Author Topic: Antimustachian Used Car Ad  (Read 8944 times)

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« on: June 28, 2013, 08:36:54 AM »
Posted up at work:

2007 Toyota Camry SE
Perfect Condition
Title in Hand
56k miles
$15k
Selling to get a family car

Um, what? Unless you just shat out a set of quintuplets, you ALREADY OWN A RELIABLE, PAID FOR PERFECT FAMILY CAR!!!!!!!!! (Translation, I'm buying a huge SUV to commute to work alone in)

footenote

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 801
  • MMMing in MN
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2013, 10:03:28 AM »
I asked my husband just this week: "When did everyone get brainwashed that a family requires more than a sedan?" And, yes, the vast majority of said SUV's driving time is spent hauling one passenger.

It is such a weird mindgame marketers have perpetrated on the middle class. You must have an SUV. You must have a super expensive stroller and carseat. Your ten year old must have a cellphone and an iPad. It's beyond expectation creep; as so many of us on this forum have experienced, you're the weird one now if you don't own those "must-haves."

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #2 on: June 28, 2013, 10:18:56 AM »
I don't disagree with your thoughts on the typical mindset but I'm not sure all the blame can be laid at the feet at marketers (disclaimer: I am one).

To the best of my knowledge, the boom in SUV popularity started in the early to mid 90's. There was a perception, with perhaps a kernal of truth, that SUV's were safer than cars. At the time cars were not held to the standard they are today and so mass usually was viewed as the winner in an accident. The higher view also helped pull in traditional sedan drivers, like short women, and helped them feel "empowered". As the market exploded, SUV's became more car like. Now the perception is that you'd have to have a reason to choose a sedan over an SUV (and some of that I can understand with some crossovers getting over 30 MPG, being basically car-based, and similar in price to sedans). I'd say that yes, partly marketers are driving the behavior, but they are more likely just exploiting it (or in other words... doing business). To be honest I lay most of the blame on a lack of self-awareness of the owner. They are unwilling or unable to decide for themselves true need vs. desire, and their desire vs. desire perpetuated by marketing, neighbors, colleagues, etc. If there wasn't a market, there wouldn't be SUV's. Personally, I'd love to see all vehicles decrease in size and weight, because the advantages are obvious.

Just my $.02.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2013, 12:01:53 PM »
There was a perception, with perhaps a kernal of truth, that SUV's were safer than cars.

Not even a kernel.  It's been demonstrated over and over that SUVs (and large pickups) are actually more dangerous than small to midsize sedans.  See e.g. Wenzel & Ross, "The effects of vehicle model and driver behavior on risk", or this article: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/2/safer-vehicles-for-people-and-the-planet/1

snshijuptr

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 147
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2013, 12:24:58 PM »
I will say that when you have 2 car seats in most sedans, the driver and passenger have very little room. Of course there are huge variations in the horizontal space taken up by a car seat. We couldn't fit a Graco infant seat into our Honda Fit so we went with a 3 in one convertible. That said, my husband, who drives as far back as possible in the Fit, cannot have a car seat behind him. We will need a bigger car when we have a second baby.

stevesteve

  • Guest
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2013, 12:31:39 PM »
I will say that when you have 2 car seats in most sedans, the driver and passenger have very little room. Of course there are huge variations in the horizontal space taken up by a car seat. We couldn't fit a Graco infant seat into our Honda Fit so we went with a 3 in one convertible. That said, my husband, who drives as far back as possible in the Fit, cannot have a car seat behind him. We will need a bigger car when we have a second baby.

I feel I am misunderstanding your use of the word "need".   The way I see it there are tons of things I can do to marginally increase my comfort while driving*.  They will make you slightly more comfortable for a little bit of time during the day.  If that little bit of time is not a little bit of time then you're probably spending way too much of your life driving.  Maybe I'll see it differently if I have kids but the idea that buying a new car and not a newer, smaller baby seat or adjusting my seat position is the answer just seems crazy to me.  I don't really plan on having any car but unless I have four kids I'm pretty sure a used Corolla will work out fine.  Plus, the newer year Corollas are huge.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4640
  • Age: 12
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2013, 01:01:27 PM »
The idea that a 2013 sedan does not fit a family is preposterous. Humanity did not wait for the SUV and to transport their precious little kids around . Any modern sedan fits 4 adults comfortably (unless they're vastly overweight or just very tall).

