New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Ticking Time Bomb in Your Dashboard

Lapcat

Governor
Harsh and expensive facts about airbags......for anyone that bought a car after the mid-1990s.

The Ticking Time Bomb in Your Dashboard

The high cost of aging air bags.

Air bags -- driver and front seat passenger air bags -- have been mandatory in cars since the mid-1990s. That means there are now millions of older cars on the road with air bags. These air bags are ticking time bombs, financially speaking (and otherwise; more on that below) because of the ever-less-favorable ratio between the value of the car itself and the cost to repair the car if the air bags go off.

Here's what I mean:

Let's say you own a 2000 model Toyota Corolla. It's still running great and you hope to be able to drive it for at least another five years -- a reasonable expectation given the durability of newer cars. At twelve years old, it still has a lot of useful life left. And because it's paid-off, you have very low fixed costs, transportation-wise.

But, here's the catch.

Your 2000 Corolla is only worth about $3,500 or so, retail. But the cost to replace the air bags, if they go off in an accident, will be in the neighborhood of $1,500-$2,000. Which means, even before you take fixing the actual car into account, the projected repair costs have already come dangerously close to the "50 percent of retail value" threshold -- at which point, most insurance companies will refuse to fix the car. Instead, it will be "totaled" and you will be given a check for the retail value -- usually, a lowball number. Rarely will you receive a check adequate to buy an equivalent vehicle.

The number of cars (and car owners) facing this Hobson's Choice continues to grow each year, as the fleet ages and the "book value" of older cars drops. It's a pretty good bet that if your vehicle is worth less than $6,000 it will be totaled by your insurance company if the bags ever deploy. Under $5,000 and it's a certainty. (A 2002 NHTSA study found that "…nearly all vehicles more than seven years old are scrapped if they are involved in a crash in which their airbag deploys.")

Current-year cars typically have at least four and in many cases as many as six or even eight air bags. These multi-bag new cars will reach the Event Horizon much earlier since the cost of replacing three or four (or more) air bags will be even higher than the $1,500-$2,000 figure for dealing with just the driver and front seat passenger bags in older cars.

The tragedy is that many of these cars are otherwise repairable. Air bags don't go off in fender-benders, but it's not necessary to have a catastrophic wreck for them to deploy, either. The threshold is about 20-25 MPH, which isn't insignificant but also not enough (in many cases) to cause major structural damage to the car -- the kind of damage that in the past would have resulted (reasonably) in a decision to throw the car away. But today, it is routine to find otherwise repairable cars -- some that can still even be driven -- consigned to the junkyard because of the cost of replacing the air bags. And legally, the bags must be replaced. Even if you fix the folded fenders and the car is otherwise fine to drive, the law requires all factory-fitted (and government mandated) "safety" equipment to be intact and functional. You won't be able to pass state "safety" inspection and get/renew your government-mandated vehicle registration until the bags are replaced.

It is a tremendous waste -- and we all pay for it, though we may not realize we're paying for it.

We pay, first of all, in the form of higher insurance costs -- because the insurance companies quite rationally transfer the losses they incur onto the shoulders of policyholders. Simple cause and effect: If the 2000 model Toyota mentioned above had no air bags, and fixing it after an accident only involved replacing, let's say, the front clip (bumper, hood, fenders, etc.) at a cost of $2,000 -- vs. another $1,500 to $2,000 on top of that for the air bags -- then naturally, the owner's premiums are going to reflect this. Since the imposition of the air bag mandate, average insurance costs have gone up dramatically. In most urban/suburban areas, it is routine for even "good drivers" with no record of at-fault accidents or "points" on their DMV record to be paying $500 or more a year for a full-coverage policy. To put that in perspective, consider the cost of the typical homeowner's policy. Most people pay about the same to cover their house -- an asset several times more valuable than a car, but which has a much lower risk of "total loss" associated with it.

But where we really pay is in the form of loss of the vehicle itself. Of throwing away otherwise fixable cars and being placed in the position of having to buy a usually more expensive replacement.

And with so many aging air bag-equipped vehicles still on the road, it is a cost more and more people are going to be facing in the years ahead.

More here:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/27/the-ticking-time-bomb-in-your
 

fairsheet

Senator
The above cited screed doesn't even mention the bodily-injury related savings resulting from that airbag deploying. It's not like they're taking them into account but their math suggests a net negative. And, it's not like they're taking them into account, but I'm not liking their conclusions.

It's more like in the context of whatever angle they're screeding to here, they either were to stupid to account for this essential side of the equation.....or they're lying.

Either way...since this screed leaves out at least half the necessary information, it's utterly useless to us.
 

Jen

Senator
Was this necessary? Really?

The above cited screed doesn't even mention the bodily-injury related savings resulting from that airbag deploying. It's not like they're taking them into account but their math suggests a net negative. And, it's not like they're taking them into account, but I'm not liking their conclusions.

It's more like in the context of whatever angle they're screeding to here, they either were to stupid to account for this essential side of the equation.....or they're lying.

