What car should I buy?

[Undertoad]

BOLD MINE:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ath-rates.html

Drivers of sport-utility vehicles, who used to be the most likely to die in crashes because of rollovers, are now among those with the highest probability of survival, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said in a report released today.

"The rollover risk in SUVs used to outweigh their size/weight advantage, but that’s no longer the case," Anne McCartt, the Arlington, Virginia-based group’s senior vice president for research, said in the report on driver death rates for passenger vehicles from model years 2005 to 2008.

None of the 26 lowest-rated vehicles had standard electronic stability control, while almost all of the top-rated ones did, the study found. Models equipped with the technology, which can automatically apply brakes or reduce throttle speed when drivers over- or under-steer, had lower death rates than those without it.

Another tw canon falls... or should I say, rolls over.

[lumberjim]

tw,

People do make decisions in their lives based upon what you might call emotional reaction. I had a customer the other day that chose to take the 0% loan over the $2500 rebate, even though I very clearly explained to him that it would cost him $240 more over the course of the loan. He understood. He saw that at the preferred rate of 3.24%, the total finance charge was $2260.
He just felt better knowing that he had ZERO interest. I think that was the wrong choice. I asked him if he felt it was worth $240 just to have the 0%. He said yes. So I wrote the loan his way.

He defines his satisfaction. Not me.

I love love love my Jeep. You can read all the reports you want, and you can call me childish and immature all you want. I get in my jeep every day and enjoy driving. I very rarely use it to it's potential. I have never done the Rubicon trail. ... probably never will. But I can't even count the number of times people have come up to me and told me how cool my Jeep looks. That's part of it. People DO identify with their vehicles. Lola will want to love her car, whichever one she chooses. For you, making the best choice is about numbers and ratios. Well God bless, man. Whatever blows your skirt up. Just maybe try to respect other people. Don't be quite such a condescending asshole all the time.

If you want people to hear you, you have to get them to listen first. When they think you're crazy, or hate you because you belittle them, you have no chance of getting past their walls.

That's some free advice on life. Just for you, from me.

Sin freaking cerely,

Your pal,

Lumberjim

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

People do make decisions in their lives based upon what you might call emotional reaction. I had a customer the other day that chose to take the 0% loan over the $2500 rebate, even though I very clearly explained to him that it would cost him $240 more over the course of the loan. He understood. He saw that at the preferred rate of 3.24%, the total finance charge was $2260.
He just felt better knowing that he had ZERO interest. I think that was the wrong choice. I asked him if he felt it was worth $240 just to have the 0%. He said yes. So I wrote the loan his way.

He defines his satisfaction. Not me.

That goes directly what underpins Lola Bunny's question. Concepts were defined by Daniel Kahneman who (I believe) won the 2002 Nobel Prize for his work on this topic. Kahneman defined two types of thinking. System one is intuitive decisions based mostly on emotion. System two is described as a rational but lazy though process that may override system one.

From summarizes of his work, I suspect most (a clear majority) are system one type thinkers. Apparently this entire thread demonstrates that concept. For example, many just know four wheel drive increases safety because that was the impression that most have. Many believed anti-lock brakes make stopping on ice safer. Almost no one asked how or why. In part because the other decision making process is mostly done in a 'lazy' fashion. If not described (explained) in a sound byte, then many proceed no further and fall back onto what they know best - system one.

Procter and Gamble once advertised using a more rational approach. Advertising concentrated only on one aspect of the product - what the product does for the consumer. I watched when, for the first time, toothpaste (Crest) actually did something useful. They drilled the "42% fewer cavities" expression relentlessly until suddenly the public grasped it. Colgate, which had somewhere between 80% and 90% of the market, suddenly went to near zero suddenly - almost instantly.

This is example of system two thinking overriding system one. You could say system two (Toyota's reputation) has expanded to be viewed by many using system one thinking. Toyota's reputation no longer need be explained by numbers in Consumer Reports? Maybe. But this is clear - as even demonstrated by Saddam's WMDs. Most of us make decisions using system one thinking. It explains why brainwashing is so effective and more widespread that many believe.

