Article: New cars are getting expensive to fix -

[ArthurS]

From: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0419/p13s02-wmgn.htm

Interesting article.

By Eric C. Evarts | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Last fall, a brand new BMW 3-series car rolled into the Old Dominion Carstar Collision Center in Eugene, Ore. - literally. A teenager was "driving dad's car," says shop owner Patty McConnell, and rolled it over - with little apparent structural damage. The teen walked away, and normally the damage wouldn't have been hard to repair. But the BMW had so many air bags "it looked like a balloon," recalls Ms. McConnell. The new car, worth more than $30,000, was totaled.

Costly air bags, expensive electronics, and lightweight body materials are driving up the cost of fixing new cars. Not only do many more parts have to be replaced rather than repaired, but fewer and fewer body shops can afford the special equipment and training required to do the work."We're moving closer and closer to the disposable car," says Dan Bailey, an executive vice president at Carstar, the largest auto-body repair franchise in the United States.

Repairing a new car a decade ago, for example, cost an average of $2,578 per claim, while in 2003, the cost had ballooned to $3,681, a 43 percent increase that has outpaced inflation, says Kim Hazelbaker, senior vice president and head of loss claims analysis with the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) in Arlington, Va.

Normally it takes a lot of damage to total a brand-new vehicle. Insurance companies calculate the value of a car before the accident and subtract its value as scrap. As long as the result is more than the cost of repair, the car is worth fixing.

But many new cars today cost so much to fix that it's becoming harder to justify repairs. The BMW that hit McConnell's shop had dual front, side, and side- curtain air bags. Federal safety rules do not allow air bags to be reused. So each bag would have had to be replaced with a brand new one. The sensors and pyrotechnics that set them off also required replacement. Add the cost of labor, more than $1,000 for each air bag, and even more for the sensors, and the result is a totaled car.

Before the advent of air bags, only 8 percent of damaged cars were totaled. Today, the figure is nearly 20 percent and rising. "As they continue to put more air bags in these vehicles, the figure is going to continue to escalate," says Mr. Bailey of Carstar. Not only do the number of air bags (two in front have been required since 1996) increase costs, today's new "smart" air bags, with sensors that control whether they deploy and how hard, cost more than older bags. Seat belts, too, have "once-and-done" pretensioners that have to be replaced - even on unoccupied seats - after an accident.

"There are a lot [of electronics in cars] today that weren't there in the past," says Mr. Hazelbaker of HLDI. "And if they're damaged, they are going to have to be bought new. There's only one source, the automaker, so you're going to pay full retail price."

While air bags are the most expensive technology to repair after a crash, other high-tech items are also pushing up repair costs. For example, the world's bestselling vehicle, Ford's F150 pickup, uses a magnesium radiator mount - which gets crunched every time an F150 runs into anything. Magnesium is strong and light, but brittle. Even if it bends without breaking in an accident, a body shop can't bend it back. Like air bags, it has to be replaced at a cost of more than $300.

To meet fuel-economy requirements, automakers are using more lightweight parts. Magnesium, titanium, and carbonized plastic are among the rapidly expanding number of components found under the hood.

And then there's aluminum. At least five cars come with all-aluminum bodies and frames, including the Audi A8, Acura NSX, Honda Insight, Mercedes CL, and the new Jaguar XJ8. So far, few body shops are authorized to fix these cars. For example, only 13 body shops nationwide can do repairs on the XJ8. So if you wreck one in a remote area, insurance companies will factor in the cost of shipping it to an authorized shop.

Body shops that deal with aluminum have to wall off separate work areas and buy tools separate from those used on steel cars. That's because steel shavings can contaminate aluminum.

Because aluminum is difficult to weld, most parts are "bonded" (glued) and riveted together. A riveting tool to replace aluminum parts costs $10,000. Another tool to remove rivets runs $9,000. The total investment in training and tools to run an aluminum-body repair shop can run as much as $200,000.

"If we're going to keep up with changes in the industry in the next three to four years, it's going to take a bigger investment than we have ever seen," says Mr. Bailey. He predicts almost half of today's repair shops won't make that investment.

