Are you afraid your new car's value will be ruined by the driverless car?

[JLee]

...because I value my leisure time so much!" is very much at odds with the whole MMM ethos.

Really?  I thought a major part of the ethos was enjoying leisure time?  Did I get that wrong?  Is RE not basically in the pursuit of leisure time?  Why then would I use up part of my leisure time when putting that same amount into my working life would be far more economically beneficial? 

Either a big part of the ethos is optimizing non-working time or it's not.  Seems to me it is.

A big part of the ethos is making all of your time non-working* time through taming the wild horse of consumption and lifestyle inflation.

*referring to ordinary paycheck jobs, and instead focusing your time and energy on hobbies, passions, etc. that may or may not be revenue-generating

[JLee]

I have not attacked anyone here personally but the personal attacks on me are numerous.  Nice work.

If you would please point out where I have attacked you, I would greatly appreciate it.

[PiobStache]

I have not attacked anyone here personally but the personal attacks on me are numerous.  Nice work.

If you would please point out where I have attacked you, I would greatly appreciate it.

Please point out to me where I accused you in particular of that.  However, if you read back where I made a simple reply to the OP's question, you'll see multiple less than flattering characterizations used against me.

[PiobStache]

A big part of the ethos is making all of your time non-working* time through taming the wild horse of consumption and lifestyle inflation.

*referring to ordinary paycheck jobs, and instead focusing your time and energy on hobbies, passions, etc. that may or may not be revenue-generating

And from what I've posted you've determined I do not engage in the bolded?

As apparently some sort of personal justification/explanation is all that will do here, I tamed that wild horse earlier in my life.  I busted arse at work, same as my wife did.  The results were that we could be both FI and enjoy a few luxuries in life...just like I bet everyone else here does to one degree or another. 

There was recently a thread here where folks were talking about annual spends of 200k and more.  They received less grief than I have over leasing vehicles!

[JLee]

A big part of the ethos is making all of your time non-working* time through taming the wild horse of consumption and lifestyle inflation.

*referring to ordinary paycheck jobs, and instead focusing your time and energy on hobbies, passions, etc. that may or may not be revenue-generating

And from what I've posted you've determined I do not engage in the bolded?

As apparently some sort of personal justification/explanation is all that will do here, I tamed that wild horse earlier in my life.  I busted arse at work, same as my wife did.  The results were that we could be both FI and enjoy a few luxuries in life...just like I bet everyone else here does to one degree or another. 

There was recently a thread here where folks were talking about annual spends of 200k and more.  They received less grief than I have over leasing vehicles!

From what I've posted, I've determined you would have more time available if you were actually FIREd.

Again, I really don't give two shits about what you do.  I am explaining why you are getting this reaction, since you seem confused about it.

[GuitarStv]

I know it was rhetorical, but let me take a stab at it.  Your choice would seem to go generally against the advice of the person who started this blog and forum.  He advocated minimizing your reliance upon others to do tasks that can easily be learned and accomplished on your own, calling it 'badassity'.  It's therefore not surprising that you'll find dissenting opinions here.

Steve, how many guitars, amps, and effect pedals do you own?

Two electric guitars, an acoustic guitar, a tenor acoustic guitar, a bass guitar, a mandolin, and a violin.  Five of the previous were inherited, and the rest were purchased used.  I have a bass amp and a guitar amp (both purchased used and non-functioning, but was able to get them working again).  Couldn't give you an exact number of effect pedals (maybe eight?), I built and sold them for a while and still probably have a few half finished and kicking around in drawers.  Aside from strings and tubes, my newest piece of musical equipment is about 15 years old.

Why?

[Syonyk]

Really?  I thought a major part of the ethos was enjoying leisure time?  Did I get that wrong?  Is RE not basically in the pursuit of leisure time?  Why then would I use up part of my leisure time when putting that same amount into my working life would be far more economically beneficial?