Either way...since this screed leaves out at least half the necessary information, it's utterly useless to us.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Furthermore Jen...while I'm on this roll! YOU'RE the one who specifically told us that PoliticalJack is NOT about debating. It's only about people posting "editorials", and other people commenting upon those "editorials". And of course, that's exactly what I did here.

But then...rather than commenting upon or disputing my response to the top-poster's "editorial", YOU came back with a personal attack on my motivations? How can that be?
 

degsme

Council Member
hmm so Spectator.ORG suggests higher highway fatalities are a good thing economically... uhuh right.

Brilliant logic there.

If I recollect, the normal lifetime earnings of a an average person is around $1.2 Million. Figure that the average fatal car crash takes away on average 1/2 of that. $600,000 per fatal crash.

How many "repairable" crashes is that worth?
 

degsme

Council Member
Was this necessary? Really?
sure... because the implication in that Spectator article is that somehow this is a DANGER Lurking In Your Dashboard.

As opposed to a device that on average SAVES a family $600k in lost income.... Hmm $1,500 investment vs. $600,000+ in lost resources... truly a "Danger in your Dash"...
 

BRU

Mayor
Absolutely 100% correct. HID lamps is another one. Don't ever buy a vehicle that has HID lamps, you don't need them and they will cost you a PRETTY penny to replace.
 

Lapcat

Governor
Um....ok. I'll ask.

Where the hell did Jen "come back with a personal attack on your motivations"???

I must have missed that part. And so did YOU.


But then...rather than commenting upon or disputing my response to the top-poster's "editorial", YOU came back with a personal attack on my motivations? How can that be?
 

fairsheet

Senator
Absolutely 100% correct. HID lamps is another one. Don't ever buy a vehicle that has HID lamps, you don't need them and they will cost you a PRETTY penny to replace.
They won't cost me a pretty penny - thank GOD! I'm a responsible conservative and carry the requisite insurance.
 

Lapcat

Governor
HID lamps? Don't even know what those are. Guess I need to start searching...eh.?

I might be in the market for a new vehicle next year, probably an E-cab truck of some kind.

Absolutely 100% correct. HID lamps is another one. Don't ever buy a vehicle that has HID lamps, you don't need them and they will cost you a PRETTY penny to replace.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Um....ok. I'll ask.

Where the hell did Jen "come back with a personal attack on your motivations"???

I must have missed that part. And so did YOU.
Evidently, you did. That's not a "reading point" in your favor. She sniveled as to whether my post "was necessary".
 

Lapcat

Governor
That's funny, degs. Since....I didn't notice anywhere in that article where it suggested what YOU are saying it suggested.....ergo that higher highway fatalities are a good thing economically.

Care to post the specific quote/statment here that you are referring to?

hmm so Spectator.ORG suggests higher highway fatalities are a good thing economically... uhuh right.

Brilliant logic there.

If I recollect, the normal lifetime earnings of a an average person is around $1.2 Million. Figure that the average fatal car crash takes away on average 1/2 of that. $600,000 per fatal crash.

How many "repairable" crashes is that worth?
 

fairsheet

Senator
Another relevant question....how does a $3500 Corolla involve itself in an accident that deploys the airbags, without sustaining any damage beyond the cost of the airbags?
 

Lapcat

Governor
Um....I believe the purpose of the article was to warn about aging airbags. If you want an article about 'the bodily injury related savings re: airbag deployment', perhaps you should get to googling...

eh?

The above cited screed doesn't even mention the bodily-injury related savings resulting from that airbag deploying. It's not like they're taking them into account but their math suggests a net negative. And, it's not like they're taking them into account, but I'm not liking their conclusions.

It's more like in the context of whatever angle they're screeding to here, they either were to stupid to account for this essential side of the equation.....or they're lying.

Either way...since this screed leaves out at least half the necessary information, it's utterly useless to us.
 

Lapcat

Governor
Well of course it was necessary.

Coming from a leftie, that's what lefties DO, after all.

They whine and they b-itch.

Even when there's absolutely no reason to do so.

And from my perspective, she's not the one that is sniveling here.


Evidently, you did. That's not a "reading point" in your favor. She sniveled as to whether my post "was necessary".
 

degsme

Council Member
Um....I believe the purpose of the article was to warn about aging airbags. If you want an article about 'the bodily injury related savings re: airbag deployment', perhaps you should get to googling...

eh?
Try reading Fairsheet again.
doesn't even mention the bodily-injury related savings resulting from that airbag deploying
IOw you and your post are ignoring the MASSIVE cost savings that having the Airbag deploy provides.... $1,500 traded for $600,000+ in average savings.

There are some good reading comprehension exercises available on the web if you think they'll help you betterunderstand how to parse english sentences for meaning.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Um....I believe the purpose of the article was to warn about aging airbags. If you want an article about 'the bodily injury related savings re: airbag deployment', perhaps you should get to googling...

eh?

Well...to warn people of the COST of aging airbags...not that they are a danger.

The obvious point is that every time an airbag goes off and saves a life....and/or massive medical bills, the insurance companies save money, not lose it. The 12 year old Toyota is going to be totaled in a 25 mph crash...regardless of the airbag situation.
 
Top