Carjacked: An Anthropology of Americans and their Automobiles

[Second_in_pie]

Yes, the question is how long you're planning to keep your car. I find that people commonly get a new car every couple of years. I've even seen people consistently get a new car every year on lease, and I find that it's the rare person who will actually keep their car for even a decade, which would only slightly lower their car's "annual cost." But then again, an older car will also mean even more checkups and a higher operating cost. And you do it all over again when you buy a new one.

 

[the_yellow_dart]

A possible alternate route, take the Lawrence West/Malton bus, the subway then the GO bus from Yorkdale to Ajax GO. http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot...ble=94&direction=1&day=1&page=1&New=&station= This GO bus runs every 20 minutes.

Thanks for the suggestion. Glad to see people thinking about these types of problems (and not just because it's my problem).

However, that bus ride alone is still an hour, nevermind the time required to get to Yorkdale (35 min according to MyTTC: http://myttc.ca/travel/from/weston_and_st_phillips/to/yorkdale_go_station/by/7:40am)

 

[Admiral Beez]

But then again, an older car will also mean even more checkups and a higher operating cost.

My motorcycle is 41 years old, and needs little maintenance at all. My car is ten years old, and at 300,000 km is still going strong, needing nothing more than oil changes. Older vehicles, like older home appliances, electronics, etc. were made better, made to last. The old adage "they don't make them like they used to" still applies.

 

[the_yellow_dart]

...ten years old... The old adage "they don't make them like they used to" still applies.

I only agree if you're talking about Toyota.

I'd say all other major carmakers have improved in the timeframe from 2000 to 2010, except Toyota, who has taken a massive slide downhill. That's why I was so happy about what has happened to Toyota over the last year or two - hopefully it will snap them out of it and make them return to the world class automaker they once were.

The shill sold by the Toronto Star about Toyota during the late 2000s made me absolutely sick. I think that they had been so convinced of Toyota's superiority by the pre-2000s vehicles that they just automatically treated any new Toyota like gold (or possibly paid off?). They were either blind or being paid by Toyo, I never decided which.

 

[Second_in_pie]

My motorcycle is 41 years old, and needs little maintenance at all. My car is ten years old, and at 300,000 km is still going strong, needing nothing more than oil changes. Older vehicles, like older home appliances, electronics, etc. were made better, made to last. The old adage "they don't make them like they used to" still applies.

Okay, but then there's a big problem that we don't have that many old things. You may have an old car, but plenty of people don't, and will end up buying a new car within a decade at the most.

Compare that to $800 spent on a quite good bicyle that'll last you a decade, or $120 on a metropass every month. It's really not much of a contest.

 

[rbt]

Okay, but then there's a big problem that we don't have that many old things. You may have an old car, but plenty of people don't, and will end up buying a new car within a decade at the most.

In the year 2001, the National Automobile Dealers Association conducted a study revealing the average age of vehicles in operation in the US. The study found that of vehicles in operation in the US, 38.3% were older than ten years, 22.3% were between seven and ten years old, 25.8% were between three and six years old and 13.5% were less than two years old.

It's interesting that nearly 40% of vehicles were ten years or older. That person who turns their car over every year or two is selling it to someone who may keep it for a while. It takes a long time before they hit the scrap heap.


Also interesting is that cars seem to be surviving longer than they used to, agreeing with the "they don't make them like they used to" thought; seems they're better now.

In 2007 the overall median age for automobiles was 9.2 years, a significant increase over 1990 when the median age of vehicles in operation in the US was 6.5 years and 1969 when the mean age for automobiles was 5.1 years.

Both quotes lifted from Wiki which can be useless at times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

 

[W. K. Lis]

Okay, but then there's a big problem that we don't have that many old things. You may have an old car, but plenty of people don't, and will end up buying a new car within a decade at the most.

Compare that to $800 spent on a quite good bicyle that'll last you a decade, or $120 on a metropass every month. It's really not much of a contest.

I own a Italian touring bicycle that is 40 years old at Bloor Cycle (store no longer around unfortunately). Some rust, newer wheels, but still use it to get around. Cost me about $300 back then, with inflation probably a new one would be over $1,500 for sure. Cars don't usually last that long because they have more parts that can break or rust.

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ For sure you can get much nicer higher end bicycles. But that $800 is a rough average estimate, seeing's how you can get a bicycle at WalMart for $100 (or something insanely low like that.)

It's interesting that nearly 40% of vehicles were ten years or older. That person who turns their car over every year or two is selling it to someone who may keep it for a while. It takes a long time before they hit the scrap heap.

Also interesting is that cars seem to be surviving longer than they used to, agreeing with the "they don't make them like they used to" thought; seems they're better now.