"Leisure time" is an odd phrase to use.  MMM is significantly about optimizing your life for happiness, and reducing consumption/money requirements through "badassity."  Things like biking instead of driving, doing your own yardwork instead of paying someone (bonus for doing it with muscles instead of machines), etc.  And, in the process, learning to enjoy that physical effort and work.  I do things by hand that I could use a machine for, and (personally), I enjoy using older machinery instead of buying something new.  I would love a new tractor, but... I don't need a new tractor, and part of the joys of an older (~75 year old) tractor, for me, are figuring out how to use it to accomplish what I need done.  I maintain it myself, I keep a well engineered bit of classic machinery running, I avoid spending the money on a new tractor, etc.

At this point, I'm quite curious as to if you've actually read many of the front page blog posts.

That was said in reply to the part of the post that implied I had decided to lease a vehicle and therefore did not have a home, or at the very least, had not paid my home off.  Again, I thought removal of personal debt was a big part of the ethos?  Or are you telling me being leveraged to the hilt and FIRE'ing is where it's at?

Huh?  At no point did I imply you didn't have a home/hadn't paid it off.  I simply pointed out that luxury cars are comically expensive, especially to lease, compared to home ownership in a lower cost area.  What we paid for our house is less than an awful lot of people spend on cars.

I have not attacked anyone here personally but the personal attacks on me are numerous.  Nice work.

What are you defining as a "personal attack"?

A personal attack, at least by my terms, would be something like, "You're stupid for spending money on luxury cars."  Pointing out that leasing luxury cars is insanely expensive and that your justifications for it are weak, at best?  That's not a personal attack - that's debating a point of discussion.

Again, your recent series of posts is quite counter to what this forum is generally about.

[HBFIRE]

  However, if you read back where I made a simple reply to the OP's question, you'll see multiple less than flattering characterizations used against me.

No one attacked you, stop pretending to be a victim.  We pointed out your financial mistakes.  That should be expected on these forums.

[PiobStache]

"Leisure time" is an odd phrase to use.  MMM is significantly about optimizing your life for happiness, and reducing consumption/money requirements through "badassity."  Things like biking instead of driving, doing your own yardwork instead of paying someone (bonus for doing it with muscles instead of machines), etc.  And, in the process, learning to enjoy that physical effort and work.  I do things by hand that I could use a machine for, and (personally), I enjoy using older machinery instead of buying something new.  I would love a new tractor, but... I don't need a new tractor, and part of the joys of an older (~75 year old) tractor, for me, are figuring out how to use it to accomplish what I need done.  I maintain it myself, I keep a well engineered bit of classic machinery running, I avoid spending the money on a new tractor, etc.

And in a recent thread on cooking I said how I do things like cure my own charcuterie, make my own sausages, etc.  Just because I don't want to wrench my car doesn't mean I don't engage in doing things by hand.  For muscle work, like MMM, I pump iron.  For cardio, I cycle.  Just because my preferences are not exactly yours does not mean I don't engage in activities.

What are you defining as a "personal attack"?

A personal attack, at least by my terms, would be something like, "You're stupid for spending money on luxury cars."  Pointing out that leasing luxury cars is insanely expensive and that your justifications for it are weak, at best?  That's not a personal attack - that's debating a point of discussion.

Words ranging from "idiot" to "sucker" have been used concerning me.  In what world are those not personal attacks?

[PiobStache]

Two electric guitars, an acoustic guitar, a tenor acoustic guitar, a bass guitar, a mandolin, and a violin.  Five of the previous were inherited, and the rest were purchased used.  I have a bass amp and a guitar amp (both purchased used and non-functioning, but was able to get them working again).  Couldn't give you an exact number of effect pedals (maybe eight?), I built and sold them for a while and still probably have a few half finished and kicking around in drawers.  Aside from strings and tubes, my newest piece of musical equipment is about 15 years old.

Why?

Seems to me like this is more than necessarily needed, no?  So the "why" is pointing out probably every one of us does not 100% minimize our lives.  I know many guitar players with "GAS" but I make do with Tele I bought used.  When it comes to guitars, I'm a "badass." 

[Syonyk]

Words ranging from "idiot" to "sucker" have been used concerning me.  In what world are those not personal attacks?

