PDA

View Full Version : Extinction Of The Car Giants



myfiles3000
06-18-2003, 12:32 PM
What lies below I found pretty shocking. I'm no economist or mba-er, i had no idea just how bad off (it appears) the big 3 are...
myfiles


Extinction of the car giants

Jun 12th 2003
From The Economist print edition

Why America's car industry is an endangered species

Get article background

MOTOWN is celebrating. One hundred years ago Henry Ford set up in business, and America's love affair with the automobile began. Ford is staging a party that would not have disgraced Jay Gatsby. And why not? The American car market has been roaring, with annual vehicle sales over 16m. It could be close to 20m in a decade's time, with another 26m young Americans clamouring for their first set of wheels.

Yet the ride is not going to be smooth: it will be more like cruising in a Ford Thunderbird while ignoring a nasty rumble from its mighty V8 engine. For all the signs are that things are going badly awry in Detroit. Unless something changes, the industry could go broke—with Ford, the most troubled of the big three carmakers, leading the way (see article). The 100th birthday party could swiftly be followed by a wake.

This quintessential American industry has, admittedly, been written off before, only to bounce back. Chrysler entered the 1980s thanks to a federal bail-out; Ford narrowly escaped bankruptcy around the same time. Washington also came to the industry's aid with restrictions on Japanese imports. Even so, Chrysler nearly came to grief again in the early 1990s, before it was sold to Daimler-Benz. In 1991, the combined losses of the big three topped $7 billion. General Motors (GM) was said to be within an hour of going bust in 1992, with its bosses staring at the fax machine as they waited for a credit-rating downgrade that would have pushed the company over the edge. The downgrade never came, and GM recovered.

Over the 1990s, modernisation and imitation of Japanese techniques helped to raise Detroit's game. But the saviour of the industry was America's growing appetite for sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans and pick-up trucks. For years these chunky vehicles have enjoyed such success that Detroit has made most of its profits from them. Today they account for every other passenger vehicle sold in America. Competing Japanese products, where they existed, faced import tariffs. But now Toyota, Nissan and Honda have developed their own competitors in this market—and they are making them where it matters, in America's southern states, far from the citadel of union power that is Detroit. Also in the 1990s, the industry benefited from a booming stockmarket that lightened the car makers' growing pension burden as they shed workers in an effort to become more efficient. There is no sign of any such deus ex machina now.

The industry's leaders, as ever, cast the blame at a weak economy. GM's boss, Rick Wagoner, reacted to September 11th by launching discounts and interest-free financing to “keep America rolling”. Almost two years later the discounts are still there, and he cannot see them stopping without a “significant” improvement in the economy. He pins hopes for the future on America's growing population and China's rising wealth, which is at last igniting demand. But neither American babies nor Chinese yuppies may come in time to rescue Detroit. Nor will a resurgent American economy.

America's car industry is in a trap. It has one-fifth more capacity than it needs. Japan's big three (Toyota, Nissan and Honda) now make a full range of models in America, and manage to sell them without deep discounts. The reaction of any normal industry to such overcapacity would be to shrink, paying attention to profits not sales. But Detroit is not normal. Its labour contracts with the unions restrict its ability to close factories quickly. Jack Smith, a former chairman of GM, used to complain that he would have to wait until his workers retired to get numbers down and make factories more efficient.

Worse, retirement now brings its own peril, as every retiree adds to the car companies' growing pension burden. GM already has a pension-fund shortfall of $19 billion, as big as its market capitalisation. Add the health-care liabilities of both employees and pensioners, plus the presence of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, and Detroit is at a huge competitive disadvantage to its Japanese competitors, with their younger, non-unionised workforces. GM, which has two-and-a-half pensioners for every employee, reckons pensions and health-care benefits add $1,000 to the cost of each car it makes. Cuts in the workforce make the burden still greater. In Detroit's circumstances, in short, downsizing cannot deliver results.

In the past two years, the federal government has come to the rescue of farming, steel and airlines through subsidies and import barriers. It may be just a matter of time before a big carmaker considers using America's Chapter 11 bankruptcy law to shed its pension liabilities, as several steel companies and airlines have already done. When that happens the federal insurance agency picks up much of the tab. It is, however, cash-strapped already. Moreover, the examples of steel and airlines, with their repeated bankruptcies, suggest that federal bail-outs cannot solve an industry's fundamental problems.