If you look at the evolution of popular sedans over the past 20 years, they have been getting bigger and bigger yet people keep complaining about room. Hedonic adaptation at its finest.

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2013, 01:05:37 PM »
There was a perception, with perhaps a kernal of truth, that SUV's were safer than cars.

Not even a kernel.  It's been demonstrated over and over that SUVs (and large pickups) are actually more dangerous than small to midsize sedans.  See e.g. Wenzel & Ross, "The effects of vehicle model and driver behavior on risk", or this article: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2008/2/safer-vehicles-for-people-and-the-planet/1

I was specifically speaking of the early 1990's when roof crush standards and airbags were in their infancy and not universally employed, let alone widespread use of crumple zones, side air bags, and intelligently designed soft interior materials (and the fact that all early SUV's were decidedly truck-based). Simply put, between a Corolla and an Explorer, the Explorer would come out on top based on expectations at the time (survival space). Now, the distinction is not so relevant due to the high standards for both car and SUV categories and the decreasing distance in weight, size, and protection of each. That is, relative safety in a new Taurus vs. new Explorer would be hard to distinguish in an accident.

All that long winded reply to say that people still think SUV's are safer regardless of reality and I'd rather be in a capable sedan! :)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 01:08:29 PM by Forcus »

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2013, 01:07:34 PM »
Um, what? Unless you just shat out a set of quintuplets, you ALREADY OWN A RELIABLE, PAID FOR PERFECT FAMILY CAR!!!!!!!!! (Translation, I'm buying a huge SUV to commute to work alone in)

Between adoptions and their biological children, I know a family with 10+ kids.  They drive a 16 passenger van that's 20+ years old.  I'd like to see them in a Camry though, just for the comedy.

August West

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • stop wasting your money
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2013, 01:31:24 PM »
This is interesting:

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/05/026.html

In head-on collisions between passenger cars and SUVs, the UB researchers found that drivers in passenger cars were nearly 10 times more likely to die if the SUV involved had a better crash rating. Drivers of passenger cars were more than four times more likely to die even if the passenger car had a better crash rating than the SUV.

 “When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4852
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2013, 01:44:51 PM »
Yet smaller cars have lower fatality rates per mile driven.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5753
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #11 on: June 28, 2013, 02:06:54 PM »
This is interesting:

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/05/026.html

In head-on collisions between passenger cars and SUVs, the UB researchers found that drivers in passenger cars were nearly 10 times more likely to die if the SUV involved had a better crash rating. Drivers of passenger cars were more than four times more likely to die even if the passenger car had a better crash rating than the SUV.

 “When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.

I would wildly guess (with not a smidgin of scientific evidence to back my claim) that SUV fatalities are correlated to idiots trying to make them turn corners as if they were a Type E Jaguar.  Mass is helpful in a 2 car crash, but it's a bitch when your CG is way up high.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2013, 02:09:12 PM »
Um, what? Unless you just shat out a set of quintuplets, you ALREADY OWN A RELIABLE, PAID FOR PERFECT FAMILY CAR!!!!!!!!! (Translation, I'm buying a huge SUV to commute to work alone in)

Between adoptions and their biological children, I know a family with 10+ kids.  They drive a 16 passenger van that's 20+ years old.  I'd like to see them in a Camry though, just for the comedy.

But think how much it would cost to outfit all of them with big floppy shoes!

renbutler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Location: Midwest USA
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #13 on: June 28, 2013, 02:11:43 PM »
I don't disagree with your thoughts on the typical mindset but I'm not sure all the blame can be laid at the feet at marketers (disclaimer: I am one).

To the best of my knowledge, the boom in SUV popularity started in the early to mid 90's. There was a perception, with perhaps a kernal of truth, that SUV's were safer than cars. At the time cars were not held to the standard they are today and so mass usually was viewed as the winner in an accident. The higher view also helped pull in traditional sedan drivers, like short women, and helped them feel "empowered". As the market exploded, SUV's became more car like. Now the perception is that you'd have to have a reason to choose a sedan over an SUV (and some of that I can understand with some crossovers getting over 30 MPG, being basically car-based, and similar in price to sedans). I'd say that yes, partly marketers are driving the behavior, but they are more likely just exploiting it (or in other words... doing business). To be honest I lay most of the blame on a lack of self-awareness of the owner. They are unwilling or unable to decide for themselves true need vs. desire, and their desire vs. desire perpetuated by marketing, neighbors, colleagues, etc. If there wasn't a market, there wouldn't be SUV's. Personally, I'd love to see all vehicles decrease in size and weight, because the advantages are obvious.