Even if your car remains accident-free, some of today's high-tech parts can leave you with big repair bills. The celebrated find for car thieves these days is xenon high-intensity-discharge headlights. They can cost up to $3,000 each. That's just for the part, not labor.

Stories of thieves ripping these headlights out of Audis and Nissans - and doing thousands more in body damage - are becoming legion in urban areas. Even when the lights aren't stolen, repairs can be expensive. One body shop that had to remove the lights from a new Audi A8 found they had to be sent back to the manufacturer to be reactivated; otherwise, they wouldn't work.

Now Nissan and other automakers have started using taillights with multiple LEDs rather than a single inexpensive light bulb. The LEDs light faster in a panic stop to give drivers following more warning, but they're also more expensive to replace.

From headlights to taillights, nothing is getting simpler in cars today. As a result, insurers are expecting higher premiums for these premium cars, says HLDI's Hazelbaker.

They've already raised rates on cars with xenon headlights. "Aluminum cars are too new to have reliable figures. And the companies are trying to stay competitive. But it will happen," he says of higher rates for aluminum cars.

To reduce costs, the repair industry is now pushing for measures that would allow body shops to use "preowned" never-used air bags from cars in junkyards. "That will have to come," says Bailey.

Meanwhile, the industry is bracing for more and more technology. "This is something the automakers have to do to meet their fuel economy requirements," says Bailey. "And we're going to have to learn to deal with it."

As cars get more complicated, fewer skilled technicians to repair them
If today's cars are harder to repair, the skills needed to repair them are also harder to come by.

Technicians - don't dare call them mechanics - often have to complete four years of school: two years of technical school and two more to obtain an associate's degree. After that, a student works as an apprentice for three years before being fully qualified.

Automotive technicians held about 818,000 jobs in 2002, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure is expected to increase by 10 to 20 percent annually.

"There's no shortage of general technicians, but there is a big shortage of qualified people to work on drivability and emissions issues," says Robert Rodriguez of Automotive Service Excellence. The Leesburg, Va., organization certifies repair shops and technicians.

These specialist technicians need advanced reading, problem-solving, and basic electronics skills, he says. "The best people to find are those who have worked in the IT [information technology] industry," he says.

Twenty years ago, repair manuals for certain cars were 100 or so pages long. Now, they hold over 1 million pages and are available only electronically, says John Paul, who handles repair-shop certification for AAA Southern New England.

Schooling at the Universal Technical Institute, a Phoenix-based network with several campuses in the US, costs up to $15,000, depending on proficiency. And technicians have to buy their own tools at a cost of $10,000 or more.

"We have to fight to get people who are bright and motivated," says Mr. Rodriguez. "There is tremendous pressure in society against letting little Johnny go into car repair," he says, adding, "I wouldn't want my kid to become a mechanic."

So recruiters are turning more to women and immigrants. More technical manuals are written in Spanish, says Rodriguez, who remains hopeful that the gap will be filled with time. "There are still a lot of these guys that have gas in their blood and all they want to do is work on cars," he says.

[ArthurS]

I found this part interesting...I didn't know that:

From headlights to taillights, nothing is getting simpler in cars today. As a result, insurers are expecting higher premiums for these premium cars, says HLDI's Hazelbaker.

They've already raised rates on cars with xenon headlights. "Aluminum cars are too new to have reliable figures. And the companies are trying to stay competitive. But it will happen," he says of higher rates for aluminum cars.

[sperry]

That's a good article.

As far as the whole air-bag cost deal... screw it. I don't want a crap airbag in my car... that's there to save my life! Think about if one person got in a wreck w/ a re-manufactured airbag and died due to a failure, the insurance/repair industry would be fux0red!

[dknv]

Lovely, I have Zenon headlights, an aluminum hood, and 8 air bags. Holding my breath for the insurance rates to go up..... right now its only $100 more a year than the wrx.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by dknv

Lovely, I have Zenon headlights, an aluminum hood, and 8 air bags. Holding my breath for the insurance rates to go up..... right now its only $100 more a year than the wrx.

