Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Does this ever happen to you?
Next: Public Transit?
From: Larry G on 2 May 2010 20:09 On May 2, 5:48 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-02, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 1, 6:05 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-05-01, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On May 1, 2:21 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> > >> >> said: > > >> >> >> >black boxes in each new car? I bet all both the manufacturers and > >> >> >> >customers are going to like that idea - not! > > >> >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T. > > >> >> >Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the > >> >> >consumer. > > >> >> Manufacturers absolutely will care. The more cars cost, the harder it > >> >> is to sell them. Lower sales means less profit for the automakers. > >> >> -- > >> >> The MFFY Litmus Test: > >> >> If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way > >> >> to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY. > > >> > if the govt "believes" that ultimately black boxes will result in less > >> > accidents, and less irresponsible driving.. and a way to get to the > >> > bottom of claims like unintended acceleration.. brakes that don't > >> > work, etc... then I think it's a no brainer. > > >> > you asked to give an example. My understanding is that things like air > >> > bags, ESC, and such have a positive cost benefit. Didn't the > >> > insurance companies make this point? > > >> > If the insurance company offered you a 30% reduction in your premium > >> > if you allowed an on-board event recorder.. would you do it? 40%, > >> > 50%? how about they tell you they are going to RAISE your premiums > >> > 50% if you do not? > > >> > Bonus Question: if the insurance company did that to you - would you > >> > go running to that big bad over-regulating nasty big govt for help? > > >> If an insurance company did that to me it would because they went to > >> government and had laws changed/passed. Otherwise I'd just go to a > >> different insurance company when they raised my rates for no reason > >> other than a desire to track me. Lots of people don't want to be > >> tracked. There is just barely enough of a free market in auto insurance > >> in IL that such customers can go elsewhere. > > >> Every notice that in some states auto insurance is very expensive for no > >> good reason? There's a reason for that, and it starts with a "G". > > >> It is the closing off of a free market that forces people to seek help > >> in the political process rather than just taking their business > >> elsewhere. > > > well.. if the market was truly "free" like it was before govt anti- > > trust laws - you would find companies colluding with each other to fix > > prices and other actions to increase their profits and disable true > > competition. > > No cartel can survive without government participation or violence that > government does nothing about. Company owners and executives have sought > government protection for hundreds if not thousands of years. In a free > market someone in the cartel will cheat or new competition will rise up. > The only way to stop it is with the government or violence the > government allows. And no, they can't just lower prices. They'll have to > keep prices low otherwise each time they raise prices too high new > competition springs up. cartels not only survive - they run the competition out of business... we have a long history of that in this country and even today, there are those that say that's exactly what WalMart does when it comes to town. > > > and in terms of safety - would you really want a market where > > companies could sell cars without air bags and the like - for > > cheaper? > > Considering the harm airbags can do, that would be a good thing. > Automakers offered airbags nearly 20 years before the mandate. They > found the problems with them and stopped offering them because they > didn't want to be sued because of the injuries. When the government > wanted to mandate them the automakers made warnings about what would > happen to children and small adults. Government decided it knew better. it's an actuarial approach where they look at the number who are harmed verses the number who are saved. without air bags - more people die.... with them.. less... we do the same calculation with drugs and pesticides...
From: AZ Nomad on 2 May 2010 23:06 On Sun, 2 May 2010 18:44:35 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol(a)JustThe.net> wrote: >In article <eab07bbc-280b-4a3d-a32f- >61bbfad5f84d(a)x1g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, gross.larry(a)gmail.com says... >> >> On May 2, 4:04?pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> >> > said: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >On May 1, 11:21?am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> >> > >> said: >> > >> > >> >> >black boxes in each new car? ?I bet all both the manufacturers and >> > >> >> >customers are going to like that idea - not! >> > >> > >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T. >> > >> > >> >Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the >> > >> >consumer. >> > >> > >> Manufacturers absolutely will care. The more cars cost, the harder it >> > >> is to sell them. Lower sales means less profit for the automakers. >> > >> > >When the cost to every manufacturer goes up, the competition to sell >> > >stays the same. >> > >> > Doesn't matter. If the prices of new cars go up, fewer people will be >> > able to afford new cars, and fewer will be sold. >> > >> > >There is a market out there that will be satified no >> > >matter what the cost (withing reason). >> > >> > And more and more of it will be satisfied either with a used car or by >> > keeping and repairing the current car. >> >> I dunno. There are quite a few cars out there that are pretty low >> priced and meet the standards and from what I hear both China and >> India plan on offering fully compliant cars in the sub 15K range.... >> sub 10K if you believe this: >> >> http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/090608-Tata-Nano-World-s-Cheapest-Car-Coming-to-U-S-/ >The LA Times just reported that a major Chinese manufacturer is setting >up their US headquarters here in SoCal, I forget exactly where. >I might be persuaded to buy an Indian car. I'd never, in a million >years, buy a Chinese car. You probably have a car that is mostly chinese content and don't even know it. Very little is made in the U.S. by the transnational corporations and the auto makers are all transnational.
