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

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

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

> > > 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. 
> 
> Look at miles before repair experienced in the mid 60's compared
> to modern cars.  I believe you'll find that our parents weren't
> crazy when they talked about how much better cars were in their
> day.

I can't speak for your parents, but *my* parents would never have
said that.  All of the non-anecodtal data point against your
conclusion.  Consumer Reports has been tracking reliability for over
20 years now, and they claim that reports of problems in the first
year have gone down by a factor of three.  Seriously, *everything* 
has gotten better, although some things have gotten better faster 
than others.  Electrical systems, for example, have not gotten much 
more reliable, but they have gotten a lot more complicated.

With all due respect, I don't believe your assertion, although I'd 
be thrilled to see some hard data on this.


[snip] 

> > > 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
> 
> 2 reasons, 1, everybody was used to 55, so they weren't
> confident about their driving skills at 90mph. 2, as I said, the
> cops are much more strict now than then.

Hmm...as I remember it, *nobody* drove 55 except in oddball
high-enforcement places for years before they finally lifted the
limit.  I don't see much sign of stricter cops, although the 
possibility is there since today's speeder is likely to be doing 
85 or 90 when back in the day it would be 70 or 75, and doing 85 or
90 is probably really asking for trouble in an absolute sense.  For
that matter, if cops in Missouri have gotten *stricter*, they must 
have been driving behind people and forcing them to drive faster in 
the olden days; the state police are almost invisible on I-70 as far 
as I can tell.

> In the 60's, it wasn't uncommon to drive by a cop with a beer in
> your hand and him just wave and smile, now you're likely to pay
> more in traffic fines than on your last computer.

Well, I didn't grow up around here, but an open container violation 
was always big trouble back in the day where I lived.
 
> > 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.
> 
> They had seat belts back then, the difference now is A) they
> enforce their use, and B) airbags.

Seat belts did not always have shoulder harnesses; that's a
non-trivial improvement.  Enforcement of seat belt laws has always 
been spotty; in many places you cannot be pulled over just for a 
seat belt violation.  Use *has* gone up, 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
> 
> Actually, the Geo is about the same. The model T was targeted at
> the same income bracket. The Model T at $280 when the working
> class was making an average of $300 a year, now the Geo at $15k
> when the working class is making about $18k.

Actually, I just checked, and there aren't any more Geo anythings 
any more.  If we're talking about the old Geo Metro, that would be
the Suzuki Swift, and that's a dead car in the 2002 model year.
A 4-door Hyundai Accent should run you $11,000.  For $15K, you could
buy a Ford Focus.  I'm absolutely certain I'd be safer in any Ford
car these days than a Model T.

[snip] 

> > 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.
> 
> Actually, this would have been the 1920's.

Yes, I know that.  But with all due respect, I find the idea that a 
car from the 1920s would be safe by any measure so weird that I 
tried to update the comparison to something more reasonable.

> I've yet to find the crash test results for a Model T (if one
> has ever been tested) but here's your Geo's:

The Geo was your idea, not mine.  Obviously it's not a safe car by
today's standards, but today's standards are a lot better than the
no standards of the good old days.

Really.

jking

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

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