Just my $.02.

I'd say that was at least $.04.

Great post, particularly the bolded part.

BTW, we bought an SUV when we had kids. We traded in a small pick-up truck to get it. Obviously, kids couldn't ride in a pick-up. The SUV was used, purchased with cash, mid-sized, the lowest cost to insure of any vehicle in its model year, and gives us plenty of room for two kids and cargo. We rarely drive it with only one person, as our commutes are at different times of day in our economy sedan.

Our smallish SUV is right-sized for us, and its purchase had nothing to do with marketing.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 02:15:27 PM by renbutler »

Zamboni

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2563
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #14 on: June 28, 2013, 02:49:59 PM »
Quote
I'm pretty sure a used Corolla will work out fine.

I had a '92 Corolla and for the most part it was fine when we had twins.  It was a bit of a challenge finding a double stroller that could handle the infant car seat:  the only one that fit in the trunk was the "Snap and Go."  It was basically a metal frame that folded up small and could fit any brand of car seats.  Bonus that it was also the cheapest option:  a win-win!

The bigger challenge for that car was that 6'8" Dad HAD to have the seat all the way back in order to safely operate the pedals (it was a manual transmission, so lots of clutching needed.)  There was also the need to tilt the seat slightly back for adequate headroom, and these two things together wouldn't happen with the car seats in.

Car shopping was hilarious.  The Maxima (which sounds big) was not even possible.  Eventually we got an Odyssey, which alleviated the space constraints and had the added bonus that it allowed transportation of the following items all purchased on Craigslist or at Goodwill:  refrigerator, washer, dryer, full size mattress, dresser, coffee table, desk with hutch, bookcases, kitchen table and chairs. 

But yes, I agree, most of the giant SUV's I see on the road have exactly one person in them.

August West

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • stop wasting your money
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2013, 02:52:02 PM »
Yet smaller cars have lower fatality rates per mile driven.

Can you point me to a good source for fatality rates per mile driven for different vehicle types?

The most recent summarized data I can find is here (it takes into account modern electronic stability control on SUVs) - it looks at driver fatality - and ranks vehicles in the following order (most safe to least safe):

1. minivans (25 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years)
2. SUVs  (28 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years)
3. pickups (52 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years)
4. cars (56 driver deaths per million registered vehicle years)

TLV

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Bellevue, WA
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2013, 02:54:13 PM »
This is interesting:

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/05/026.html

In head-on collisions between passenger cars and SUVs, the UB researchers found that drivers in passenger cars were nearly 10 times more likely to die if the SUV involved had a better crash rating. Drivers of passenger cars were more than four times more likely to die even if the passenger car had a better crash rating than the SUV.

 “When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.

IIRC front-end crash ratings are done with fixed-object collisions - so the sedans with higher safety ratings were safer when the object of collision was the same. What those test results say to me is that it's much more dangerous to have a head-on collision an SUV than to have one with a sedan. Kind of like how the dangerous part of biking isn't riding a bike - it's getting hit by cars.

To me, that raises a moral issue - by driving a bigger car than necessary, or by driving instead of biking, one is increasing the danger to others for one's own perceived benefit.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5753
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2013, 03:00:35 PM »
To me, that raises a moral issue - by driving a bigger car than necessary, or by driving instead of biking, one is increasing the danger to others for one's own perceived benefit.

That might be taking it a little too far.  You follow that logic and the only moral folk out there are the ones very carefully walking about whilst wearing bubblewrap.

The smaller vehicles/bikes know there is a very slight risk and are tolerant to that.  Assuming the larger vehicle is operating safely, not out to kill people and not inebriated:  this is just life.  Life has a small amount of risk.

To state it differently: I drive a small car.  In no way does that make me more moral than the F-150 parked next to me or less moral than the cyclist I carefully pass.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4342
  • Location: CT
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2013, 03:03:28 PM »
This is interesting:

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/05/026.html

In head-on collisions between passenger cars and SUVs, the UB researchers found that drivers in passenger cars were nearly 10 times more likely to die if the SUV involved had a better crash rating. Drivers of passenger cars were more than four times more likely to die even if the passenger car had a better crash rating than the SUV.