Why did a majority know smoking cigarettes increased health? Advertising. Also known as brainwashing. In the 1950s, a majority had no idea how easily they had been manipulated. They knew, with certainty, that smoking increased health because advertising said so. My father's complaint (he was writing those commercials) was that the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) kept trying to make them tell the truth. That took all the fun out of it. Both fun and profitable is to brainwash the majority with advertising. Because so many people know only using their emotions - system one decisions.

Companies that predict the effectiveness of advertising dispute this. Citing, for example, passengers who buy discount airline tickets knowing full well the risk. Clearly Cogan Airlines is inferior to United. But still, some will overirde their emotions (and fears) to buy cheaper tickets. It is this rather subjective thinking process that makes advertising, marketing, and even selling a car loan so mysterious, challenging, and an art.

If Toyota and Honda are so good, then why did so many still buy Chryslers? It goes right back to a fundamental question that also resulted in a Nobel Prize in economics. Are markets rational or driven by irrational exuberance. I believe the two winners that year represented contrarian viewpoints.

Robert Sheller of Yale has recently asked same question about this economy. He believes another bubble exists. However numbers (ie Earnings per share) contradict what some believe is a revived emotional attitude (irrational exuberance).

These questions and concepts also apply to how and why people recommend or desire a car.

Another example. Do you plug your computer into a power strip surge protector? Most do. Why would anyone plug their computer into something that can make surge damage easier and in some cases create a house fire? How many first learned facts? How many just 'assumed' protector and protection sound alike; therefore must be same. Another example that demonstrates system one thinking. If using rational thought, then many would instead spend less money for something, also called a surge protector, that actually creates surge protection.

But again, how many really ask damning questions or automatically doubt their intuitive beliefs? How many realize that brainwashing is rather routine, subtle, and easy? I believe Saddam's WMDs demonstrates a ballpark number: a clear minority. Asking and answering these questions can get one a Nobel Prize.

[busterb]

Little bunny. You should have asked, what car do you like. And aside. I have a 10 year old Honda. Do I like it? Most times, Low to ground for old folks, as to getting in and out. No problems since I've got the car. Dec. 2006. Gas milage, great. Would I recommend a Honda.
No. Because if you buy one and don't like it, It'll be back on me.

[Undertoad]

Many believed anti-lock brakes make stopping on ice safer. Almost no one asked how or why.

ABS reduces overall crash involvement risk by 6 percent for cars and 8 percent for pickups and SUVs.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

ABS reduces overall crash involvement risk by 6 percent for cars and 8 percent for pickups and SUVs.

From the NHTSA:

This statistical analysis of the initial years of exposure of the first groups of cars equipped with ABS showed mixed results. Involvements in multivehicle crashes on wet roads were significantly reduced in the cars equipped with ABS: fatal crashes were reduced by 24 percent, and nonfatal crashes by 14 percent. Fatal collisions with pedestrian and bicyclists were down a significant 27 percent with ABS. However, these reductions were offset by a statistically significant increase in the frequency of single vehicle, run-off-road crashes (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects), as compared to cars without ABS. Fatal run-off-road crashes were up by 28 percent, and nonfatal crashes by 19 percent. It is unknown to what extent this increase is a consequence of ABS, or is due to other causes. In particular, it is unknown to what extent, if any, the increase is due to incorrect responses by drivers to their ABS systems, and, if so, whether the effect is likely to persist in the future. ...

Stopping distances decreased substantially with four-wheel ABS on wet surfaces, but decreased only slightly on dry pavement and increased considerably on gravel.

The increase of crashes are:

All types of run-off-road crashes - rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects and frontal impacts with fixed objects - increased significantly with ABS. Nonfatal run-off-road crashes increased by an estimated 19 percent, and fatal crashes by 28 percent.

Rollovers and side impacts with fixed objects - crashes that typically follow a complete loss of directional control - had the highest increases with ABS. Nonfatal crashes increased by 28 percent, and fatal crashes by 40 percent.

Frontal impacts with fixed objects, where the driver is more likely to have retained at least some directional control prior to impact, increased by about 15-20 percent, both nonfatal and fatal.

