Safer to drive an old Fiat than a new BMW
Two of my previous posts about risk assessment and the costs of owning and driving a car got me thinking:
For the average person it is probably safer to drive an old, outdated car, than to drive a new BMW with the latest safety features (or Volvo, or Merc or whatever).
What have you been smoking?
If you think I’m joking, think again. The reason why it is safer is because of the effect of time, and because driving an expensive car can easily cost you a few extra years in exposure to risk.
If you are driving an expensive car, it is costing you more money, money that you could have saved towards achieving financial freedom, where you don’t need to work anymore.
Show me the numbers
Let’s estimate that your odds of dying per year, while
- working and driving a new BMW is 1-in-3000,
- working and driving an old Fiat UNO is 1-in-2750,
- hanging out on the beach, surfing and drinking beer because you’re financially free is 1-in-10000.
Let’s further estimate that for every two years of driving an old Fiat UNO, instead of the new BMW, it means you can achieve financial freedom one year earlier (if you think this is a ridiculous estimate, why don’t you calculate the true costs of driving a new BMW).
Using these estimates, it means that your odds of dying over a combined 30 year period, if you spent 20 years working and driving an old Fiat UNO, and 10 years hanging out on the beach, are (20 x 1/3000) + (10 x 1/10000) = 0.82%.
If you spend the same 30 year period slaving away, but doing so in style (i.e. driving your fancy BMW), your odds of dying would be 30 x 1/3000 = 1%.
If our estimates are accurate, it means that it is both safer to drive an old Fiat UNO than a new BMW, and if you do so you will also be able to spend an additional 10 years partying on the beach.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
If your assumptions are true, your statistical hypothesis may be technically correct. However, I can’t bring myself to agree with your conclusion.
Firstly, analysing risk only in terms of death seems erroneous. I think we can all agree that the chances of having a serious car accident in ones life time are quite high – think of the people you know who have been involved in a serious accident.
When that accident does happen, a newer/safer vehicle would significantly decrease the chances of injury (Off the cuff estimate – by half)
A serious injury would affect quality of life and ultimately a persons earning capacity.
10 years on a beach without legs sounds less appealing.
I also think that analysing the combined time and not the common activity time can provide a somewhat skewed view.
So, then lets assume a Joe Average with a 1:500 chance of having a serious vehicle accident in a year. Over the common 20 years his chance of having a serious accident is (20 x 1/500) = 4%
For simplicity lets assume the UNO will always cause serious injury while the BMW reduces the chances by half.
Should Joe hedge his bets and drive a safer car?
Or is a 2% risk to his own (and/or family’s) health worth the savings.
In fact, bringing injury into the picture and assuming that Joe drives an UNO the same way he would a BMW reverses the result obtained above. Statistically, the BMW is safer. However, playing with the number of years, and scaling the stats for the stupid switch most people tend to engage would probably correct this new result.
As thought provoking as the statistical arguments may be, choosing a car is still based on individual circumstance and value judgment. It is an emotive an value based decision.
The above article automatically assumes that 10 years in retirement intrinsically has greater value that 30 years of driving a car that gives a person greater piece or that just gives them pleasure to drive or makes them feel successful (however misplaced this feeling may be).
I guess I could sum my entire argument up be saying that logical often creates a clear choice, but logic does not always point the way to the right decision.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Thanks for the insights Damian!
Of coarse you’ve got some very valid points, like that i’ve pulled all my estimates out of a hat, and things like preference – e.g. many people would rather spend 30 years feeling safer, than an additional 10 years in retirement.
And then again, if you’re anyone like me (you know, someone who likes the crazy stuff), being financially free probably means you’ll have BIGGER odds of dying.
However, my aim was not to be statistically accurate.
I chose an UNO (probably as unsafe a car as i could think of), and a BMW (completely on the other end of the safety scale), just to illustrate two points:
1. What people assume to be “safe” and use as reasons for doing things are often just plain crap.
2. New cars, and especially new luxury cars, are DAMN expensive.
So what do I drive? A 1999 Volvo S40 T4.
If you do your comparisons between safety of an old Volvo (or old BMW or old Merc) like mine, and a new BMW, I’m sure you’ll find that the new BMW is only marginally safer (like what, say 5%??).
This way I can have my 10 extra years on the beach AND that nice warm safe feeling in my tummy all in one.
As a side note, however, I admit, safety was probably the last thing I was thinking of when I bought my car. I chose it because it is fast (like you said – an emotional choice), and I liked the way it looks.
But I also chose a 1999 Volvo, even though I can afford a 2008 Volvo. An old car is just so MUCH cheaper than any new car with the same specs and level of luxury.