Hacker News Reader

Comment by diziet | Hacker News Reader

When I read the comments of how people are happy with their 2003 model car X, or they drive an old but great manual 1997 model car Y, I get really confused. Safety systems in cars continue to improve, from more and better airbags, to crumple zones, automatic collision braking, pedestrian detection braking, intelligent headlights that don't blind oncoming traffic, seatbelts that pre-tension, better traction control, better brakes, blind spot monitoring, backup cameras, etc. A 2020 model car will have more of these features than an older car. It is more likely to keep you and others safe, including pedestrians safe. MPG keeps getting better -- the newer cars are generally nicer overall.

View on HN

I'm not sure why you are confused. Do you expect people to jump out and just buy a new car every single year? Some people do this, by way of leasing. They upgrade all the time. For others, buying a car is a substantial investment and not necessarily something you want to (or are even capable of) jumping out of just for new safety technology.

Also newer does not mean better. I have an old 2000 Jeep Cherokee that will probably last an eternity with its stout 4.0L engine. It's currently got 253k miles and is one of the most comfortable and enjoyable cars I have ever driven. I also have a modern 2016 Ford Mustang. I can appreciate both vehicles for what they are, but I wouldn't say one is better than the other purely based on age. In fact, the older one is easier to maintain and parts are far cheaper.

I think the safety features are the big thing. Most 2 year old cars now come with active braking and a slew of other safety features. And / year old cars are already massively cheaper than brand new. Keep buying and selling within the 2-5 year zone and you can have the best safety tech for a fraction of the new / lease price

I have children learning to drive. Much happier for them to be in the wife's 2018 model with active breaking, lane keeping, blindspot alerts and headlights that are 3x more effective than my 2008 car.

I think those people like the spartan features of older cars. If newer cars had those new safety feature but the same interfaces and simplicity as older cars I think you'd find less people pining for the days of their old Fiat Punto.

I don't think they're wanting to eschew safety because they like their older car, it's just A) not everyone can afford a new car, and B) the old car controls just the way they want it to, regardless of being less safe.

I have a super fancy new car that is quite expensive. It has all the gizmos on your list and then some.

It has a relatively small incremental benefit. I love the thing, sure, but it really isn't 'worth it' at all, it's purely an emotional thing of having a whizzy whee rocket sled, and I can actually definitely afford it.

If I had, say, the median net worth in the US, I'd be driving a 1998 Civic. That's what I did, until I didn't.

It's just like, not that big a deal. Most people, myself included, are probably doing this stuff for status. Having a battleaxe car is a specific type of signaling in and of itself (in fact this is one of the things I miss the most about my old car...)

In addition to the other replies, there is a serious argument to be made for keeping a car longer or buying used in terms of environmental impact. MPG improvements have been minor enough to not offset the huge environmental cost of manufacturing the car itself. It's better to keep the old Explorer that still runs than to buy a new Prius.

I'd be interested to see a study about whether the last twenty years of safety gadgets have actually reduced accident casualties significantly. My thought is that at least as far as collision performance, things have been pretty well understood that whole time.

You could say the same for phones, computers, housing, appliances, etc...

Personally I've never bought a new car because I could always get something better for the same money that was used.

Maybe I will buy your 2020 car in a few years? :)

The incremental safety improvements are at best marginal.

The period of most rapid car safety improvements came during a single ten-year period, from 1910 - 1920. Since then, with small variances, deaths per passenger mile have halved roughly every 20 years. The rate 20 years ago was already very low, with the inter-vehicle variance likely greater than the total car fleet improvement.

Deaths per billion vehicle miles travelled (VMT) is the red line in this plot: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/US...

20 years ago you had ABS, airbags, side-impact airbags on many vehicles, and crumple zones.

You also had far fewer distractions, whether built-in or carried by drivers or occupants.

Auto MPG is largely a function of engine size. Fleet average in the US remains ~25 MPG. A 1970 Datsun or Toyota would deliver > 30 MPG. Hybrid, deisel, and electric vehicles are exceptions to that rule, but generally, buying a small-engined small car delivers max benefits.

Note too: the improvement from 10 MPG to 20 MPG is twice that from 20 MPG to 30 MPG. If you're interested in fuel consumption rather than range, it's the fuel consumption per distance travelled, usually given as km/100 litres in Europe. 10 MPG == 100 mi/10 gallons, 20 MPG == 200 miles/10 gallons, 30 MPG == 300 mi/10 gallons. A doubling of efficiency would require going 20 MPG -> 40 MPG, or 400 mi/10 gallons.

TL;DR: progress isn't progressing as progressively as progressive would like to think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com