Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries

On 2010-05-01, Larry G > wrote:
> On May 1, 2:21*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
>> 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.

On May 1, 11:21*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> 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.

When the cost to every manufacturer goes up, the competition to sell
stays the same. There is a market out there that will be satified no
matter what the cost (withing reason).

That is the same reason the manufacturers are not overly concerned
about raising taxes - they know it just passes through them and the
consumer pays it.

Harry K

On 5/1/2010 21:33, Harry K wrote:

> That is the same reason the manufacturers are not overly concerned
> about raising taxes - they know it just passes through them and the
> consumer pays it.

Manufacturers that have an economist on-taff are concerned if they have
an inflexible demand.

(Higher prices -> fewer units sold and they get a smaller share of the
ones that do sell.)


--
Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting
the vote.

Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

On 2010-05-02, Harry K > wrote:

> When the cost to every manufacturer goes up, the competition to sell
> stays the same.

It practically never goes up evenly for all market players in the short
term. It takes many years before the cost is fairly even if ever.

On May 1, 6:05*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-05-01, Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:21*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> >> 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.

and in terms of safety - would you really want a market where
companies could sell cars without air bags and the like - for
cheaper?

some folks might, I dunno

On May 2, 4:04*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 1, 11:21*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> >> 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...oming-to-U-S-/

On May 2, 1:04*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 1, 11:21*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> >> 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.
> --
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Would you care to back that with statistics on how many new cars sold
in, say 2008 comaared to 2000? I don't have any figures but if the
number was less in 2008 I would be very surprised.

The cost of installing airbags didn't have much (if any) slow down on
new cars sold when that was mandated.
Harry K

On 2010-05-02, Larry G > wrote:
> On May 1, 6:05*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-05-01, Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 1, 2:21*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
>> >> 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.

On May 2, 5:48*pm, Brent > wrote:
> On 2010-05-02, Larry G > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 6:05*pm, Brent > wrote:
> >> On 2010-05-01, Larry G > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 1, 2:21*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
> >> >> 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...

On 2010-05-03, Larry G > wrote:
> On May 2, 5:48*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> On 2010-05-02, Larry G > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 1, 6:05*pm, Brent > wrote:
>> >> On 2010-05-01, Larry G > wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 1, 2:21*pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>> >> >> Last time on rec.autos.driving, Harry K >
>> >> >> 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.

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.

>> > 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?

> without air bags - more people die.... with them.. less...
> we do the same calculation with drugs and pesticides...

For those of us who wear seatbelts, the airbags have little to no value.
That should be our choice, not that of our rulers.