Modern Autos Lack Efficacy/Efficiency

We discussed issues that are not the usual subjects of debate on this site. CostPro argues that a new car ought to cost about a thousand dollars. He references the lowest cost new car at $9985 and says they ought to be an order of magnitude, i. e. , a factor of ten, cheaper. Pro gives no evidence to support his conjecture of how much a car "ought" to cost. He cites no expert opinion and no examples of cars from anywhere in the world -- cars manufactured free of American regulations-- that come close to meeting his claim. He offers "an argument from incredulity" . http://rationalwiki.org... saying his claim follows from "what our technology is apparently capable of. " The raw materials to build a car cost more than $1000, and there is a lot of work to making an engine, transmission, a frame, wheels, seats, and the rest of a vehicle. Lacking expert opinion or examples, Pro might have suggested how his claim could be met, but he did not. Pro argues that it shouldn't cost much to put a box on wheels. True, but that would not be a car. We expect US cars to be able to travel on modern highways, keep up with traffic, and carry at least a couple of people and some goods. There are mass produced scooters that are motorized and come close to the thousand dollar mark, although most are not that cheap. A Vespa scooter than gets 70-75 mpg and has a top speed of 59 mph is priced at $4499. . http://www.vespausa.com... They are not cars. It's remarkable that a fully functional car meeting US safety standards is available for $9985. Many people cannot afford a new car, but many also cannot afford a new house or any of many other expensive things. That's not an an argument that there must be some magical way to make any particular thing cheaper. It was not until my third used car that I could finally afford one that cost more than $200. It never occurred to me that new cars were supposed to be dirt cheap. Pro claims, "R&d at this point is just to keep the looks sleeker and the on board electronics fancier. " There are more than twenty independent car manufacturers spread around the globe competing in international markets, To compete, manufacturers are doing everything they can to reduce costs. There is an emerging market for very low end vehicles that have no electronics or air conditioning, and are not suitable for US roads or winter driving conditions. "Car manufacturers, of course, have always sought to cut costs and pack more value into each new-model generation to stay competitive. But now, emerging markets like India offer cheap engineering, inexpensive parts-sourcing, and low-cost manufacturing. For its new car, for example, Tata should be able to slash the cost of the engine to about $700, or 50% lower than a Western-developed equivalent, says one consultant close to the company. " . http://www.businessweek.com...What is best? Pro argues that we have been arguing objective criteria, and cites price as objective criteria. No, that's just one attribute that a buyer weighs along with utility, performance, reliability, safety, appearance, and whatever else the buyer values. Most of the capabilities have objective measures like cargo capacity, horse power, and crash test results. If price were even the dominant factor, then the cheapest cars would be the best selling, and they are not. Pro bemoans the large numbers of SUVs that are sold. That admits that price is not the most important factor for those buyers, who could have chosen anything cheaper and did not. I am sympathetic to the argument that people ought to be allowed to buy very cheap vehicles, even if they are not safe or comfortable. However, it's clear from the sales figures that few people in the US have that preference. Modern cars are doing an excellent job of meeting buyer demands, and that's shown by the lack of demand for cheap Spartan vehicles. Emerging markets in Asia are likely to be closer to matching what Pro thinks everyone ought to want. SafetyPro claims, "The biggest reason for needing a big car for safety is to protect against other big cars. " I have proved that to be false, and Pro has offered no evidence to support the claim. If two vehicles collide head-on, then the small car will be better off if the other car is also small. However, head-on collision are rare, only about 2% of the total. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Most collisions are from people hitting fixed objects (trees and utility poles), hitting animals, colliding at angles, or hitting road debris or the like, In all those cases, a larger vehicle is safer. Moreover, larger vehicles are better able to cope with snow, flooding, and other poor road conditions. In the cases of hitting other vehicles, trucks will sill be on the road, and there would have to be more of them. The statistics I cited show that SUVs are about twice as safe as regular cars. So independent of all arguments, the bottom line is that SUVs are in fact safer. Pro made the new argument, without support, that trucks are easier to avoid than passenger vehicles. Actually, fatal collisions with trucks are nearly twice as common as fatal collisions with other cars. The National Highway Safety Administration says, ". .. the car driver's behavior was more than three times as likely to contribute to the fatal crash than was the truck driver's behavior. In addition, the car driver was solely responsible for 70 percent of the fatal crashes, compared to 16 percent for the truck driver. " . http://www.fhwa.dot.gov... Pro argues that if everyone rode bicycles there would be no safety problem. Sure and if everyone walked there would be no safety problem. If bicycles could carry the passengers and cargo of a car, went 65 miles per hour on highways, and operated under all road conditions, there would be serious safety problems. They would skid off roads and hit trees just as cars do. Hitting a tree on a bicycle at 65 would not be a safe encounter. SummaryMarkets in India and China are likely to lead to the sale of vehicles that are essentially a scooter with four wheels and an enclosure to keep the rain off. They'll be cheaper than presently available cars. If so, does that mean that "Modern autos lack efficacy and efficiency"? No, efficiency is measured relative to accomplishing a specified task. Modern cars in the US do what buyers want, and they do it efficiently. Pro offered no evidence that the cars that US buyers want could be provided better or more cheaply. Pro's argument is that people should not want what they want. I think people overall correctly value safety, comfort, and utility. The resolution is negated.