^^ thanks for your long post (short version)
why bother with TSLA or any North American auto company, the Japanese, followed by Koreans are tough to beat both in vehicles & stock plays
Cars Impervious to Wrecks
- Thread starter vanzandt
- Start date
^^ thanks for your long post (short version)
why bother with TSLA or any North American auto company, the Japanese, followed by Koreans are tough to beat both in vehicles & stock plays
Stumbled across this while looking for something else.
TSLA was (split adjusted) $162 at the time.
F was $5
What I said about the value of TSLA's data....
.... Cathy Woods just said the same thing last week.
Maybe she read my post.
Exactly. So that is why my vote goes to Subaru. There used to be an ad when they are showing a wreck and the voice over says: they lived. Life pro tip, not investment advice.
3 days ago in Florida 2 old geezers in a Cessna hit an SUV killing the small boy in the back seat. What kind of electronics can predict an attack from air??? Or a 18 wheeler T-boning you?
More than 42,000 people died in car crashes in the U.S. last year. That's just a little less than a full 737 crashing every single day. Are we ever going to prevent the last 30 or even last 300 from dying? Probably not. That's most certainly not a reason not to do our utmost to stop the first 41,700 from dying is it? Nothing we do is "wreck proof" or "anything proof" but we can do a lot to make things very rare given today's tech and some will to make it happen. I'll settle for very rare with intense efforts to make more rare, just like I do when it comes to commercial aviation safety.
I don't have a problem with making cars safer.
But I wish that automakers would make safety improvements standard, and make conveniences optional.
A lot of recent introductions have improved driving safety, like blind spot monitoring, lane change warnings, back up cameras, and automatic braking.
Those should be standard; leather seats, sunroofs, etc. should be optional. You should not have to buy the deluxe model of a car and be forced to pay $2k for an option package to get the new safety features.
Legislated improvements are why new cars have increased to $35K and people keep them for 10-12 years now.
There are a lot of changes can be made to a modern car to make them safer, but where do you stop to find a balance between what people can afford and what people actually need?
You'd be surprised, cars are actually cheaper now than they were when I was a kid in the 80s, even when you ignore how much better they are. For example, when the Camry came out in '83 the MSRP was $9698. That's $25,600 in 2021 dollars. The 2021 Camry MSRP, $24,970. Of course that original Camry had a smaller engine, none of the options we consider standard now, a seatbelt was the only safety equipment, it was far less survivable in a crash due to significantly inferior design, and the paint would fade out, it would rust out, and the mechanical systems would fail to the point a 100,000 mile car was rare. So you're getting a far superior Camry today for an inflation adjusted lower price. Even if you pay the extra $2k for the safety package you're not paying much more than you were for a much crappier car back in '83.
Also, it depends on the car manufacturer. The vast majority of the safety features are standard in a Volvo, for example. In a capitalist system we need to vote with our dollars to the car companies that make safety features standard.
Unless it's sarcasm, you're completely ridiculous. Those didn't have the proper headrest, meaning even a slow speed hit will snap your neck and you're done. This is the most basic safety equipment you need.