I directed "sucker" at anyone who pays a lot of money for the depreciation on a brand new vehicle.  Including me, at points in my life before I really worked out the details.  It was not in any way intended as a personal attack, simply stating that paying that first few years depreciation for a brand new vehicle is, far as I'm concerned, for suckers.  Though at least I bought the car, didn't lease it.  Renting a car for a few years at early depreciation rates... eyuch.

[JLee]

Two electric guitars, an acoustic guitar, a tenor acoustic guitar, a bass guitar, a mandolin, and a violin.  Five of the previous were inherited, and the rest were purchased used.  I have a bass amp and a guitar amp (both purchased used and non-functioning, but was able to get them working again).  Couldn't give you an exact number of effect pedals (maybe eight?), I built and sold them for a while and still probably have a few half finished and kicking around in drawers.  Aside from strings and tubes, my newest piece of musical equipment is about 15 years old.

Why?

Seems to me like this is more than necessarily needed, no?  So the "why" is pointing out probably every one of us does not 100% minimize our lives.  I know many guitar players with "GAS" but I make do with Tele I bought used.  When it comes to guitars, I'm a "badass."

Precisely zero people here are saying to 100% minimize our lives.

There are levels between living in a $100 van and, say, owning a self-proclaimed clown house and leasing a new luxury car every three years.  You're flirting with the black or white fallacy here.

[GuitarStv]

Two electric guitars, an acoustic guitar, a tenor acoustic guitar, a bass guitar, a mandolin, and a violin.  Five of the previous were inherited, and the rest were purchased used.  I have a bass amp and a guitar amp (both purchased used and non-functioning, but was able to get them working again).  Couldn't give you an exact number of effect pedals (maybe eight?), I built and sold them for a while and still probably have a few half finished and kicking around in drawers.  Aside from strings and tubes, my newest piece of musical equipment is about 15 years old.

Why?

Seems to me like this is more than necessarily needed, no?  So the "why" is pointing out probably every one of us does not 100% minimize our lives.  I know many guitar players with "GAS" but I make do with Tele I bought used.  When it comes to guitars, I'm a "badass."

Nobody said that you should 100% minimize your life though.  Nobody told you to get rid of your car, there were several suggestions for other ways to approach car usage so that you can still have a nice car to drive around in . . . but for less money.  If you'll notice, most of the instruments that I have the pleasure of playing cost me zero dollars.  I maintain all of them on my own, and they have provided me with years of fun . . . fun that I don't think would have been improved by having shiny new stuff that I don't know how to fix on my own.

You chose to buy a used Telecaster rather than rent an instrument and trade it in every few weeks.  Why?  Old instruments occasionally need work.  They wear out (I'm on the second or third re-fret of several of my instruments now, pots will get scratchy and need replacing, truss rods need adjustment, bridges can be waped, nuts can wear down, and even the capacitors in your tone circuit will die eventually) and require maintenance (do you change your own strings and do your own setup, or pay someone to do it for you?).  All of this could be avoided by renting a new instrument every few weeks like the poster mentioned doing with his car.

[PiobStache]

You chose to buy a used Telecaster rather than rent an instrument and trade it in every few weeks.  Why?  Old instruments occasionally need work.  They wear out (I'm on the second or third re-fret of several of my instruments now, pots will get scratchy and need replacing, truss rods need adjustment, bridges can be waped, nuts can wear down, and even the capacitors in your tone circuit will die eventually) and require maintenance (do you change your own strings and do your own setup, or pay someone to do it for you?).  All of this could be avoided by renting a new instrument every few weeks like the poster mentioned doing with his car.

Old vehicles are dated and become rattle traps.  As guitars age they get "mojo" and a free "relic" job.

[Syonyk]

Old vehicles are dated and become rattle traps.

Sure, by the 200k mile and 15-20 year point, that's... starting to be a fair enough description of a poorly maintained one.

The difference between a new, zero-mile car and a 4-year, 50k mile car?  Minimal.  Except, after 4 years, it's 60-70% the price of the brand new one, or maybe less depending on the vehicle.

