Car Fix/Replace Decision

[samclem]

The arms race in buying ever-heavier vehicles is out of control. I think we should think about making criminal and civil liability with car-related incidents proportional to the gross weight of the vehicle you're driving.

Lawyers for the Yaris driver (or the government in criminal cases) are free to bring these factors into the case right now, right? Seems more straightforward to just convince the judge/jury that the very size of the vehicle used by the "offending" driver, together with any other factors (intoxication, excessive speed, negligence, etc) increased the magnitude of the offense. Must we have yet another law (complete with a formula)?

I'd ask the same question the other way: If I'm in a "regular" size car and cause an accident that injures a person in a less safe car (small, no airbags, seat belts inop, etc), should I get a reduced judgement for his injuries? After all, his deliberate selection of a tin foil econobox could reasonably have been anticipated to increase his chances of injury. He put me at increased risk (of damages) by his poor choice! Yeah, that's it!

 

[Pajaro]

I would try to sell it to a private party (with complete disclosure about the damage) before selling it to the scrap yard. Maybe someone in your area needs a parts car and values your daughter's car more than $800. If you don't get any takers, fall back on the scrap yard.

 

[pb4uski]

The arms race in buying ever-heavier vehicles is out of control. I think we should think about making criminal and civil liability with car-related incidents proportional to the gross weight of the vehicle you're driving.

One of the silliest ideas that I have heard.

 

[eytonxav]

True, however something like a Fit is on the low end of the distribution curve. If we are looking for balance, which we must do in almost all cases, I'd have to think that 'balance' in this case, generally means a bit higher on the curb weight range.

I just read that a Fit is ~ 2400#. My Volvo S40 ~ 3100#, and I will get something larger when I replace it, I feel a bit vulnerable in it.

-ERD50

Don't under estimate the safety in a well constructed smaller car vs a larger/heavier vehicle. That said, if the construction is equally well engineered, by all means opt for the heavier car.

Several years ago, my DS was t-boned by a car going 80+ mph in a residential neighborhood and survived that crash in a 2005 Honda civic. The firemen who cut him out of that car said in their opinion he would not have survived if he was in a bigger US built car like an F150 (common in that college town). In terms of crash worthyness, I am a believer in Honda built cars.

 

[Texas Proud]

I wonder how much that damage mattered if it was only detectable by dissection and she got all those years of trouble-free driving from it.

Perhaps a fourth option would have been to ignore the discovery and continue with the other repairs, but I'm guessing that the body shop (and the car insurance company) would balk. And even $2100 seems like a dubious repair decision for a car of that age & mileage.

I think today's litigious society makes people nervous about driving damaged vehicles, but mechanically the vehicles can drive with a lot more damage than we're willing to put up with. We drove a '97 Nissan Altima for six years with a bent rear stabilizer bar (as in "bent into the profile of a guard rail", but that's another story) and put at least 40K miles on it. The car's still on the road today with 115K miles. Can't tell it's a problem from the handling or performance, and you can't tell it's a problem unless you know what shape a rear stabilizer bar is supposed to have.

If cars were maintained by submarine shipyards, repairs would only be done if the damage significantly (not just "annoyingly") interfered with operation. You'd hear questions like "It still goes into fourth gear but not overdrive, and you think that's a problem?!?" or "So this shimmy doesn't show up until 80 MPH, and you think we should fix it?!?"

"Temporary repair" is a very long time between shipyard overhauls...

I agree... cars can still work just fine and be safe with a lot of damage...

I had one car that was made in the 60s... it had a 3 speed auto... and second gear went out... you had to accelerate to a speed when you knew 3rd would work and then let up on the gas so it would shift...

I also bent the A frame on that car... put on another that did not quite fit properly and got bad tire wear... but the car steered just fine...

I had a Mazda in the 80s with a 4 cyl... one of the cyls cracked... after a few hundred miles the spark plug would foul and I would have to change it out for a clean one... I got real good at changing spark plugs... would take me less than 2 minutes... I also had a can collect oil from the EGR hose as it would pump oil into the carb if I did not redirect it...


So I guess option 3 was there...

 

[Lsbcal]

In 2009 our son bought a used 2008 Ford Fusion from a Ford dealership with a warranty still in place. It had been a rental for a short time. He loves it and it's been a no hassle car so far. It was a lot more then $6k though.

Anyway, I understand not wanting to go through the buying hassle. But just look at it as a life experience you have to go through from time to time.

 

[ERD50]

Don't under estimate the safety in a well constructed smaller car vs a larger/heavier vehicle. That said, if the construction is equally well engineered, by all means opt for the heavier car.

Several years ago, my DS was t-boned by a car going 80+ mph in a residential neighborhood and survived that crash in a 2005 Honda civic. The firemen who cut him out of that car said in their opinion he would not have survived if he was in a bigger US built car like an F150 (common in that college town). In terms of crash worthyness, I am a believer in Honda built cars.

Yes, if I didn't come right out and say it, I always mean 'all other things being equal'.