 “When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.

IIRC front-end crash ratings are done with fixed-object collisions - so the sedans with higher safety ratings were safer when the object of collision was the same. What those test results say to me is that it's much more dangerous to have a head-on collision an SUV than to have one with a sedan. Kind of like how the dangerous part of biking isn't riding a bike - it's getting hit by cars.

To me, that raises a moral issue - by driving a bigger car than necessary, or by driving instead of biking, one is increasing the danger to others for one's own perceived benefit.

The only solution is to have a bigger SUV than the other guy. An arms race of assholes if you will.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4852
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2013, 03:11:25 PM »
Can you point me to a good source for fatality rates per mile driven for different vehicle types?
I thought there was a link in an older thread but I'm failing hard at the search tool today. I'll update this post if/when I find it.

Aaaand, found it. It was this forum post by Bakari, linking to this MMM blog post, which is not by miles driven.

This report and the MMM statistics both seem to strongly contradict the qualitative trend your numbers suggest, though.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 03:19:09 PM by grantmeaname »

TLV

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Bellevue, WA
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2013, 03:22:19 PM »
To me, that raises a moral issue - by driving a bigger car than necessary, or by driving instead of biking, one is increasing the danger to others for one's own perceived benefit.

That might be taking it a little too far.  You follow that logic and the only moral folk out there are the ones very carefully walking about whilst wearing bubblewrap.

The smaller vehicles/bikes know there is a very slight risk and are tolerant to that.  Assuming the larger vehicle is operating safely, not out to kill people and not inebriated:  this is just life.  Life has a small amount of risk.

To state it differently: I drive a small car.  In no way does that make me more moral than the F-150 parked next to me or less moral than the cyclist I carefully pass.

Perhaps moral isn't the right word. It's a "tragedy of the commons" case - a philosophical question that I personally find worth thinking about.

Frankly, if it were only about the safety considerations, I would also go with the big SUV. My main reasons for owning a small car and biking most of the time are financial cost and personal enjoyment.

cdub

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 167
    • Mortgage Payoff Club
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2013, 05:07:23 PM »
We just purchased a used Odyssey for our family car. (3 kids) Couldn't fit everyone in the Civic anymore.

But it was my first all cash car purchase. First used car purchase. Things are a changin.....

Yes we could have possibly (possibly) squeezed everyone in a wagon... but with the possibility of a fourth I don't want to have to buy another car in a couple of years.

We're going to use it as little as possible - and my plan is to buy a bike on my birthday for trips in our small town.

August West

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • stop wasting your money
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2013, 05:11:02 PM »
Can you point me to a good source for fatality rates per mile driven for different vehicle types?
I thought there was a link in an older thread but I'm failing hard at the search tool today. I'll update this post if/when I find it.

Aaaand, found it. It was this forum post by Bakari, linking to this MMM blog post, which is not by miles driven.

This report and the MMM statistics both seem to strongly contradict the qualitative trend your numbers suggest, though.

The statistics that MMM uses show subcompact and compact cars being about as safe as mid-size SUVs, and less safe than full size SUVs.  It shows mid-size cars as being safer than either type of SUV.

The paper you linked to as well as the statistics MMM do not make a distinction between SUVs with and without stability control.  Looking at the more recent data it appears that newer  SUVs are safer than cars. 

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2013, 05:27:35 PM »
“When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.

If you read the Wenzel & Ross paper (or a lot of other research) you will find this taken into account.  Driving SUVs does little if anything to increase the safety of the people riding in the SUV, and significantly decreases the safety of anyone unfortunate enough to be hit by one.  From their figures, regardless of the kind of vehicle you're driving, you're about 2-3 times as likely to be killed in a collision if the other vehicle is a large SUV than a Honda Civic, and nearly 13 times as likely if the other vehicle is a Dodge Ram pickup.

The most recent summarized data I can find is here (it takes into account modern electronic stability control on SUVs) - it looks at driver fatality...

That's the problem right there, only looking at driver fatalities.  Stability control or no stability control, SUVs cause more deaths than they save, it's just that a lot of the deaths are people being struck by the SUVs.

August West

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • stop wasting your money
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2013, 05:46:52 PM »
“When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.