[GuitarStv]

You chose to buy a used Telecaster rather than rent an instrument and trade it in every few weeks.  Why?  Old instruments occasionally need work.  They wear out (I'm on the second or third re-fret of several of my instruments now, pots will get scratchy and need replacing, truss rods need adjustment, bridges can be waped, nuts can wear down, and even the capacitors in your tone circuit will die eventually) and require maintenance (do you change your own strings and do your own setup, or pay someone to do it for you?).  All of this could be avoided by renting a new instrument every few weeks like the poster mentioned doing with his car.

Old vehicles are dated and become rattle traps.  As guitars age they get "mojo" and a free "relic" job.

The difference between the two is really just how you perceive them.  Fortunately, that's 100% under your personal control!  You can choose to be proud to drive your "mojo" filled "relic" car!

Two electric guitars, an acoustic guitar, a tenor acoustic guitar, a bass guitar, a mandolin, and a violin.  Five of the previous were inherited, and the rest were purchased used.  I have a bass amp and a guitar amp (both purchased used and non-functioning, but was able to get them working again).  Couldn't give you an exact number of effect pedals (maybe eight?), I built and sold them for a while and still probably have a few half finished and kicking around in drawers.  Aside from strings and tubes, my newest piece of musical equipment is about 15 years old.

Why?

Seems to me like this is more than necessarily needed, no?  So the "why" is pointing out probably every one of us does not 100% minimize our lives.  I know many guitar players with "GAS" but I make do with Tele I bought used.  When it comes to guitars, I'm a "badass."

Nobody said that you should 100% minimize your life though.  Nobody told you to get rid of your car, there were several suggestions for other ways to approach car usage so that you can still have a nice car to drive around in . . . but for less money.  If you'll notice, most of the instruments that I have the pleasure of playing cost me zero dollars.  I maintain all of them on my own, and they have provided me with years of fun . . . fun that I don't think would have been improved by having shiny new stuff that I don't know how to fix on my own.

You chose to buy a used Telecaster rather than rent an instrument and trade it in every few weeks.  Why?  Old instruments occasionally need work.  They wear out (I'm on the second or third re-fret of several of my instruments now, pots will get scratchy and need replacing, truss rods need adjustment, bridges can be waped, nuts can wear down, and even the capacitors in your tone circuit will die eventually) and require maintenance (do you change your own strings and do your own setup, or pay someone to do it for you?).  All of this could be avoided by renting a new instrument every few weeks like the poster mentioned doing with his car.

I also forgot to add . . . legitimately, you can make the case that you're more guitar "badass" than me if you want.  I would never say that own as many instruments as I have is the ideal (or even a good) choice for most people.

[Syonyk]

You can choose to be proud to drive your "mojo" filled "relic" car!

It's actually a neat little optimum for certain jobs.  There exist jobs and positions where having a "nice car" is pretty well expected, and showing up in a Fit or something would be a somewhat career-limiting move.  I think that's quite silly, but I'm also aware that such situations exist.

Instead of having a brand new (comically expensive) car, you can go for quirky and drive an older BMW/Mercedes/Porsche/etc.  There's a window you want to avoid (in the 5-15 year old range is "not modern and why are you driving such an old car?"), but if you go back car enough (20-25 years is typically enough), and the car is mechanically well maintained and visually in good shape (no fenders rusting out, decent paint, keep it waxed), most people are perfectly fine with that.  It's old enough that it's obvious you're driving it because you like that generation of car, and it's still a clean luxury car.  Just not a modern one.

[HBFIRE]

I once leased a car under my business (honda civic).  It made some sense as a tax write off.

Still a horrible decision.  Constantly having to worry about any little scratches/dings which you get reamed for when you return the vehicle.  They find a way to make you pay extra when you return the car.  Even with the tax deduction, I would have been much better off just buying used.  The deduction reduced my cost by ~ 35%.  Couldn't imagine paying full price.

There is a lot to be said for owning a car where you don't have to stress about these things.  Having a car where any scratch is just a battle scar, adds to the character. 

