our (much better) roads, but in a violently
more congested environment surrounded by much bigger cars.

That said, I'm not really sure where the relevant data are these
days.  But driving used to be such a blood sport (when measured in
deaths per 10 million passenger miles) that I would be absolutely
overwhelmed if the historical data showed that the cheap car of 1950
were really safer on the road.

jking


--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/