The figures are bleak. Instead of the $2 billion operating profit it once forecast, Chrysler has given warning of a $1.2 billion operating loss in the second quarter. Ford and GM are expected soon to issue similar bleak warnings. Once the Ford birthday bash is over, Detroit will start negotiating a new three-year contract with the UAW. This will be tough, as it will include the carmakers' plans to close some factories—and they already admit that planned closures may not be enough.



Delayed impact
Can Detroit escape the grim reaper a third time? The odds look poor. In the past seven years Detroit's share of the American market has slid from 73% to barely 63%. If SUVs, pick-ups and the like are excluded, the big three's share of the passenger-car market is already under half. The backlash against gas-guzzling vehicles can only be bad for Detroit. And the Japanese and German car companies have begun to produce models that compete head-on with such American icons as Ford's F-150 truck. If the Japanese repeat their success with smaller cars, the big three's last profitable redoubt will be overrun. The extinction of America's car giants is no longer just a bad dream: it is coming closer to reality.

clocker
06-18-2003, 01:26 PM
I, for one, would oppose a government bailout of the Big Three.
They made their beds, let them rest uneasy.
Despite the fact that America invented the car industry ( note: industry- not " the car") they have ignored the far more successful business model evolved in Japan.
Time to pay the piper.
Big unions (of all industries) have evolved from being the buffer between the "little guy" and his evil capitalist masters, into being the "big stick" that bludgeons capitalism into submission.
Time for them to pay the piper, also.

It may help to know that in my 38 years of car ownership I have never even owned an American car.
Always thought they were crap.
Sorry, j2.

myfiles3000
06-18-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 14:26
It may help to know that in my 38 years of car ownership I have never even owned an American car.
Always thought they were crap.

me too. but i must admit, they have improved since the 80s. but still no comparison, the japanese and to an increasing extent the germans are running circles around the big 3. Remember when volkswagen rabbits were kind of dorky? VW is now one of the sexiest brands on the road for aspiring yuppies. I can think of few american brands that appeal to anyone not belonging to a working class demographic. and even fewer if you factor in things like taste, sophistication, and resale value....

clocker
06-18-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 09:27

me too. but i must admit, they have improved since the 80s. but still no comparison, the japanese and to an increasing extent the germans are running circles around the big 3.
I'll admit to an improvement, but with two qualifications.
1) By means of mergers they now have access to a lot of foreign technology.
2) They were forced to improve by the increasingly evident gap between Detroit offerings and that of competitors.

I still marvel at the amazing con job re:SUVs.
15 years ago your average suburban housewife wouldn't have been caught dead in a truck. Through massive advertising and overt brainwashing these same women have been convinced that a pimped-out truck is not only safer, but highly desirable.
Detroit was thus able to coast along for another decade without making any significant technological improvements, other than to cupholders and in-car entertainment systems.
While Madison Ave. did it's thing the rest of the world concentrated on advancing the art of automobile making.
The deception has been revealed and now Detroit must face the consequences.
I hope they can do it without trying to raid my tax dollars.

j2k4
06-18-2003, 05:59 PM
You guys are onto a great subject and I'm off!

FMRAKM! :angry:

Don't let it die before I return. ;)

J'Pol
06-18-2003, 06:12 PM
Does America have a car industry outside of America. Forgive my obvious ignorance on this, but the only really American cars one sees is actually in America. I know that there are American cars outside of the USA, or at least cars made by American companies based elsewhere. However those cars are quite obviously made for the market they were intended for.

The fact of the matter is that there are so many good, reasonably priced cars about today that the choice is awesome. A friend of mine is the head mechanic at a large garage. His opinion is that it is nigh on impossible to buy a "bad" car today. The technology is such that they are easy and cheap to make.

Obviously if you want to buy a good car that is another story, however the point is that you can buy a perfectly reasonable car, for a perfectly reasonable price. More people appear to be taking that option, opting for low cost, low maintenance, low insurance, high mpg cars. The Japanese can make these beautifully. So the question is, what is the need for the classic huge gas guzzler, traditionally from the Detroit area I believe.