[Kyle Schuant]

Not quite.
She was the safety-driver.  Not a passenger.
It was her job to be alert and intervene.

That doesn't change my point: if a "driverless" car needs a driver, then it's not a driverless car. It's like paying for an "automatic" where you still have to use the clutch. Why would you bother? So I think driverless cars will certainly exist and be around, but they're not going to displace all the ordinary cars.

[HBFIRE]

That doesn't change my point: if a "driverless" car needs a driver, then it's not a driverless car. It's like paying for an "automatic" where you still have to use the clutch. Why would you bother? So I think driverless cars will certainly exist and be around, but they're not going to displace all the ordinary cars.

They won't need drivers eventually.  They are still in the beta testing phase, hence having a driver as a backup.

[Kyle Schuant]

I await them, then, along with the flying cars, fusion power and the paperless office.

[HBFIRE]

I await them, then, along with the flying cars, fusion power and the paperless office.

and these small things called smartphones that have more computing power than the Orion spaceship?  And can be put in our pockets?

[Purple Economist]

Why do you get 3 year leases instead of 1 year? 

Math.  The automakers create a sweet spot for leases in the 36-39 month area through, as stated above, subsidized residuals and interest.

That sounds an awful lot like you just put a price on the safety of your wife and kids.

[Syonyk]

and these small things called smartphones that have more computing power than the Orion spaceship?  And can be put in our pockets?

That are now mostly used to deliver addictive content that makes Vegas jealous?  Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's amazing, and just because we really want something doesn't mean it's possible.

[HBFIRE]

That are now mostly used to deliver addictive content that makes Vegas jealous?  Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's amazing, and just because we really want something doesn't mean it's possible.

Well sure.  But what we're talking about is already very far along, and amazingly already beyond the early beta testing phases.  Certainly autonomous driving shouldn't be held in the same realm as the notion of flying cars.  It seems inevitable at this point, and just a matter of how many years away.  I think it's all pretty amazing, maybe I'm easily impressed.  I'm still amazed that I can sit down in a steel tube and travel several hundred miles an hour through the air across the world.

[Syonyk]

But what we're talking about is already very far along, and amazingly already beyond the early beta testing phases.  Certainly autonomous driving shouldn't be held in the same realm as the notion of flying cars.  It seems inevitable at this point, and just a matter of how many years away.

Silicon Valley companies are amazing at assuming that "more or less competent" in the synthetic software world of the internet means they're competent in the real world as well.  They're reliably wrong about that.  Waymo is taking one of the more conservative approaches, and I expect will be successful, mostly, in the areas they've mapped.  With a server rack in the back of each car.

General purpose self driving that doesn't require centimeter-accurate lidar maps of the region?  Not worried about it happening any time soon outside the interstates in good weather.

I'm still amazed that I can sit down in a steel tube and travel several hundred miles an hour through the air across the world.

Aviation is way easier than self driving cars.  And, also, insanely conservative, because when people get too creative with designs, other people die in large numbers.

[Kyle Schuant]

and these small things called smartphones that have more computing power than the Orion spaceship?  And can be put in our pockets?

The Orion spacecraft has yet to fly, despite being in development longer than the entire duration of the Apollo programme. So that's perhaps not the most flattering comparison; smartphones are at least out there and working (more or less).

I'm not sure what the reference to the smartphone means. Are you saying that because technology X was successful developed, technology Y will be successfully developed? You are confusing advertising with engineering. Engineering is difficult. That's ceramic superconductors have in 30 years not really got any commercial applications: amazing science, but the engineering is hard, what with ceramic not being ductile and all.

The genuinely driverless car is promised soon. So are many things. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, we have to keep driving our own cars. And of course if we follow MMM's advice, driving them much, much less. That seems to be the least popular part of MMM's advice. People do love their clown cars.

[HBFIRE]

Silicon Valley companies are amazing at assuming that "more or less competent" in the synthetic software world of the internet means they're competent in the real world as well.  They're reliably wrong about that. 

Yes, you've made this point several times in this thread.  I think we have to wait to see.  I'm optimistic.