In fact that did play into my decision when I bought my Volvo S40 in 2000. It was a little smaller than I might have bought otherwise (but still ~ 3100#, not as small as some of the cars we are talking about). Volvos were at least perceived to be of a high safety level for their class, so that would somewhat offset a few hundred pounds of mass.

-ERD50

 

[travelover]

One of the silliest ideas that I have heard.

Yea, but.............. locally it is cool for testosterone poisoned kids to drive 4WD drive pickups 1 foot off your rear bumper in the slipperiest of weather. Kinda like waving around a loaded gun.

 

[Midpack]

The arms race in buying ever-heavier vehicles is out of control. I think we should think about making criminal and civil liability with car-related incidents proportional to the gross weight of the vehicle you're driving.

One of the silliest ideas that I have heard.

Nothing will change the American vehicle size "arms race" until gasoline is considered expensive and/or scarce. See Europe and most other non-OPEC countries...

 

[haha]

One of the silliest ideas that I have heard.

True, and it is doing well against some pretty stiff competition for silly ideas.

 

[haha]

In terms of crash worthyness, I am a believer in Honda built cars.

Me too. I came out of a 1-2 punch of a T-bone from a side road followed by a head on from an oncoming car on a state hiway, in an Acura Integra, which was essentially a Honda with better leather seats.

Ha

 

[glippy]

One of the silliest ideas that I have heard.

Perhaps the formula I whipped up in sixty seconds is too complicated. But maybe something simpler like fines for moving violations that are proportional to the vehicle weight. Why should a guy on a moped be fined the same as a guy in a hummer for reckless driving? The punishment ought to be proportional to the risk that you are putting everyone else in.

Right now larger vehicle drivers increase their own safety by directly increasing the risk of injury to others. Yet they face zero increased liability.

If you take a risk, you should have to deal with the liability, not be able to just shift it to everyone else with no consequences. That's what is creating the problem of the heavy-vehicle arms race.

 

[brewer12345]

Perhaps the formula I whipped up in sixty seconds is too complicated. But maybe something simpler like fines for moving violations that are proportional to the vehicle weight. Why should a guy on a moped be fined the same as a guy in a hummer for reckless driving? The punishment ought to be proportional to the risk that you are putting everyone else in.

Right now larger vehicle drivers increase their own safety by directly increasing the risk of injury to others. Yet they face zero increased liability.

If you take a risk, you should have to deal with the liability, not be able to just shift it to everyone else with no consequences. That's what is creating the problem of the heavy-vehicle arms race.

I am sure the trial lawyers would have a great time with this one.

 

[ejw93]

Consumer Reports says you should ditch a car when the repair cost meets or exceeds the value of the car. Clark Howard says you should ditch the car when the repair cost is HALF the car's value.

It's unanimous- get rid of the old car.

 

[samclem]

Consumer Reports says you should ditch a car when the repair cost meets or exceeds the value of the car. Clark Howard says you should ditch the car when the repair cost is HALF the car's value.

It's unanimous- get rid of the old car.

I don't think these rules of thumb are very useful--they ignore the utility value of a used car you've had for awhile and "know." I've driven "beaters" for decades that would have cost a fortune to fix (have you priced what a mechanic charges to change out an instrument light?). So, I just drive them with an increasing amount of known problems, none of which makes the car unsafe or unsuitable for my purposes.
And, I've often gotten good value when I've paid for expensive repairs to used cars. I know the car and what it's been through and how it's been maintained. If I didn't do the repair and instead bought a different used car, I'd be taking a risk I don't need to take regarding its condition.

 

[pb4uski]

Perhaps the formula I whipped up in sixty seconds is too complicated. But maybe something simpler like fines for moving violations that are proportional to the vehicle weight. Why should a guy on a moped be fined the same as a guy in a hummer for reckless driving? The punishment ought to be proportional to the risk that you are putting everyone else in.

Right now larger vehicle drivers increase their own safety by directly increasing the risk of injury to others. Yet they face zero increased liability.

If you take a risk, you should have to deal with the liability, not be able to just shift it to everyone else with no consequences. That's what is creating the problem of the heavy-vehicle arms race.

Seems to me you are trying to combine civil and criminal penalties together.

The criminal act is reckless driving and whether you are driving reckless on a scooter or a 1/2 ton pickup it doesn't matter.

If your reckless driving results in damages to another party, then it is likely that your liability will be more if you were driving reckless in the 1/2 ton pickup than it will be if you are driving the scooter.

If you drive reckless and no damage results, then the criminal penalties apply (assuming you get caught) but the civil do not.

 

[Telly]

I don't think these rules of thumb are very useful--they ignore the utility value of a used car you've had for awhile and "know." I've driven "beaters" for decades that would have cost a fortune to fix (have you priced what a mechanic charges to change out an instrument light?). So, I just drive them with an increasing amount of known problems, none of which makes the car unsafe or unsuitable for my purposes.
And, I've often gotten good value when I've paid for expensive repairs to used cars. I know the car and what it's been through and how it's been maintained. If I didn't do the repair and instead bought a different used car, I'd be taking a risk I don't need to take regarding its condition.