I'm gonna be really pissed if someone ganks mine, because they don't know better and think they're HID when their not!

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Yet another reason to buy 10+ year old cars...

[ArthurS]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Yet another reason to buy 10+ year old cars...

Seriously....

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Add in the ever-increasing level of computer control, data recording & monitoring devices in new cars, and I honestly don't know if I will ever be buying a car produced any later than the 90s. Even GM cars from the mid 90s onward have had crash data recorders in them which record the vehicle telemetry and all your control inputs for the 5 seconds prior to impact; sounds great for impact & safety research, right? That's the official purpose of them. Well, people are already being prosecuted for vehicle-related crimes with the crash data their own car recorded. It doesn't take too great of an imagination to see what kind of privacy-right implications all the computer control in these cars has. Our society is fast approaching Minority Report'ish levels of personal monitoring.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Add in the ever-increasing level of computer control, data recording & monitoring devices in new cars, and I honestly don't know if I will ever be buying a car produced any later than the 90s. Even GM cars from the mid 90s onward have had crash data recorders in them which record the vehicle telemetry and all your control inputs for the 5 seconds prior to impact; sounds great for impact & safety research, right? That's the official purpose of them. Well, people are already being prosecuted for vehicle-related crimes with the crash data their own car recorded. It doesn't take too great of an imagination to see what kind of privacy-right implications all the computer control in these cars has. Our society is fast approaching Minority Report'ish levels of personal monitoring.

That's interesting, I haven't heard that before. However, it seems to me that data should be inadmissable due to the 5th ammendment.


I plead the "FIF!"

[AtomicLabMonkey]

If you really want to put on your tinfoil hat, read these...

http://www.abqtrib.com/shns/story.cf...3-24-04&cat=FF

http://www.itsa.org/subject.nsf/vLookupAboutITSA/What+is+ITS!OpenDocument

http://www.harristechnical.com/downloads/cdrlist.pdf

http://www.newhouse.com/archive/jensen061203.html

Add in technologies like RFID chips and pretty soon we're going to be monitored by someone everywhere we go. Glen needs to get started on the compound soon...

[Nick Koan]

There was a case a while back where a person was given a major fine for speeding in a rental car. The company (I forget who it was now) used the GPS system in the car to determine that the rentee was speeding and charged them some rediculious fee for breaking the terms of service (which states that you won't speed in the vehicle you are renting). Was overturned in the courts when it went to trial.

Also, more recently in Canada a guy hit and killed a pedestrian. The courts wouldn't let him claim it was 'an accident' cause the cars 5 second telemetry showed that he was going 157km/hr (98mph) in a 50km/hr (35ish mph; math done in my head) zone and didn't lift his foot off the gas pedal until after the impact.

On one hand, I'm glad they were able to put this guy away (for only 18 months though...) but on the other hand, the precident is a little ... er... odd. It doesn't directly set precident that the data can be used in court against you *arbitrairly*, but the fact that data from these devices was used to prosecute doesn't sit well with me. Though, this guy deserved it. He was convicted 3 years prior of a hit and run (property damage, no killings or whatnot) while going 3 times the legal speed limit.

More info from Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...tid=158&tid=99

[AtomicLabMonkey]

This is just one example of the ever growing trend towards Big Brother. People really need to wake up from their little bubble lives and realize what's going on. The powers that be, in their confused and misguided perpetual quests for the holy grails of safety and security, are constantly looking for new ways to chip away at our privacy and keep tabs on us. Even a couple of states now have proposals in their legislatures to require alchohol-breathalyzer ignition interlocks on every single vehicle driven on public roads. I'll be damned if I have to huff a rod every time I start my goddamned car cause of some idiots out there who drive drunk. Talk about collective punishment...

[ArthurS]

If having these annoying devices in my car helps prevent a possible death to me, my future family, my friends, or any innocent person...By all means I will blow into that little tube each time.

Damn straight it will be annoying as hell, but if it saves one life...its worth it in my opinion. It could be your kid that gets creamed by the drunk driver. Thats how I figure it.