[HBFIRE]

The Orion spacecraft has yet to fly, despite being in development longer than the entire duration of the Apollo programme. So that's perhaps not the most flattering comparison; smartphones are at least out there and working (more or less).

https://www.zmescience.com/research/technology/smartphone-power-compared-to-apollo-432/

[Kyle Schuant]

Yes I know. Again: what's your point?

[HBFIRE]

Yes I know. Again: what's your point?

My main point is that it's pretty silly to compare a technology that is already being tested in the real world at scale to flying cars.  I get that you're cynical, but the technology is obviously very far along already.

[Cadman]

The Orion spacecraft has yet to fly, despite being in development longer than the entire duration of the Apollo programme. So that's perhaps not the most flattering comparison; smartphones are at least out there and working (more or less).

https://www.zmescience.com/research/technology/smartphone-power-compared-to-apollo-432/

Warning..off topic:  As both a mainframe computer buff and Apollo enthusiast, that "article" makes my head hurt. It's so blatantly incorrect on so many levels I don't even know where to start. Utter bollocks.

[neo von retorch]

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-single-biggest-technical-problem-remaining-unsolved-in-autonomous-driving

Again, I think "ideal conditions" driving is very far along. But that last 20% is going to be so much more difficult. And it has to be solved before this becomes mainstream technology.

Remember the OP:

I'd be very worried that my new car would become obsolete in a few years.

I'm confident that is not a risk. Human-driven cars will not become obsolete for decades.

[zolotiyeruki]

To be honest, I'd be more worried about an autonomous car being obsoleted by newer autonomous cars.  Will the rapid pace of development mean that three-year-old autonomous tech will be considered "as bad as nothing at all"?  And that any price premium demanded by such tech will evaporate?  I.e. "the autonomous tech in that used car is old enough that you might as well get a car without any"?

[BlueMR2]

I just can't get worried about my car's value at all.  Mine have such low value that it's just not a concern.  If I end up writing it off in a wreck tomorrow I don't really care.  I have no interest in selling them ever.  By the time I get done they will be scrap.

If you are worried about the value, that's a strong sign that you own too much car.  Cars are (typically with very rare exceptions) not good investments for normal people...

[scottish]

Yes I know. Again: what's your point?

My main point is that it's pretty silly to compare a technology that is already being tested in the real world at scale to flying cars.  I get that you're cynical, but the technology is obviously very far along already.

ahem.

https://terrafugia.com/

Haven't seen a self-driving car for sale anywhere.

[mveill1]

Saw this interview with Lex Fridman, an MIT robotics / AI lecturer who teaches on self driving cars. They are insanely far from being ready. Absolutely cannot function in real life. Can barely drive using sat nav and stay within the lanes. Even if you buy your car brand new, given newer cars aren't really built to last with all the electronics you'll have scrapped it by the time driverless cars are ready to be used and economically viable.

You have to distinguish between futurologists, and people who actually know the state of the applied research today, and only listen to the latter to make consumption choices.

[SwordGuy]

Not me.  Our cars are basically worthless already.

[scottish]

Saw this interview with Lex Fridman, an MIT robotics / AI lecturer who teaches on self driving cars. They are insanely far from being ready. Absolutely cannot function in real life. Can barely drive using sat nav and stay within the lanes. Even if you buy your car brand new, given newer cars aren't really built to last with all the electronics you'll have scrapped it by the time driverless cars are ready to be used and economically viable.

You have to distinguish between futurologists, and people who actually know the state of the applied research today, and only listen to the latter to make consumption choices.

do you have a URL for the Fridman interview?

[mveill1]

Saw this interview with Lex Fridman, an MIT robotics / AI lecturer who teaches on self driving cars. They are insanely far from being ready. Absolutely cannot function in real life. Can barely drive using sat nav and stay within the lanes. Even if you buy your car brand new, given newer cars aren't really built to last with all the electronics you'll have scrapped it by the time driverless cars are ready to be used and economically viable.