Just so you don't take me the wrong way I drive a 1400cc Nissan Sunny, to and from work. However at the weekend I drive a 3900cc V8i 7 Seater Automatic Land Rover Discovery. It does 18 mpg on a long run and about 15 mpg in town. If only I could howl like Tim Taylor right now I would be happy.

myfiles3000
06-18-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by clocker+18 June 2003 - 17:34--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 June 2003 - 17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 09:27

me too. but i must admit, they have improved since the 80s. but still no comparison, the japanese and to an increasing extent the germans are running circles around the big 3.
I&#39;ll admit to an improvement, but with two qualifications.
1) By means of mergers they now have access to a lot of foreign technology.
2) They were forced to improve by the increasingly evident gap between Detroit offerings and that of competitors.

I still marvel at the amazing con job re:SUVs.
15 years ago your average suburban housewife wouldn&#39;t have been caught dead in a truck. Through massive advertising and overt brainwashing these same women have been convinced that a pimped-out truck is not only safer, but highly desirable.
Detroit was thus able to coast along for another decade without making any significant technological improvements, other than to cupholders and in-car entertainment systems.
While Madison Ave. did it&#39;s thing the rest of the world concentrated on advancing the art of automobile making.
The deception has been revealed and now Detroit must face the consequences.
I hope they can do it without trying to raid my tax dollars. [/b][/quote]
i think we&#39;re speaking the same language, clocker, you&#39;re qualifications are exactly right. my brother bought a 2000 escort wagon, and i have to admit its pretty well built car. but then again, its a mazda...

I admit, i grew in a family that drove japanese cars exclusively, but I have always preferred the ergonomics/feel of japanese cars -- little things, like the feel of the turner signal (instead of those bizarre, chintzy ones on GMs).

My favourite example of the stupidity of the american makers was the Cadillac cimarron -- a cavelier with power leather seats and dual exhaust. the geniuses actually thought they could prevent market erosion from 3-series BMWs, audis, and entry Mercs&#33;

its true, though, that SUVs are definitely safer for the people inside the SUV than your average mid-size breeder-mobile. and preserving the safety of your little brats is a HUGE motivating factor -- people will pay a lot of money to demonstrably lower the chances of auto injury. its the poor trendy singles and homosexuals driving around in minis that pay the price.

I just think its amazing that an industry as venerable, and enormous by sales volume, could be so sickly. And, while i&#39;m reasonably sympathetic to labour, the polarization of union and management in the us auto industry is warning for all of what can happen. short-sighted, penny-wise kind approach.

fugley
06-18-2003, 06:21 PM
I&#39;ve got a Datsun Cherry&#33;

Very economical or as the vicar might say ecumenical&#33; :)

clocker
06-18-2003, 06:23 PM
I think that for the most part you are correct, JPaul.

I&#39;ve been to the UK several times and the classic American hog just wouldn&#39;t be too practical.
Robbie Coltrane did a PBS special several years ago where he toured the US in a 50&#39;s(?) era Cadillac. At the end of the tour he had become so enamored of the vehicle that he bought it and imported it back to England.
The scenes of him billowing down your narrow tree shaded lanes in this huge, chromed American behemoth were hilarious.

J'Pol
06-18-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 19:20
its the poor trendy singles and homosexuals driving around in minis that pay the price.


Can you say that on a PC.

2nd gen noob
06-18-2003, 06:27 PM
before i posted this, i had a huge reply typed up about why i hate 4 wheel drive/suv&#39;s

however, it was far too long and i babbled on a lot

basically, this is my huge post condensed down to the actual point:

SUV&#39;s are terrible cars and cause many more deaths/serious accidents than they solve. in many collisions between suv&#39;s and normal cars, the suv will &#39;climb&#39; over the normal car, thus seriously injuring/killing the occupants of the other car (in many crashes, the occupants of the car are actually decapitated).

why do people buy suv&#39;s?
to make them feel safer?
why do they need to feel safer?
because there&#39;s a lot of accidents, of course
but if there were no suv&#39;s on the road there would be a lot less deaths/serious injuries from car crashes

basically SUV&#39;s are terrble and should be taken off the road
most of the people who use them don&#39;t need them

myfiles3000
06-18-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 19:23
I&#39;ve been to the UK several times and the classic American hog just wouldn&#39;t be too practical.
this is an interesting difference between new and old world: european cities were built long before the car, new world cities during/after. totally different conception of transportation, which unfortunately has had, in my opinion, a terrible impact on urban planning/neighbourhood desing, etc.