YES! Very well put, samclem
For D-I-Y people, it is a different situation than for the "average Joe".
Wrapped up in this, is the old "devil you know, vs. the devil you don't."

 

[haha]

Wrapped up in this, is the old "devil you know, vs. the devil you don't."

For this reason, my uncle who owned many used car lots over his long life, always told us kids-don't buy a used car except from a trusted family member.

I have seen otherwise honest people go to consideragle lengths to disguise flaws, even dangerous flaws, in cars they wished to sell.

Ha

 

[Moemg]

In which case she can easily buy a good new car for less than $20,000 (Subaru Integra?) and improve her life and safety considerably. In spite of what the board may think, there are more important issues beyond penny-pinching, especially for young people with their whole lives ahead, and with more arrows in their quivers than we retirees have.

Ha

I have to side with Ha . I would want a low maintenance car for my daughter so I would have no worries of frequent break downs in odd areas of town.I also agree with having a lot of metal around her .

 

[glippy]

The criminal act is reckless driving and whether you are driving reckless on a scooter or a 1/2 ton pickup it doesn't matter.

What I'm proposing is something akin to 'aggravated reckless driving' or something, for vehicles over a certain weight. For example, the criminal act of assault with a deadly weapon is the same if you use your shoe to hit someone in the head, or if you shoot them with a rifle, but the punishments vary because the courts use their judgment in handing out penalties. Right now, the court doesn't consider the size of the vehicle in punishing the act of reckless driving (or speeding, or following too closely, or any other moving violation), in determining the penalty, I'm saying they should.

 

[brewer12345]

What I'm proposing is something akin to 'aggravated reckless driving' or something, for vehicles over a certain weight. For example, the criminal act of assault with a deadly weapon is the same if you use your shoe to hit someone in the head, or if you shoot them with a rifle, but the punishments vary because the courts use their judgment in handing out penalties. Right now, the court doesn't consider the size of the vehicle in punishing the criminal act of reckless driving (or speeding, or following too closely, or any other moving violation), in determining the penalty, I'm saying they should.

Considerng the ongoing kerfluffle over the mandate to buy health insurance, I can only imagine the shrieks and howls should this suggestion ever make it into a bill.

In the meantime, I will continue carefully driving my F150.

 

[Nords]

I don't think these rules of thumb are very useful--they ignore the utility value of a used car you've had for awhile and "know." I've driven "beaters" for decades that would have cost a fortune to fix (have you priced what a mechanic charges to change out an instrument light?). So, I just drive them with an increasing amount of known problems, none of which makes the car unsafe or unsuitable for my purposes.

We've done this with our last two cars. We ended up giving them away because they either had no resale value, or had "issues" that we didn't want to foist on an ignorant buyer.

I've always been annoyed at Ford for building a '94 Taurus whose dashboard seemed to go through some sort of plastic rot. Kinda expensive to replace a dashboard, and you don't want to touch a surface that's turned gooey & sticky.

 

[harley]

What I'm proposing is something akin to 'aggravated reckless driving' or something, for vehicles over a certain weight. For example, the criminal act of assault with a deadly weapon is the same if you use your shoe to hit someone in the head, or if you shoot them with a rifle, but the punishments vary because the courts use their judgment in handing out penalties. Right now, the court doesn't consider the size of the vehicle in punishing the act of reckless driving (or speeding, or following too closely, or any other moving violation), in determining the penalty, I'm saying they should.

I'm with you. Another example of this would be the size of the cell phone keyboard for accidents cased by texting. Those tiny keyboards demand more attention, resulting in less attention for driving (or walking). Definitely worth additional penalties.

For that matter, I suspect we could claim a hate crime in a little car getting creamed by a big ole truck. Truck drivers often show contempt for econobox drivers. Actually, sarcasm aside, I'm a little worried that this one might be coming. Every time I get my outrage on, somebody takes me seriously and things get worse.

Never mind.

 

[ERD50]

Perhaps the formula I whipped up in sixty seconds is too complicated. But maybe something simpler like ...

No. The entire notion is utterly indefensible. Quit while you are[-] ahead[/-] not any further behind.

Insurance premiums are already based on the vehicle profile/history.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

What I'm proposing is something akin to 'aggravated reckless driving' or something, for vehicles over a certain weight. For example, the criminal act of assault with a deadly weapon is the same if you use your shoe to hit someone in the head, or if you shoot them with a rifle, but the punishments vary because the courts use their judgment in handing out penalties. ....

I guess I'd need a lawyer's input on that, I don't know how the law handles it.

But if someone I knew was killed by someone with a gun, knife, or beat to death with a shoe, they would be just as dead. I can't understand how the tool used would make a difference. Other than death by a gun would probably be less painful than death by shoe beating, so maybe the shoe beating should be sentenced harsher? But that goes against your argument, I think.


-ERD50