You have to distinguish between futurologists, and people who actually know the state of the applied research today, and only listen to the latter to make consumption choices.

do you have a URL for the Fridman interview?

it's the joe rogan podcast - available via multiple avenues. there's a website for it then you have your apple apps and all that... not for everyone but occasionally you get interesting guests

[Linea_Norway]

The value of our diesel car has already devalued because everyone now wants to drive an electrical or hybrid car In Norway. Diesels are now very unpopular.
We bought our car 10 years ago when it was financially attractive to buy diesel.

[scottish]

Saw this interview with Lex Fridman, an MIT robotics / AI lecturer who teaches on self driving cars. They are insanely far from being ready. Absolutely cannot function in real life. Can barely drive using sat nav and stay within the lanes. Even if you buy your car brand new, given newer cars aren't really built to last with all the electronics you'll have scrapped it by the time driverless cars are ready to be used and economically viable.

You have to distinguish between futurologists, and people who actually know the state of the applied research today, and only listen to the latter to make consumption choices.

do you have a URL for the Fridman interview?

it's the joe rogan podcast - available via multiple avenues. there's a website for it then you have your apple apps and all that... not for everyone but occasionally you get interesting guests

yeah, Joe Rogan gets all kinds of interesting types on his podcast.

I've been looking for something to do tomorrow at the dentist, so I'll listen to it then.

[Just Joe]

Again, math.  Well, more data.  I don't make decisions based on anecdotes but rather on aggregated data when I can.  I know vehicles with the latest safety features, unsurprisingly, are the safest vehicles.

OK, data it is. 

The state in the US with the highest fatality rate per 100 million miles driven is South Carolina at 1.88.  Source  The average US male puts 16,550 miles per year on their car. Source  So, if you live in South Carolina and drive an average amount of miles yearly, your chance of automotive fatality is 0.031%.

According to NHTSA data (source) the percentage of occupants killed is indeed inversely correlated with the age of the vehicle.  26% for a brand new car, up to 30% for a five year old car, and up to 35% for an eleven year old car.  This data is from 2005-2011 so current data would probably be slightly lower across the board.

So, if a brand new car vs an eleven year old car makes you 9% less likely to die in a car crash *once you've already crashed*.  That would be reducing a 0.031% annual chance of automotive fatality by 0.003% to 0.028%.

I would argue that there are plenty of more cost-effective ways than driving a 2018 car instead of a 2007 to reduce one's annual chance of death by 0.003%.

Or - - adapt your life to drive less in the first place. That's what we did. Small town. Shorter trips, slower traffic, fewer miles, LCOL - suddenly the safety stats on our used cars exceed those of a new car and we've saved money all around. Still making a good living here.

Do I worry about my new car's value being ruined? No. I won't buy a new car any time soon. I'll buy just off-lease cars if I want something nice and shiny.

Also, I think tech progress on self-driving cars has advanced really fast. I think however that the details to get it right in every situation will take a long time. The "easy" problems have been solved. There will be thousands of articles and TV segments about how advanced these cars are but that amounts to advertising for the benefit of spendy consumers (advertising) and investors. Just like battery advancements are slow and steady though some media outlets want to talk up the latest laboratory miracle. They are attracting clicks and investors for the laboratory.

I figure we MIGHT have cars advanced enough to self drive by the time I'm an old man and need one. I think we'll have steering wheels for another 50-75 years though - if we still have cars. Might be that the economy changes enough that we can't afford cars anymore or environmental limitations will make them too expensive.

[PiobStache]

Or - - adapt your life to drive less in the first place. That's what we did. Small town. Shorter trips, slower traffic, fewer miles, LCOL - suddenly the safety stats on our used cars exceed those of a new car and we've saved money all around. Still making a good living here.

I realize this advice came from a good place so please don't take this as snark but simply as analysis.  I think it would be extremely unlikely that the delta would be positive for us in this scenario if we even eschewed the used cars and rode bikes.  I mean, fees/costs from the sale of current house and purchase of new house, relocation cost, and both of our careers are highly compensated.  Add to that we live in a MCOL area. 

Odds are pretty good we would come out hundreds of thousands of dollars in the red on such a scenario.