From: Larry G on 2 May 2010 23:11 On May 2, 9:31 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Not without government aid. Walmart serves their customers better so > they get the business. The moment Walmart cuts selection and raises > prices and makes people wait for goods to come in is when someone else > will show up and drive walmart out of business. you need to read up on Standard Oil.... here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges.2C_anti-trust_litigation_and_breakup > > >> > and in terms of safety - would you really want a market where > >> > companies could sell cars without air bags and the like - for > >> > cheaper? > >> Considering the harm airbags can do, that would be a good thing. > >> Automakers offered airbags nearly 20 years before the mandate. They > >> found the problems with them and stopped offering them because they > >> didn't want to be sued because of the injuries. When the government > >> wanted to mandate them the automakers made warnings about what would > >> happen to children and small adults. Government decided it knew better.. > > it's an actuarial approach where they look at the number who are > > harmed verses the number who are saved. > > Isn't that what got Ford in trouble with the pinto? The actuarial > calculation? they were doing in with lawsuit money to lives... the gov does it comparing which of the choices causes the least deaths. >
From: Harry K on 2 May 2010 23:49 On May 2, 2:48 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-02, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 1, 6:05 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2010-05-01, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On May 1, 2:21 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> > >> >> said: > > >> >> >> >black boxes in each new car? I bet all both the manufacturers and > >> >> >> >customers are going to like that idea - not! > > >> >> >> They're certainly not going to appreciate the additional CO$T. > > >> >> >Customers maybe, manufacturers won't care - that cost is paid by the > >> >> >consumer. > > >> >> Manufacturers absolutely will care. The more cars cost, the harder it > >> >> is to sell them. Lower sales means less profit for the automakers. > >> >> -- > >> >> The MFFY Litmus Test: > >> >> If your maneuver forces another driver who has the right-of-way > >> >> to alter course or speed, what you did was probably MFFY. > > >> > if the govt "believes" that ultimately black boxes will result in less > >> > accidents, and less irresponsible driving.. and a way to get to the > >> > bottom of claims like unintended acceleration.. brakes that don't > >> > work, etc... then I think it's a no brainer. > > >> > you asked to give an example. My understanding is that things like air > >> > bags, ESC, and such have a positive cost benefit. Didn't the > >> > insurance companies make this point? > > >> > If the insurance company offered you a 30% reduction in your premium > >> > if you allowed an on-board event recorder.. would you do it? 40%, > >> > 50%? how about they tell you they are going to RAISE your premiums > >> > 50% if you do not? > > >> > Bonus Question: if the insurance company did that to you - would you > >> > go running to that big bad over-regulating nasty big govt for help? > > >> If an insurance company did that to me it would because they went to > >> government and had laws changed/passed. Otherwise I'd just go to a > >> different insurance company when they raised my rates for no reason > >> other than a desire to track me. Lots of people don't want to be > >> tracked. There is just barely enough of a free market in auto insurance > >> in IL that such customers can go elsewhere. > > >> Every notice that in some states auto insurance is very expensive for no > >> good reason? There's a reason for that, and it starts with a "G". > > >> It is the closing off of a free market that forces people to seek help > >> in the political process rather than just taking their business > >> elsewhere. > > > well.. if the market was truly "free" like it was before govt anti- > > trust laws - you would find companies colluding with each other to fix > > prices and other actions to increase their profits and disable true > > competition. > > No cartel can survive without government participation or violence that > government does nothing about. Company owners and executives have sought > government protection for hundreds if not thousands of years. In a free > market someone in the cartel will cheat or new competition will rise up. > The only way to stop it is with the government or violence the > government allows. And no, they can't just lower prices. They'll have to > keep prices low otherwise each time they raise prices too high new > competition springs up. > > > and in terms of safety - would you really want a market where > > companies could sell cars without air bags and the like - for > > cheaper? > > Considering the harm airbags can do, that would be a good thing. > Automakers offered airbags nearly 20 years before the mandate. They > found the problems with them and stopped offering them because they > didn't want to be sued because of the injuries. When the government > wanted to mandate them the automakers made warnings about what would > happen to children and small adults. Government decided it knew better.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I suspect they quit offering them because _nobody_ would buy them. They were a very high priced option. Harry K
From: Larry G on 3 May 2010 06:51
On May 2, 11:41 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-03, Larry G <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 2, 9:31 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Not without government aid. Walmart serves their customers better so > >> they get the business. The moment Walmart cuts selection and raises > >> prices and makes people wait for goods to come in is when someone else > >> will show up and drive walmart out of business. > > > you need to read up on Standard Oil.... > > here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges.2C_anti-tr... > > You confuse pleasing customers and building a better mousetrap with a > cartel/monopoly. > > Here:http://mises.org/daily/2317 monopolies are real.... the pure capitalist market will and does generate monopolies because that is one of the aspects of pure capitalism that the participants will engage in to beat their competitors. You can see this in action every time a WaWa or Sheetz moves in next to a mom/pop place and lowers the gasoline prices lower than the actual cost. The bigger companies can sustain the loss longer than the little guy can and as soon as he is gone - the prices not only rise - they go up even higher if there are no other nearby competitors. At an exit ramp, one company can buy all the prime land and then put up a station that charges higher rates than if a competitor moved in across the street. For a more complete list of the strategies actually practiced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Monopoly_versus_competitive_markets > > >> Isn't that what got Ford in trouble with the pinto? The actuarial > >> calculation? > > they were doing in with lawsuit money to lives... > > the gov does it comparing which of the choices causes the least > > deaths. > > Government not consider money? HA! Government care about lives? HA! govt considers the number of lives lost and the number of people injured as well as costs. every time you take an aspirin or eat a pork chop - the govt has played a role in the efficacy and safety of those and virtually anything that you eat. The nutrition labels on food are there because of govt. The interstate highways and their standardized designs and safety features are there because of the govt making tradeoffs between lives lost / injure and the costs of mitigating. Without govt - there would be no public roads. Everywhere you went you would be paying an entrepreneur whose road design and safety features would be unique to him and the next road... you'd also pay another toll on and it would be different. Govt has an important role and even though govt can and does screw up - it does not negate the role and all the things it does that do work properly. pure, unadulterated capitalism is anarchy .... go visit Somalia or Yemen to see what pure Capitalism is about. |