I have this vague memory of reading somewhere that municipal planning and real estate development now is all about time as opposed to distance for the standard measure used -- iow, the physical distance between the school, and the church and the shopping mall is largely irrelevant, its the time it takes to drive there that counts. things are no longer 5 miles away, they&#39;re 7 minutes away, depending on traffic.

J'Pol
06-18-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 19:23
I think that for the most part you are correct, JPaul.

I&#39;ve been to the UK several times and the classic American hog just wouldn&#39;t be too practical.
Robbie Coltrane did a PBS special several years ago where he toured the US in a 50&#39;s(?) era Cadillac. At the end of the tour he had become so enamored of the vehicle that he bought it and imported it back to England.
The scenes of him billowing down your narrow tree shaded lanes in this huge, chromed American behemoth were hilarious.
I know you did it deliberately you bar steward but I am going to reply anyway.

Robbie Coltrane is Scottish, he imported it to Scotland. I have seen him driving several of his gas guzzlers around Glasgow.

If the new MOD sees you making this mistake, deliberate or otherwise, you will be in big trouble. It&#39;s one of the few things he gets hot and bothered about.

That and vegetarianism, drug abuse, long bows (sport only),hunting, sexism, wee mouse,racism, neo-fascism and the downfall of the once mighty Prussian Empire.

clocker
06-18-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 12:20


I just think its amazing that an industry as venerable, and enormous by sales volume, could be so sickly. And, while i&#39;m reasonably sympathetic to labour, the polarization of union and management in the us auto industry is warning for all of what can happen. short-sighted, penny-wise kind approach.
By happy coincidence, just now, as I ate lunch, I read a tidbit re: unions v. Detroit.

Next month the UAW (United Auto Workers) will begin renegotiations with the Big Three.

The UAW vows not to accept any cuts to benefits/wages.

Unlike the typical rat, I believe that labor will insist on going down with a sinking ship.

2nd gen noob
06-18-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 19:20
its true, though, that SUVs are definitely safer for the people inside the SUV than your average mid-size breeder-mobile. and preserving the safety of your little brats is a HUGE motivating factor -- people will pay a lot of money to demonstrably lower the chances of auto injury. its the poor trendy singles and homosexuals driving around in minis that pay the price.
this is exactly my point

suv&#39;s may be safer for those inside, but for anyone else, they have no chance

if no-one drove suv&#39;s at all, the death/serious injury rate would be less

suv&#39;s are ludicrous and have no place on the roads

myfiles3000
06-18-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by 2nd gen noob@18 June 2003 - 19:38
suv&#39;s may be safer for those inside, but for anyone else, they have no chance

if no-one drove suv&#39;s at all, the death/serious injury rate would be less

suv&#39;s are ludicrous and have no place on the roads
yes. the difference is, you&#39;re comparing aggregate statistics with individual statistics concerning risk. just like the issue of handguns. believe me, if i had a family, and i could afford one, i&#39;d probably buy an SUV, too. with airbags for pinky toes, and an on-star distress response system that could fire laser beams from orbitting satellites, just in case of a carjacking. i&#39;d by my family an armoured personnel carrier if i could. its selfish, human.

clocker
06-18-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 12:20


its true, though, that SUVs are definitely safer for the people inside the SUV than your average mid-size breeder-mobile. and preserving the safety of your little brats is a HUGE motivating factor -- people will pay a lot of money to demonstrably lower the chances of auto injury. .
The above is a common perception that I find completely unsupported by fact.

SUV&#39;s certainly look like they should be safer, but do, in fact, exhibit poor handling and rollover tendencies. The average driver has less control than in a standard vehicle unless their first instinct is to simply ram another vehicle and let the chips fall where they may.

