5 ms·

Why is it worth 10k? Do you get in a lot of accidents? I genuinely would not want any of those things, I don't want my car making decisions for me, I'm smarter

by donatj 9y ago

Why is it worth 10k? Do you get in a lot of accidents? I genuinely would not want any of those things, I don't want my car making decisions for me, I'm smarter than it. On top of that it's just junk to break you can't fix. I have never been in an accident. I drive a pickup I paid sub $1000 for. Been driving it for three years no issues. That $10k could buy me ten trucks. Would I take it on a trip? No, I rent a car for less than a car payment. In my opinion buying new vehicles is a foolish waste of money I could be spending on something else.

vasco 9y ago
"I have never been in an accident" Much less a serious accident where important safety features make a difference is one of those things you won't generally hear the reverse being said since, you know, you'd be dead.
glogla 9y ago
> That $10k could buy me ten trucks. It's kind of hard to drive them at the same time, though.
- billysielu 9y ago
  You could invest that $10k and the profit would yield infinite trucks.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    What is the limit of the interest rate as we approach infinite trucks?
letsgetphysITal 9y ago
> I have never been in an accident. Gambler's Fallacy. Prior incidence has no effect on future occurrence. A lot of the new safety features are for low-speed collision protection, automatically sounding horn and applying breaks when your car gets close to another, say in traffic. Unless you go top-range you generally won't get actual driving automation. Other than that it's just convenience; Climate control instead of air con, reversing sensors and camera instead of (as well as) mirrors and turning your head around etc.
- oasisbob 9y ago
  Instead of barking the names of logical fallacies at people, perhaps consider why the auto insurance industry employs scores of actuaries and takes driver history into account so heavily.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    It is still a fallacy. Insurance companies don't look at someone who is 40 with no accidents and insure them for free because even the lowest risk drivers get into accidents sometimes.
- mikestew 9y ago
  Gambler's Fallacy. Prior incidence has no effect on future occurrence. We’re not gambling, we’re driving cars. And the fact that the current F1 champion has won some races means that he is more likely to win the next one than I am. And the fact that I have a lower-than-average rate of driving collisions means that I have a lower-than-average chance of having a collision in the future. If you doubt me, ask an insurance actuary.
- mateo411 9y ago
  The Gambler's fallacy doesn't take independence from different trials into account. However, since it's the same driver for each of the "trials" then the Gambler's fallacy doesn't really apply.
paganel 9y ago
> In my opinion buying new vehicles is a foolish waste of money I could be spending on something else. Don't tell them that, otherwise us people who only buy SH cars will have nothing to purchase in 5 or 10 years.

by donatj 9y ago

vasco 9y ago

"I have never been in an accident" Much less a serious accident where important safety features make a difference is one of those things you won't generally hear the reverse being said since, you know, you'd be dead.

glogla 9y ago

> That $10k could buy me ten trucks. It's kind of hard to drive them at the same time, though.

billysielu 9y ago
You could invest that $10k and the profit would yield infinite trucks.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  What is the limit of the interest rate as we approach infinite trucks?

letsgetphysITal 9y ago

> I have never been in an accident. Gambler's Fallacy. Prior incidence has no effect on future occurrence. A lot of the new safety features are for low-speed collision protection, automatically sounding horn and applying breaks when your car gets close to another, say in traffic. Unless you go top-range you generally won't get actual driving automation. Other than that it's just convenience; Climate control instead of air con, reversing sensors and camera instead of (as well as) mirrors and turning your head around etc.

oasisbob 9y ago
Instead of barking the names of logical fallacies at people, perhaps consider why the auto insurance industry employs scores of actuaries and takes driver history into account so heavily.
- bluGill 9y ago
  It is still a fallacy. Insurance companies don't look at someone who is 40 with no accidents and insure them for free because even the lowest risk drivers get into accidents sometimes.
mikestew 9y ago
Gambler's Fallacy. Prior incidence has no effect on future occurrence. We’re not gambling, we’re driving cars. And the fact that the current F1 champion has won some races means that he is more likely to win the next one than I am. And the fact that I have a lower-than-average rate of driving collisions means that I have a lower-than-average chance of having a collision in the future. If you doubt me, ask an insurance actuary.
mateo411 9y ago
The Gambler's fallacy doesn't take independence from different trials into account. However, since it's the same driver for each of the "trials" then the Gambler's fallacy doesn't really apply.

paganel 9y ago

> In my opinion buying new vehicles is a foolish waste of money I could be spending on something else. Don't tell them that, otherwise us people who only buy SH cars will have nothing to purchase in 5 or 10 years.