Might even be one of those times when I might have a few beers, think its okay to drive, and the little tube would give a good idea weather or not I need a taxi. I would never forgive myself if I killed somebody due to alcohol or speeding recklessly.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by ArthurS

If having these annoying devices in my car helps prevent a possible death to me, my future family, my friends, or any innocent person...By all means I will blow into that little tube each time.

Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind having a GPS tracker in the car, providing real-time telemetry to law enforcement and insurance carriers, and cameras installed on every street corner, and cameras in your home, and an RFID chip subcutaneously implanted under your skin... all to make sure that you don't do anything wrong. After all, it's all in the name of safety and security, right? If you don't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about, right?

I have to call it like I see it man - what you just said is exactly the kind of attitude that lets the Powers That Be (governmental and non-governmental) keep chipping away at our privacy and freedoms.

[ArthurS]

Your right though Austin. I wouldn't want all that other crap. But I don't want to read about all the dead people from drunk drivers either.

I guess we just have to weigh weather our need for speed is worth giving up for safer roads.

I am playing the devils advo here. Although I do agree with a type of device were you would blow into your car to measure if you are safe to drive, but I don't agree with what basically is 'spying' on us. I don't feel that having a DUI device is 'spying' or 'monitoring' us. It would just disable the engine...not send a red flag to the police. At least I hope it wouldn't, but if it did, I would be in the cab already anyway. :wink:

I doubt there will ever be a happy medium in this situation though.

[sperry]

It's called a slippery slope. That's why the NRA is so against *any* gun limits, even when they recognize there's really no reason for a hunter to own an assault rifle fed by a 200 round drum. Once you start making consessions, it's much easier to keep making them.

Regarding the breathalizer thing, I'm with Austin. I'll be damned if people that drink and drive like idiots are gonna require *me* to futz with a huffer every time I want to start my car. If that were law, the 1st thing I'd do to my car is disable it... and I'm sure that's what most people would do, so then they'll have to make it a felony to disable your own huffer, so now I'm a felon . And what about all the other substances that impare your driving ability? Will that huffer detect marijuana, or will that be another device? Or what if I've got a cold and take NyQuil, now I can't drive my car.

The real solution is to educate people about driving. I think a high performance driving school type curriculum needs to be included in basic drivers training. Take those snot nosed kids, and spin them at 90mph on a wet skidpad. Scare some respect into them, and make them better drivers. Teach them to realize that cars aren't toys, and that if you're not totally in control, they will bite you in the ass. They'll think twice about getting behind the wheel after a few drinks. They'll also think twice about answering that cell phone or watching that DVD.

And if you really want to curb drink driving, how's this: you drink, you drive, you kill someone, it's murder 1. No invollentary manslaughter, no vehicular homicide. It's premeditated, cold blooded, murder, and you go away for life, or get the chair. Just a little insentive to stay sober behind the wheel. Americans are far too nonchalant when it comes to driving. You don't hear about endemics like ours in other counties... everywhere else driving is an expensive privlidge, here people think it's a right.

[ArthurS]

Your right that educating people is the first step. But since there are over 17,500 people a year that die from alcohol related accidents, the education isn't strong enough or there just stupid. We need something better to help fix this problem.

Apparently death or life in prison is not enough to scare people when they are drunk because someone is still hit by a drunk driver every 30 mins (by statistic). Well some people say "well, they learned their lesson because now they are sentenced to jail for life or die due to the murder". Big missing point is the fact that someone INNOCENT is now dead. So...can we spare a innocent person or people each time there is a drunk-driving related death to attempt to rid us of drunk drivers?

I agree with you Scott how we need to educate people more. However, I think a good amount of people that caused accidents due to being drunk normally are good people that have strong opinions towards drinking and driving and have had proper education. We all have seen how alcohol can change someones judgement...(I sure have...we called her 'the bear' ), so there needs to be something else...or we just will continue loosing people as we are now.

But I suppose your right when it comes to the fact that people would begin to disable the features anyway. So we are just going to have to cross our fingers and hope we don't get hit by those DD's.

