Why do people buy new cars??

[MikeIOW]

That's not a bad way to manage your motoring, & probably the way the majority of people do. Get a car with known faults/issues generally sorted, major depreciation all gone, keep it going whilst economically making sense - probably better for the planet too!

On the other hand, as someone said earlier, it needs some people to buy new to keep those trickling down.

I'd say it is fine to be in either camp, whatever suits best!

[cheshired5]

Originally Posted by tangey

One might say the same about city safety, and yet apparently a) Volvo aren't in a habit of adding safety equipment of zero real use b) it is there is mitigate the most common form of urban accident, c) it reduces your insurance. d) I'm not so full of myself to be deluded into thinking that I am infallible.

Bring d) into the equation, should I ever have a car with the pedestrian version, I'd like to think it would be immeasurably more valuable if it resulted in saving a life in that moment of fallibility.

One assumes just about 100% of the pedestrians killed on the road are killed by people who had no intention of doing so, and probably in many of those cases by drivers who were usually good careful drivers, and indeed some who thought they were infallible.

For those who really are infallible, I'll agree, its pointless.

I'd much rather those that think they can never make a mistake revoke their license immediately, for the sake of all of us.

Luckily, there's a very simple process for working out the usefulness or desirability of automotive features by answering a few logical questions.
Does the manufacturer have so much faith in a feature and so much concern for other road users that they fit it as standard for no increase in price? On this, the answer is clearly no.
Next question is, does the manufacturer feel their customers will see sufficient benefit and show enough concern for fellow road users to accept the feature to be fitted as standard at the expense of a hike in price? Once again, the answer is no.
Finally, how many new car buyers see sufficient benefit to add the feature to their options list when ordering? I don't know the answer to that.
Maybe you should conduct a poll?
I'll take an educated guess that the figure will be low.
Not seeing a benefit in a pedestrian sensor doesn't mean that you have a mindset of infallibility, just a confidence in your driving ability and decision making based on the driving conditions you face.
I've now driven a million miles without hitting anyone. Not as a result of arrogance or being infallible but by simply respecting the vehicle, the road conditions and my driving environment.
Or it could be just luck.
I still maintain that if you NEED (not just want) a pedestrian sensor, you shouldn't be on the road.

[andymcp]

I'm happy to supply tomorrow's used cars, mainly because I don't really pay for them anyway.

I get a work allowance towards a car, plus an allowance per mile and the tax allowance for the difference between the company mileage rate and HMRC's allowance rate. All in, that means there somewhere in the region of £11k a year (after tax) to pay for the car and it's running costs. Of course there are rules too behind the allowances - on age, number of doors, seats, service regime and condition. In reality it means I can approach buying cars for work in one of two ways (and colleagues use either of these approaches).

Either I can lease/take out finance to keep a car inside the monthly numbers and swap the car every three/four years, or I can buy a car with my own money, recoup the costs from allowances and run it as long as the rules will tolerate. Personal preference is the second option, mainly because if I ever change jobs the car is paid and I can do as I please. And I just don't like finance arrangements but again that's personal preference.

When I've had jobs without car provision I've usually dropped the newer cars and reverted to reliable second hand models. So I guess the depreciation is being borne by the company, and on their behalf you're welcome to the cheaper motors we provide to the second hand market.

My parents now only buy new figuring that after years of frugal living while funding our upbringing they deserve a treat or two. If that makes them mugs in the eyes of those that run a fine eye over their personal car costs then so be it, but they are happy, comfortable mugs so nobody is losing out!

[Ninja59]

Originally Posted by cheshired5

Luckily, there's a very simple process for working out the usefulness or desirability of automotive features by answering a few logical questions.
Does the manufacturer have so much faith in a feature and so much concern for other road users that they fit it as standard for no increase in price? On this, the answer is clearly no.
Next question is, does the manufacturer feel their customers will see sufficient benefit and show enough concern for fellow road users to accept the feature to be fitted as standard at the expense of a hike in price? Once again, the answer is no.
Finally, how many new car buyers see sufficient benefit to add the feature to their options list when ordering? I don't know the answer to that.
Maybe you should conduct a poll?
I'll take an educated guess that the figure will be low.
Not seeing a benefit in a pedestrian sensor doesn't mean that you have a mindset of infallibility, just a confidence in your driving ability and decision making based on the driving conditions you face.
I've now driven a million miles without hitting anyone. Not as a result of arrogance or being infallible but by simply respecting the vehicle, the road conditions and my driving environment.
Or it could be just luck.
I still maintain that if you NEED (not just want) a pedestrian sensor, you shouldn't be on the road.

City safety is fitted as standard across the range (bar XC90 that cannot have it). Don't forget that many other car manufacturers are following suit with such systems (although some are less sophisticated than Volvo's version).

[Roland_F]

Why do companies rarely buy second-hand cars?

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by Daleman

500k assets with 500K Debt= Net worth nil

Dont loose your job!

Any Car would be a depreciating asset !

True. Nil for both peoples examples, but a better position to be in for some than living off £50! Property for example will go up in value, so as the car is going down, it kinda evens things out, or puts one in the black again as the property increase outweighs the car decrease.

Regards

[volvorocks]

Originally Posted by Roland_F

Why do companies rarely buy second-hand cars?

Generally leased for tax reasons, so new. Secondhand cars are not (or are rarely) available to lease.

Regards

[cheshired5]

Originally Posted by Ninja59

City safety is fitted as standard across the range (bar XC90 that cannot have it)

I wouldn't imagine any car "cannot have it" as they are after all just a car, so it must be a software compatibility or design issue, which makes it uneconomic in it's current guise.
I find it hard to believe that no XC90 will have this designed into it in the future.

[Ninja59]

I am only basing it on the current MY14.5 range whereby the xc 90 does not have it even as an option. Unlike the rest of the range.

At no point did I consider future models, but in this case it can be seen that no additional cost is involved ignoring the xc 90 in its current form.

[wimorrison]

Of course the XC90 could have it fitted, it isn't a case of it cannot be fitted - it is simply that the XC90 is 12 years old, still flying off the shelves and there is absolutely no reason to add it, especially when there is a new version due at the end of the year or early next year.

Really rather simple when you think about it.