Unfortunately that soundbyte (that ignores all facts) is not what the NHTSA says. NHTSA results cannot exist in a sounbyte. Big letters imply a claim is incomplete, vague, or emotional.

Meanwhile, GM commericials showed ABS increasing safety on shear ice. The myth persists. Most first heard and therefore believed that myth. The NHTSA asks whether ABS myths have cause an increase in crashes and death due to reckless driving inspired by ABS or other reasons related to ABS.

ABS does virtually nothing to protect a driver on ice. Meanwhile, other automakers (with products designed by engineers) provided speed sensitive steering. A solution based in fundamental concepts of quality as even defined by William Edward Deming. No quality is to solve a problem after it exist. Quality is about averting a problem before it happens. Speed sensitive steering is a quality solution. ABS was marketed to save your ass AFTER it exists. ABS is a low quality solution that cannot do on ice what GM commercials claimed.

A question is how many died because they believe ABS myths and therefore drove recklessly? Numbers suggest this is a problem.

The report also quotes a study from the insurance industry:

In late 1993, the Highway Loss Data Institute published an analysis of the effect of ABS on collision and property-damage-liability claims. They found that ABS had little effect on the overall, insurance-reported accident rates of cars. This report's findings on the overall, net effect of ABS corroborate the earlier study. However, this report also shows that ABS is not ineffectual. The net benefit is close to zero, because significant reductions in pedestrian impacts and wet-road multivehicle crashes are nullified by significant increases in run-off-road crashes.

[lumberjim]

That was better.

So, what kind of car would you buy if you had $25000 cash to spend? Forget tax and tags for this. What would you buy, and why? You can go new or up to 3 year old used, but be realistic about the price if you go used.

[Undertoad]

You are quoting a study from 1994. The NTHSA calls that study "preliminary".

I am quoting a study from 2009. It is called "The Long-Term Effect of ABS in Passenger Cars and LTVs".

THE LONG-TERM EFFECT OF ABS IS DETERMINED BY THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ... WHICH SHOW THAT IT REDUCES ACCIDENTS BY 6-8%

please update your brain with this new information

[Griff]

Sorry what?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You are quoting a study from 1994. The NTHSA calls that study "preliminary".

The quote said

Many believed anti-lock brakes make stopping on ice safer. Almost no one asked how or why.

Where is your number that says ABS will save your ass on ice? Your numbers are found in NHTSA reports and other reports. And then those reports add your numbers to other numbers. Bottom line remains.

The net benefit is close to zero,

Return to what so many believe because GM promoted the myth. Where are numbers that show better stopping and increased safety on ice? Where are your numbers that address that sentence? And where are your numbers that prove ABS has not encouraged more reckless driving as the NHTSA and others suspect?

The point is about why so many know only from their feelings and soundbytes. And therefore even drive recklessly rather than learn what ABS really does.

[Undertoad]

But what you're forgetting my old friend is that the need to be right in you is an EMOTIONAL REACTION

Here I have provided enough information that should simply change your mind, and yet you have avoided doing so, using any available pretense.

In fact one CANNOT RECALL the last time you CHANGED YOUR MIND. Or admitted your own error. And yet it is impossible for you to be CORRECT ON EVERY TOPIC, especially in a world where facts are CHANGING... and vehicles are CHANGING every model year.

You seem OVERLY ATTACHED to facts that are 20 years old and represent a world where a small percentage of cars on the road had ABS. This is not logical

This, I submit to you, is an obviously emotional reaction. You have a psychological need to be right which overrides your reach for honest, unemotional truth.

[lumberjim]

Who ever said people did or didn't drive recklessly because their car has ABS. Besides you, I mean. I don't think anyone said that ABS works on ice, either. It's like you're making up your own argument to win. And no one said speed sensitive steering assist was a bad thing. ... and what do they have to do with one another anyway? Can you even get a car with out speed sensitive power steering at this point? You can't get one without ABS, so why are we even discussing it?

Why are you participating in this conversation at all, tw? Have you made any constructive recommendations? Do you even have a car?

You seem to be interested only in lecturing everyone about WMDs and how poorly American car companies are managed.