[STIwish]

Hmmm.. i havent been posting much recently, but i have to say something on this one. I actually agree with Austin and Scott (amazing isnt it?)... I wish I knew of a way to solve the problem.. but I dont think its through government interference such as the huffer.

[Nick Koan]

I know a way to solve it. Ban cars and force everyone to use free public transportation (which is much safer then people driving their own cars anyways).

Yeah, that'll do it.

[ArthurS]

I understand people don't want to loose their freedoms when it comes to driving and either do I. I guess this just hits me more towards home since I know someone who died from a drunk driver. I guess it has been fair to say that once you can no longer talk to someone that you used to talk to due to someones drunk ass, that it makes you think a little more about what you could do to try and prevent these situations.

Originally Posted by nKoan

I know a way to solve it. Ban cars and force everyone to use free public transportation (which is much safer then people driving their own cars anyways).

17,500 more people may live from this action. Although it is to binding and exteme.

Okay...how bout this. What if car product companies offered a FREE alcohol tester in your car. Meaing if you are to drunk, your car would not start. This way there is no government forcing you to do it. Why wouldn't you do it then? Laziness? Because you think you will never drink and drive? Adds weight which may lessen your chance of winning at the course? ( )

Everyone has there own opinions. I just get to read, see, and deal with at least a family a year that had a run in with a drunk driver. Weather there be a death involved or not, its a scary thing to see. So if my ideas seem radical, its just because I wish it wouldn't happen.

[JoelK]

Originally Posted by ArthurS

Okay...how bout this. What if car product companies offered a FREE alcohol tester in your car. Meaing if you are to drunk, your car would not start. This way there is no government forcing you to do it. Why wouldn't you do it then? Laziness? Because you think you will never drink and drive? Adds weight which may lessen your chance of winning at the course? ( )

This isn't a bad idea, though the honor system doesn't work all that well. Peer pressure would help here somewhat. And who is going to pay for the breathalizers then? The car companies (then we all pay when we buy a new car)? The government (maybe I should tack another $10 onto my taxes for this one)?

I've never had a drop of alchohol in my life, and I'd be seriously annoyed to have to go out of my way to live my life just because there are people that do drink.

[ArthurS]

Originally Posted by JoelK

I've never had a drop of alchohol in my life, and I'd be seriously annoyed to have to go out of my way to live my life just because there are people that do drink.

It sucks that we get penalized due to others. But like I have been saying, if the penalty helps save lives at the save time, I don't mind.

You can counter with the same arguement stated above...'why not just ban driving, or why not track every movment of the driver'

IMO, a breathilzer is not a extreme way to go. I think it is a fesible (sp?) idea, that isn't to extreme, and acceptable...again...In my opinion.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by ArthurS

I understand people don't want to loose their freedoms when it comes to driving and either do I. I guess this just hits me more towards home since I know someone who died from a drunk driver. I guess it has been fair to say that once you can no longer talk to someone that you used to talk to due to someones drunk ass, that it makes you think a little more about what you could do to try and prevent these situations.

17,500 more people may live from this action. Although it is to binding and exteme.

Okay...how bout this. What if car product companies offered a FREE alcohol tester in your car. Meaing if you are to drunk, your car would not start. This way there is no government forcing you to do it. Why wouldn't you do it then? Laziness? Because you think you will never drink and drive? Adds weight which may lessen your chance of winning at the course? ( )

Everyone has there own opinions. I just get to read, see, and deal with at least a family a year that had a run in with a drunk driver. Weather there be a death involved or not, its a scary thing to see. So if my ideas seem radical, its just because I wish it wouldn't happen.

I don't mean to belittle your loss by any means. I'm sure we all know someone who's lives have been affected by a drink driver.

My point is simply that futile government programs, like manadatory breathalizers on all cars do nothing but waste money, time, and erode the freedoms of the general public. Sure they might prevent a few deaths, but at a much greater cost in everyone else's freedom. Nick's post is a good example, you really could prevent all drunk driving deaths if you were to outlaw cars completely, right? So when you say you'd support mandatory huffers, realize that you're walking down the road towards the loss of yet more freedoms.