Both quotes lifted from Wiki which can be useless at times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

I do trust wikipedia for just about everything

But, those are just vehicle lifetimes. A car could switch hands several times during it's life. I'd speculate that it'd start off going to the rich or car enthusiasts, or get bought by a leasing company. After maybe two or three years, the initial owner or original leaser would switch to a new car and either sell the car or give up the lease. Then, your more average buyer or leaser would come in and use it for another couple of years. It would probably switch through several owners or leasers after that. So while it may last a long time, the owners likely aren't going to be holding it on for it's entire lifetime, meaning there's still money coming out of their pockets.

 

[Degnaw]

The talk examined five myths of car ownership

1. cars make financial sense
2. cars are safe
3. cars are more comfortable than other modes
4. cars make me an individual
5. cars provide opportunity – economic especially – “people without cars are losersâ€.

Is this really a myth?

 

[rbt]

But, those are just vehicle lifetimes. A car could switch hands several times during it's life. I'd speculate that it'd start off going to the rich or car enthusiasts, or get bought by a leasing company. After maybe two or three years, the initial owner or original leaser would switch to a new car and either sell the car or give up the lease.

Isn't lifetime of the car more important than the individual that owns it? The total lifetime is what we should be spreading capital costs across. CCA's stop when you sell the item and you can claim them on purchases of used items.

If you buy a crap car for $1000 and sell it the following year for $750, your cost for the year was $250.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Isn't lifetime of the car more important than the individual that owns it? The total lifetime is what we should be spreading capital costs across. CCA's stop when you sell the item and you can claim them on purchases of used items.

If you buy a crap car for $1000 and sell it the following year for $750, your cost for the year was $250.

Yes, but the value of a car will decline steeply across their decade or two lifetime, meaning a lot of money lost by the owner. I have my doubts that it's as low as $250 a year.

EDIT: Still, if the car were absolutely free, it'd still be of similar cost to most suburban drivers to just use Go to commute everyday and buy their local metropass, rather than put up with the running costs of a car. Or even Go passes and two metropasses, if they use the TTC a lot. Inside Toronto, they could just spend $1200 on metropasses a year and be totally set.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Oh, sure ... if I worked in Markham and was living downtown, I'd choose the car too.

But I wouldn't ... for long-term at least ... ever live that far from my job; or find a job that far from where I live. When the head hunters start calling, the first thing I say is nothing outside of 416 ... and preferably south of Eglinton. I'm just not interested in moving, or having a commute from hell.

Perhaps some people have no choice ... I don't actually believe that. I know a lot of people who have made what seemed awfully bizarre choices to me ... and a couple of years later they end up quitting their jobs in distress, because they can't hack the 3-hours of driving a day ...

What about if your wife had a job that was far from home? Or, if you moved to be close to your new work but this move made her job much farther from your new home. Would you expect her to quit her job and find something closer, too?

The location of spouse's jobs may be the reason behind many of these people's "bizarre" choices. Perhaps you are lucky enough to have absolute freedom of choice when it comes to where you work, but many people don't have this advantage.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

What about if your wife had a job that was far from home? Or, if you moved to be close to your new work but this move made her job much farther from your new home. Would you expect her to quit her job and find something closer, too?

The location of spouse's jobs may be the reason behind many of these people's "bizarre" choices. Perhaps you are lucky enough to have absolute freedom of choice when it comes to where you work, but many people don't have this advantage.

Recently seen Lavalife ad. "Must be located south of Eglinton, west of Jarvis, East of Bathurst. Preferably close to transit lines"

 

[rbt]

Yes, but the value of a car will decline steeply across their decade or two lifetime, meaning a lot of money lost by the owner. I have my doubts that it's as low as $250 a year.

Certainly not $250 per year.

The average price of the car is $X, the median age of a car is Y. Since the total number of cars isn't increasing much, we can assume the typical life of an automobile is 2Y.

So, the $X / 2Y = [Capital cost per year, not including maintenance and repairs, or the MINIMUM capital cost per year]

Average price for new car in 2010 seems to be about $28,400 with an expected median lifetime of 18.4 years, that gives $1550 per year with zero repairs or maintenance.

Interestingly, due to increasing lifetime of a vehicle it would seem to be getting cheaper:

Rough comparison is $28,400 * 76% = Cost of car is 1985 (or there abouts) from government inflation indicators, with a median age of about 6 years (12 year median total lifespan).

Rough cost in 1985 is $21660 / 12 = $1805 per year, without repairs or maintenance.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yes, but the value of a car will decline steeply across their decade or two lifetime, meaning a lot of money lost by the owner. I have my doubts that it's as low as $250 a year.

EDIT: Still, if the car were absolutely free, it'd still be of similar cost to most suburban drivers to just use Go to commute everyday and buy their local metropass, rather than put up with the running costs of a car. Or even Go passes and two metropasses, if they use the TTC a lot. Inside Toronto, they could just spend $1200 on metropasses a year and be totally set.

And the TTC pass is a tax credit, not so the fuel, insurance, depreciation, maintenance, parking,.. (except as a businss expense).