I'll ask a third time, but assume you'll ignore me again. ...

What kind of car do you drive, tw?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You seem OVERLY ATTACHED to facts that are 20 years old and represent a world where a small percentage of cars on the road had ABS. This is not logical

I am very careful to learn facts before concluding. As you learned in 2003 with Saddam's WMDs. In November 2010, the Safety Record reported on a recent NHTSA study for heavy trucks.

Meanwhile, the agency published a second study in July concluding that ABS for heavy trucks, ... are effective in some crash scenarios. ...
ABS were most effective in avoiding crashes off the highways, where the speed limit was 50 mph or less. ABS also appeared to be effective in reducing jack-knife-type, off-road, and at-fault collision crashes. But the study found no significant reductions in fatal crashes overall, and there was an increase in highway crashes in which a truck rear-ended another vehicle.

"On interstates and roads with speed limits 55 mph or higher, tractor-trailers rear-ending leading vehicles increased significantly. An estimate of fatal crash reduction was derived by considering type and speed of the road, urbanization, and ambient lighting condition. The estimate is a 4-percent reduction in crashes where ABS could potentially be effective, or about a 2-percent reduction in all fatal crash involvements. The result is not statistically significant," the report said.

Being professional drivers is significant. It demonstrates quality (and safety) does not increase in solutions that save your ass AFTER a problem occurs. Earlier studies said drivers with ABS are not driving faster. So reasons for some increased fatal crash rates and no overall increase in safety is unknown. Numerous studies included your numbers and then included other numbers you ignored. Why does that make you angry?

Quality (and safety) exists when problems are averted before they happen. Many believe ABS increases safety on ice when no facts prove that; since ABS does virtually nothing for stopping on ice. Why do you ignore what I said about ice when your own post was a reply (in oversized letters) to that simple sentence?

Back to the point. Many know from intuition rather than know by learning facts - ie system one and system two knowledge. Many still believe myths promoted in those GM commercials.

Does safety increase when a car (with radar) sees a problem before it happens; stops the car? Speculation says so. Nobody knows until hard facts (numbers) are provided. However some may assume they can now read smart phones since the car will save their ass. A potential problem created by one who feels rather than from facts. The point I keep making and you keep ignoring.

So you tell me. Will radar increase safety? And why?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

I am very careful to learn facts before concluding. As you learned in 2003 with Saddam's WMDs.

Being right once does not entitle you to a monopoly on truth. That'a a logical fallacy. I demonstrated that ten years ago; there was a month where every time you brought up aluminum tubes, I found a post on the Cellar where you were demonstrably and clearly wrong. I can do that again if you like, but apparently it had no bearing on you, so it's a waste of my time, as are all interactions with you including this one.

In November 2010, the Safety Record reported on a recent NHTSA study for heavy trucks.

Trucks are not relevant to the subject at hand. Anyone but you can understand why numbers about ABS on trucks are not going to tell us much about ABS on cars.

Numerous studies included your numbers and then included other numbers you ignored.

Prove it. Post the studies that included "my" numbers from the 2009 IIHS study.

Why do you ignore what I said about ice when your own post was a reply (in oversized letters) to that simple sentence?

Ice was not relevant to the question at hand. It was a distraction by you.

Oversized letters became the first time you paid attention to numbers that were posted. You ignored the actual numbers until they were posted in large print. What does that tell us about your attention to facts?

Why do you think I'm angry when I post in large print? I'm not. I'm just trying to get through to you because you don't read anyone's posts. It worked! I've gotten through and given you the numbers that you pretend to care so dearly about... that you have previously ignored. Why did you ignore them before? Why, now, do you try to argue in circles away from them? ABS IS SAFER. But but but ice! But but but trucks! NO. ABS IS SAFER. 6 to 8% fewer crashes in cars and SUVs. THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. Why ignore them?

Emotional need to be right, no matter what, in the face of given facts. Being right is so important to you that you have held on dearly to the last time you were right, 11 years ago. But if you are honest, and unemotional, you know that has no bearing on numbers that exist and are presented today as evidence.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...so it's a waste of my time, as are all interactions with you including this one.

Now you've got it.