Furthermore, according to the Colorado Highway Patrol, SUV/4-wheel drive vehicles are more likely to get into single-vehicle accidents ( by far the most common) in bad weather due to a false sense of security. Most people are clueless to the fact that while 4 wheel drive may increase your likelyhood of starting to move on ice, it will do nothing when it comes to stopping.
In fact, the extra mass and typically high center of gravity make the problem worse.


I apologize for the formatting, myfiles. I know you hate it.
Will you still respect me in the morning?

2nd gen noob
06-18-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000+18 June 2003 - 19:49--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 18 June 2003 - 19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-2nd gen noob@18 June 2003 - 19:38
suv&#39;s may be safer for those inside, but for anyone else, they have no chance

if no-one drove suv&#39;s at all, the death/serious injury rate would be less

suv&#39;s are ludicrous and have no place on the roads
yes. the difference is, you&#39;re comparing aggregate statistics with individual statistics concerning risk. just like the issue of handguns. believe me, if i had a family, and i could afford one, i&#39;d probably buy an SUV, too. with airbags for pinky toes, and an on-star distress response system that could fire laser beams from orbitting satellites, just in case of a carjacking. i&#39;d by my family an armoured personnel carrier if i could. its selfish, human. [/b][/quote]
wouldn&#39;t it be even safer just to buy a tank and drive about in that?

the problem is that you are taking my point in a comical manner, however, it is a serious issue which needs to be dealt with

2nd gen noob
06-18-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by clocker+18 June 2003 - 20:01--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 June 2003 - 20:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 12:20


its true, though, that SUVs are definitely safer for the people inside the SUV than your average mid-size breeder-mobile. and preserving the safety of your little brats is a HUGE motivating factor -- people will pay a lot of money to demonstrably lower the chances of auto injury. .
The above is a common perception that I find completely unsupported by fact.

SUV&#39;s certainly look like they should be safer, but do, in fact, exhibit poor handling and rollover tendencies. The average driver has less control than in a standard vehicle unless their first instinct is to simply ram another vehicle and let the chips fall where they may.

Furthermore, according to the Colorado Highway Patrol, SUV/4-wheel drive vehicles are more likely to get into single-vehicle accidents ( by far the most common) in bad weather due to a false sense of security. Most people are clueless to the fact that while 4 wheel drive may increase your likelyhood of starting to move on ice, it will do nothing when it comes to stopping.
In fact, the extra mass and typically high center of gravity make the problem worse.


I apologize for the formatting, myfiles. I know you hate it.
Will you still respect me in the morning? [/b][/quote]
very good point :)

clocker
06-18-2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+18 June 2003 - 12:29--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 18 June 2003 - 12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@18 June 2003 - 19:23
I think that for the most part you are correct, JPaul.

I&#39;ve been to the UK several times and the classic American hog just wouldn&#39;t be too practical.
Robbie Coltrane did a PBS special several years ago where he toured the US in a 50&#39;s(?) era Cadillac. At the end of the tour he had become so enamored of the vehicle that he bought it and imported it back to England.
The scenes of him billowing down your narrow tree shaded lanes in this huge, chromed American behemoth were hilarious.
I know you did it deliberately you bar steward but I am going to reply anyway.

Robbie Coltrane is Scottish, he imported it to Scotland. I have seen him driving several of his gas guzzlers around Glasgow.

If the new MOD sees you making this mistake, deliberate or otherwise, you will be in big trouble. It&#39;s one of the few things he gets hot and bothered about.

That and vegetarianism, drug abuse, long bows (sport only),hunting, sexism, wee mouse,racism, neo-fascism and the downfall of the once mighty Prussian Empire. [/b][/quote]
Ooopsie.

No offence intended, JPaul.
I really had no idea he was Scottish.
Coltrane&#39;s performances in the Cracker mysteries are amongst my very favorite.
Right along with Helen Mirren in Prime Suspect.
You guys certainly have it all over us when it comes to quality TV.

BTW- what exactly is a "bar steward"? You seem to use it frequently and I haven&#39;t a clue what it means to you.

myfiles3000
06-18-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 20:01
SUV&#39;s certainly look like they should be safer, but do, in fact, exhibit poor handling and rollover tendencies. The average driver has less control than in a standard vehicle unless their first instinct is to simply ram another vehicle and let the chips fall where they may.