If you read the Wenzel & Ross paper (or a lot of other research) you will find this taken into account.  Driving SUVs does little if anything to increase the safety of the people riding in the SUV, and significantly decreases the safety of anyone unfortunate enough to be hit by one.  From their figures, regardless of the kind of vehicle you're driving, you're about 2-3 times as likely to be killed in a collision if the other vehicle is a large SUV than a Honda Civic, and nearly 13 times as likely if the other vehicle is a Dodge Ram pickup.

The most recent summarized data I can find is here (it takes into account modern electronic stability control on SUVs) - it looks at driver fatality...

That's the problem right there, only looking at driver fatalities.  Stability control or no stability control, SUVs cause more deaths than they save, it's just that a lot of the deaths are people being struck by the SUVs.

Doh! - I did not provide a link to the data I was talking about.  It is newer than the Wenzel and Ross paper (published in 2002) - it looks at 2005 - 2008 models:

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf

This is the best data on newer vehicles I have been able to find - if there is better data out there I would love to see it. 

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2013, 07:02:31 PM »
Don't know if anyone pointed it out, but I don't think fatalities per miles driven is even quite relevant. It really should be fatalities per passenger - miles driven. That is, if an SUV with 4 people travels one mile and crashes and two people die, and a car with 2 people travels one mile and crashes and one person dies, it doesn't make the car twice as safe. I don't think that number doesn't exist but it stands to reason that a minivan carrying 6 people has more potential for death in a mile than a 2 seat sports car... demographics aside.

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2013, 07:11:28 PM »
Our smallish SUV is right-sized for us, and its purchase had nothing to do with marketing.

Yeah, I think when people poke fun at SUV's they are thinking of the body-on-frame truck-based Expeditions and Excursions of the world. The newest (smaller) SUV's are so car-like that the line between car and SUV is blurred. Heck, we have an SUV (2009 Escape 2WD, 4 cylinder, 5 speed) and it gets mileage very close (~29) to my 05 Volvo S40 and 02 Focus ZX5 while having quite a bit more usable space, being nearly as quick as either of the above, and somewhat decent handling. It works for us because we have to transport animal kennels and they won't fit in most cars / wagons. And honestly, if the wife decided she wanted to drive a car again (she drives the Escape), I'd probably sell the Escape and get a Liberty diesel or Grand Cherokee diesel. Not strictly Mustachian but not something I'd feel bad about.

grantmeaname

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4852
  • Age: 27
  • Location: NYC
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2013, 09:15:10 PM »
it stands to reason that a minivan carrying 6 people has more potential for death in a mile than a 2 seat sports car... demographics aside.
Yet that's the opposite of the trend observed.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2013, 12:12:45 PM »
it stands to reason that a minivan carrying 6 people has more potential for death in a mile than a 2 seat sports car... demographics aside.
Yet that's the opposite of the trend observed.

Perhaps because the minivans (or to an even greater degree, SUVs) are so often carrying only one or two people.

Which of course raises the opposite question: many people, like me, seldom if ever drive with more than one other person in the vehicle, so why do they buy vehicles that will carry 5 or more?

Forcus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Location: Central Illinois
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2013, 12:46:58 PM »

Which of course raises the opposite question: many people, like me, seldom if ever drive with more than one other person in the vehicle, so why do they buy vehicles that will carry 5 or more?

I think it's a perception that some people have that they have to be totally self sufficient (of course the irony is that by wasting money / not being cognizant of real need, they are becoming less self sufficient..). Maybe it's an inability to compromise or calculate opportunity cost. Or in my case (I daily drove a diesel Dodge for 4 years) I didn't trust anyone enough to borrow a truck when I need it and didn't realize there were other options. The funny part is a small trailer with one of my cars is actually more useful than a truck - crawling in the back of a truck that is high off the ground is not much fun and my trailer is 5x8 so it's actually longer than my truck's bed.

jnik

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 149
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2013, 06:57:57 AM »
“When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.
The data I've seen (and it's been awhile) indicate that, in a crash between, say, an Explorer and a Fit, the occupants of the Explorer are better off. But the occupants of both vehicles are better off in a collision between two Fits than in a collision between two Explorers.