Now, I'm not saying there isn't a valid use for huffers, just that most people don't drink and drive, so most people shouldn't have huffers.

I will agree that drunk driving deaths should be completely preventable. People should not drive impared. The *only* reason people do it, is because people are STUPID. Especially in America, many people do not take driving seriously, they look at it as a nussance that interrupts their phone call. It's getting to the point where I can't drive for more than 10 seconds without seeing some bone-head move, or someone on their cell phone, or someone rocking to music so loud they couldn't possible hear anything else. All these people are distracted, the same way drunk drivers are distracted, just to a lesser degree. The fundamental issue with drunk driving is not that drunk people are able to start thier cars, it's that they *want* to start their cars in the first place!

So I'm proposing that mandatory breathalizers are just a band-aid for a much larger problem: Lack of respect for the road. In Europe and Japan, they have less of a problem that here in the States. Overseas, cars are much more expensive, licencing much stricter, and the general attitude of drivers is that driving is a privledge not a right. They respect the road. Hell, it took Porsche like 50 years to finally put a cup-holder in their cars, after all, you're busy driving when would you have time to drink something? Meanwhile US built mini-vans and SUVs have like 20 cupholders, DVD players, videogame systems, etc, etc, etc.

You say that over 17,500 people died in alcohol related crashes. That accounts for 41% of total auto-related deaths. I'm sure the other 59% wasn't mechanical failure, right? More than likely, the vast majority of the rest of the auto-related deaths were due to bone-headed moves by distracted drivers that don't know the limits of their cars, people speeding and tailgating, people that treat driving like a chore, not a responsibility.

We need to raise the bar for driving here in the US. You want a license, you better be 18, have several hundred dollars, and the time to take an intense driving school. Then it's off to in-car training. Put students on a closed course, teach them to drive at the car's limits, let them experience a car out of control. Get them to respect the power and energy a car traveling at 80mph has. Why do we expect the average driver to avoid a crash if they're never broken traction before, never threshold braked before, never stepped the back-end out before?

So, sure mandatory breathalizers might save some lives, but why not spend all that time and money making everyone better drivers, and actually increase freedoms for a change?

[ArthurS]

We need to raise the bar for driving here in the US. You want a license, you better be 18, have several hundred dollars, and the time to take an intense driving school. Then it's off to in-car training. Put students on a closed course, teach them to drive at the car's limits, let them experience a car out of control. Get them to respect the power and energy a car traveling at 80mph has. Why do we expect the average driver to avoid a crash if they're never broken traction before, never threshold braked before, never stepped the back-end out before?

So, sure mandatory breathalizers might save some lives, but why not spend all that time and money making everyone better drivers, and actually increase freedoms for a change?

You make very valid points. I don't ever see the US raising the standards to drive or I would agree with your comment on how that would greatly benifit the losses incurred. Or state governments make money on licenses, registrations, and fees involved. So we all know that won't change. I TOTALLY agree that a breathilizer system is only a band-aid...and a tiny one at that. But it doesn't seem like we have figured out really anything to help provent DD losses.

Basically, it seems that its going to come down to the fact that we hope people just eventually have more respect for the road, since no real program that the US invokes will do anything but mabye benifit the government in extra funds. But like you said....the people, cars, and society have made it okay to do your make-up, talk on the phone, and overall become a irresponsible driver.

So basically, the arguement is simply put - It won't change. People will just find a way to drink and drive like remove any devices that inhibit the ability to do so, or find ways around it.

I guess it just pisses up off to a point that I wish such a program could make a considerable difference. Like I said, some of my ideas seem radical, only due to the urge to stop it from happening.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

It's a real simple issue for me; I don't see this kind of crap as just another restriction on driving - it's yet another government intrusion into our lives, which I am deadset against and will never agree to. It's also a form of collective punishment, which I don't agree with either - instead of being applied only to people who have a history of drunk driving, this would automatically assume guilt for everyone in the public and punish us all for the actions of a few. And, like Scott said, the first thing people like us would do is disable the stupid things, which of course would automatically be a felony, and then we'd be criminals for not doing a single thing to hurt anyone.