Furthermore, according to the Colorado Highway Patrol, SUV/4-wheel drive vehicles are more likely to get into single-vehicle accidents ( by far the most common) in bad weather due to a false sense of security. Most people are clueless to the fact that while 4 wheel drive may increase your likelyhood of starting to move on ice, it will do nothing when it comes to stopping.
In fact, the extra mass and typically high center of gravity make the problem worse.


I apologize for the formatting, myfiles. I know you hate it.
Will you still respect me in the morning?
yes, you raise very good points clocker, but i think my basic assertion remains true: mortality rates for SUV drivers and passengers are below average. Maybe they do get into more accidents, but its less likely that they&#39;re going to be seriously injured. Driving an SUV may create unique opportunities for getting killed (those inside, not in other vehicles), but the ultimate statistics are: average mortality and serious injury rates, ie, below or above average.

Not to rag on you unduly, but i have been immersed in social policy research lately, and the fact is, the colorado study is just one state, and cites only single vehicle accidents, but doesn&#39;t indicate the severity of the crash. So, i suspect that these are mostly non-serious accidents, as most single vehicle crashes are. Its when 2 or more vehicles are involved that the death toll climbs (at least i assume so).

as for 2nd gen noob, I wouldn&#39;t rush to criticize the presence of humour, sarcasm or irony in my posts -- my ultimate point is entirely relevant, ie, people will go to great lengths to protect loved ones. Something can indeed be humourous and salient at the same time, even on the topic of carnage.

clocker
06-18-2003, 08:00 PM
Myfiles, all of your points are valid.
Have your studies also revealed that insurance companies in the States are raising rates for SUV owners due to the greater damage they inflict and their higher cost of repair?
Given the advances in traction control,ABS braking systems, anti-roll technology, etc. I think that all of the perceived advantages of an SUV are , in fact, more practically available in a normal car.
Like a Subaru WRX, for instance.
I have taken 3 high performance driving schools and in my opinion it would be far easier to handle the Subaru in a accident-avoidence scenario than a Suburban.
In any other instance save a direct head to head confrontation ( which I should think would be statistically of low probability) I would take small and nimble over big and heavy any day.

myfiles3000
06-18-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 21:00
Myfiles, all of your points are valid.
Have your studies also revealed that insurance companies in the States are raising rates for SUV owners due to the greater damage they inflict and their higher cost of repair?
Given the advances in traction control,ABS braking systems, anti-roll technology, etc. I think that all of the perceived advantages of an SUV are , in fact, more practically available in a normal car.
Like a Subaru WRX, for instance.
I have taken 3 high performance driving schools and in my opinion it would be far easier to handle the Subaru in a accident-avoidence scenario than a Suburban.
In any other instance save a direct head to head confrontation ( which I should think would be statistically of low probability) I would take small and nimble over big and heavy any day.
to clarify, the research i&#39;m doing has NOTHING to do with autos. just that i&#39;ve been parsing study results til the cows come home. As for the climbing insurance rates and higher cost of repair, this has very little to do with safety of passengers -- we all know how easy it is to rack up thousands of dollars in repairs from a fender bender that doesn&#39;t even come close to injuring people.

Its great you take driving courses, honestly. But most people, like soccer moms, don&#39;t and they don&#39;t want to. they buy SUVs to avoid the worst-case fatal accident scenario where people they loved are killed, paralyzed, maimed, etc. And my gut feeling tells me SUV drivers are less likely to die than the average driver.


In any other instance save a direct head to head confrontation ( which I should think would be statistically of low probability) I would take small and nimble over big and heavy any day.

A. you&#39;re the kind of person that takes professional driving courses, so in terms of market demographics, you&#39;re too small to count. You&#39;re being targetted by "performance" vehicles.
B. It is precisely for this head-on scenario that people buy them.

I&#39;m not defending SUV drivers, i commute to work on a 10 year old bicycle. I&#39;m saying, there&#39;s method to the madness.