Tragedy of the commons.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5753
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2013, 08:09:44 AM »
“When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.
The data I've seen (and it's been awhile) indicate that, in a crash between, say, an Explorer and a Fit, the occupants of the Explorer are better off. But the occupants of both vehicles are better off in a collision between two Fits than in a collision between two Explorers.

Tragedy of the commons.

Praise Newton!

Mr Mark

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1182
  • Location: Planet Earth
  • Achieved Financial Independence summer 2014. RE'18
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2013, 10:05:48 AM »
“When two vehicles are involved in a crash, the overwhelming majority of fatalities occur in the smaller and lighter of the two vehicles,” says Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine at Erie County Medical Center and first author.
The data I've seen (and it's been awhile) indicate that, in a crash between, say, an Explorer and a Fit, the occupants of the Explorer are better off. But the occupants of both vehicles are better off in a collision between two Fits than in a collision between two Explorers.

Tragedy of the commons.

Praise Newton!

I think the government thus regulate suv standards, and make the suv take account of colliding with a smaller car. The suv is built to contain crumple zones for the benefit of the other car!

I used to think my old suburban was safer in a collision with a small car, but I was convinced otherwise by the crash test data.

The old suburban is, however, much better in low speed, dent and ding situations. Modern cars crumple very easily.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2013, 11:45:47 AM »
Modern cars crumple very easily.

They're supposed to.  The crumpling absorbs energy in a collision, so that it's not passed to the passengers.

Hamster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2013, 12:34:28 PM »
Don't know if anyone pointed it out, but I don't think fatalities per miles driven is even quite relevant. It really should be fatalities per passenger - miles driven. That is, if an SUV with 4 people travels one mile and crashes and two people die, and a car with 2 people travels one mile and crashes and one person dies, it doesn't make the car twice as safe. I don't think that number doesn't exist but it stands to reason that a minivan carrying 6 people has more potential for death in a mile than a 2 seat sports car... demographics aside.

The IIHS data that August West linked to only compares driver fatalities, so that it isn't skewed by the number of passengers.

It is very interesting to go through and compare specific makes/models. For example, the 4WD Honda CR-V (small SUV) had a driver fatality rate about a 3rd that of the the 2WD CR-V or the Honda Pilot (midsize SUV?!?!?). The sample size is large enough to be clearly statistically significant in those cases. GM (Chevy, Cadillac, Buick) seems to have some of the deadliest cars in almost every category that they are represented.

My favorite car is my bike, and as much as I hate to accept it, the IIHS data is pretty compelling that from 2006-2010 - with modern electronic stability control - SUVs are safer on average for their drivers than other car classes, except minivans. From what I recall, this is a big change from the late 90's/early 2000's when SUV rollover rates and driver fatalities were higher than sedans of similar weights. Even driver fatalities from rollovers are now lower for most SUVs than sedans, which is pretty astonishing.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Location: Denver
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #35 on: July 01, 2013, 11:40:31 AM »

It is very interesting to go through and compare specific makes/models. For example, the 4WD Honda CR-V (small SUV) had a driver fatality rate about a 3rd that of the the 2WD CR-V or the Honda Pilot (midsize SUV?!?!?). The sample size is large enough to be clearly statistically significant in those cases. GM (Chevy, Cadillac, Buick) seems to have some of the deadliest cars in almost every category that they are represented.

The different driver demographics make figuring all this out even more complicated. The 4WD CR-V should be a bit heavier than the 2WD version, so maybe it's weight that's safer. But then why is the 4WD better than the Pilot? Maybe statistically, Pilot owners are worse drivers.

Minivans have a low fatality rate, but is it because the van itself is so safe or because they're typically driven by older, often female, parents? I would bet that my Civic sedan has a lower fatality rate than the coupe. Same car, but each model is going to attract a certain type of driver.

ace1224

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: Antimustachian Used Car Ad
« Reply #36 on: July 01, 2013, 11:42:37 AM »
Posted up at work:

2007 Toyota Camry SE
Perfect Condition
Title in Hand
56k miles
$15k
Selling to get a family car

Um, what? Unless you just shat out a set of quintuplets, you ALREADY OWN A RELIABLE, PAID FOR PERFECT FAMILY CAR!!!!!!!!! (Translation, I'm buying a huge SUV to commute to work alone in)

haha this could have been my brother.  they needed to get a van bc they couldn't fit 3 carseats in the back of a sedan.  that is what a set of twins and an 18 month old will do