2nd gen noob
06-18-2003, 08:46 PM
would you agree with my point that the increase in the number of suv&#39;s on the road has increased total deaths/serious accidents on roads over all, myfiles3000.

what you are saying is that people buy suv&#39;s to protect their own families, which is fine, but by buying cush a large vehicle they are adding risk towards other road users.

if everyone drove normal cars, the number of deaths would come down, it&#39;s that simple.

clocker
06-18-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by myfiles3000@18 June 2003 - 14:36
As for the climbing insurance rates and higher cost of repair, this has very little to do with safety of passengers -- we all know how easy it is to rack up thousands of dollars in repairs from a fender bender that doesn&#39;t even come close to injuring people.

.
Point taken.
However some of the rising costs that they are having to cover also includes the multitude of court cases involving single vehicle SUV rollover and subsequent passenger death.
Not just fender benders.

We seem to have gotten way off topic here.
I&#39;m surprised that Lamsey hasn&#39;t stepped in with his Golden Scimitar and beheaded us.

J'Pol
06-20-2003, 02:57 PM
The problem with large cars is that - for the UK - there is only one driving test. You can pass in a Micra and drive a Land Cruiser Amazon home, on the Motorway at 70 MPH.

There should be different tests. Say have 3 classes of car - small, medium and large. You can drive small cars with a large car licence but not the reverse. So if someone gets a small licence and becomes good enough to drive a larger car they can take the test. If they need to they can take lessons.

There should also be a seperate test for motorway driving. Most people don&#39;t even know how to get on and off safely.

Plenty folk are happy to drive their Micra to the shops at 30 miles an hour and never learn anything else. Twice a year they go on a motorway and drive at 40. This should not be allowed.

This would make the roads safer, ensuring that people are competent to drive the vehicle, at the speeds allowed.

clocker
06-20-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@20 June 2003 - 08:57


Plenty folk are happy to drive their Micra to the shops at 30 miles an hour and never learn anything else. Twice a year they go on a motorway and drive at 40. This should not be allowed.

This would make the roads safer, ensuring that people are competent to drive the vehicle, at the speeds allowed.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In the States, if you&#39;re of legal age, have a pulse and are willing to uncover your face for the photo, bingo&#33;- you get a license. As a nation we have the worst drivers I&#39;ve ever seen.
I would like to see our tests become more like the Japanese. They assume that driving is a privelege, and you must demonstrate more than minimum competence in order to qualify. A large percentage of first time applicants fail.
We also need to take into account the diminishment of ability that comes with age. In Colorado drivers licenses are renewed every ten years. After a certain age (50?) your eyesight/ reflexes, etc. worsen, and yet AARP rabidly opposes increasing the frequency of testing based on age. This results in the stereotypical "little old lady" who crawls down the interstate or mows down a busstop full of people. Political correctness ( coupled with major lobbying clout) prevents us from dealing with the obvious, i.e.- at some point you become unable to safely handle a motor vehicle.

But your idea is a start, JPaul.

J'Pol
06-20-2003, 04:20 PM
They have the grey dollar, a sense of being right and time on their hands. The ideal lobbying group.

Barbarossa
06-20-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2003 - 16:00
As a nation we have the worst drivers I&#39;ve ever seen.
The worst drivers I&#39;ve ever seen are those in Belgium.

:o

Sorry for any Belgians out there, all I can say is be careful&#33;&#33;

clocker
06-20-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by JPaul@20 June 2003 - 10:20
They have the grey dollar, a sense of being right and time on their hands. The ideal lobbying group.
They also enjoy the fact that, inevitably, all their current opponents will be in exactly their position.

J'Pol
06-20-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by clocker+20 June 2003 - 18:29--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 20 June 2003 - 18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@20 June 2003 - 10:20
They have the grey dollar, a sense of being right and time on their hands. The ideal lobbying group.
They also enjoy the fact that, inevitably, all their current opponents will be in exactly their position. [/b][/quote]
LOL

Only with luck and the grace of God

clocker
06-20-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by JPaul+20 June 2003 - 11:37--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 20 June 2003 - 11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2003 - 18:29
<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@20 June 2003 - 10:20
They have the grey dollar, a sense of being right and time on their hands. The ideal lobbying group.
They also enjoy the fact that, inevitably, all their current opponents will be in exactly their position.
LOL

Only with luck and the grace of God [/b][/quote]
And assuming they don&#39;t mow us down with their Cadillacs first.