As such, it makes no sense to repair a totaled vehicle. You should instead buy a comparable used vehicle.
But saying the word 'Disposable' is pretty bad with regards to the headline. It doesn't capture the full effect of what the stats are showing. That is, we are all keeping vehicles for longer. Longer miles, longer life.
Repair costs for old vehicles always grows as old parts tend to be harder to find (factories have shifted production to newer vehicles. So you are forced to look for scrap). Meanwhile, older cars lose more and more value as they age.
I sometimes wonder how much the carbon footprint of the auto industry would change if people preferred to fix them instead of throwing the whole thing away just because of a fender bender or an expensive part broke
I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car that I could replace for $8K plus the cost of replicating some mods [CarPlay head unit, tow hitch, and heated seats] and would salvage for $1K, I can't reasonably expect someone else's insurance company to pay $12.5K in costs (for repairs plus rentals/loss of use plus diminished value plus incidentals) to put me back in a place where I then have a crash-repaired car worth $7K plus $1K in cash in my pocket for diminished value. What other carbon reduction could be bought for that extra $3K in costs vs. repairing our damaged car?
From the at-fault driver's and their insurance company's point of view: the driver's negligence caused around $8-9K of direct damages to me plus several hundred in incidental/related expenses. That's what the driver is liable for (and the insurance company on the hook to cover as per their agreement), not a $12+K figure for a liability for damages amount that was thousands lower.
The problem with that logic is the assumption that the car can be replaced for $8K. To some (maybe most) people, cars are non-fungible and there is a significant amount of personal, non-transferrable value in one particular vehicle, due e.g. to the memories acquired in connection with it.
Part of the reason that people get upset when the insurance company decides to declare their car totaled is that the replacement value offered is significantly lower than they would have accepted for the car had it not been in an accident-- The actuarial value assigned isn't properly valuing the intangibles.
Edit to add: Or, in other words, if the market-clearing price of "comparable" vehicles represented the actual value of the car to its owner, the car would have already been on the used market. The fact that it wasn't signals that there must be some premium over the market price that's necessary to make the owner whole.
If it was my fairly modified (by me) ‘66 Mustang, that would be very difficult to get to a settlement figure that I’d find fair.
When another driver is at fault and you elect to not use your insurance company for whatever reason. In that case, you didn't have any opportunity to pre-arrange with this other driver's insurance company and you have to fall back on the law as a backstop.
As it stands I’ll probably try to get a mini van and put vinyl floors in.
It also does not price in the significant risk that a used car of this vintage significant undisclosed defects that are hard to detect by inspection at purchase.
In theory (and I think in practice), the second is priced into the used car market already.
Do you think that the other insurance should be on the hook to repair the remains of your car into a functioning 1990 Honda Accord?
Or is paying to replace the car with like sufficient? (I hate it, but I have to agree that it’s far more practical to allow the replacement.)
A different insurance model would be necessary to adopt a repair orientation. Maybe it's the equivalent of paying more to be "green," except that consumers don't really consider it as an option when they buy a car insurance policy. It seems like this kind of option would justify higher insurance premiums, so maybe a major insurer could consider promoting one as environmentally friendly.
On the insurance side, they're motivated by finances. If the quote to fix a car is $10k and the car itself was only worth $8k, the insurance company is just going to give you $8k to find yourself an equivalent car to the one you "totaled". There's no intrinsic motivation for the insurance company to go for the $10k repair? Maybe allow them to have carbon credits or something for spending an extra $2k to keep the same car on the road? How do you tease out how much of a carbon win this is? (and who is in charge of deciding that?)
So then on the car manufacturer side, they're motivated by sales/ brand reliability. Maybe if cars were more repair-friendly that would help change the equation? That comes with the potential trade-off of new cars being more expensive and/or less reliable if they can't be as tightly integrated as they currently are. So if car manufacturers are motivated to make the most reliable/cheap car, they are going to forgo making them less repairable.
If you try and get both sides of this equation onto the same page, I don't know that you could trust that there wouldn't be some under the table shenanigans going on without making things so overregulated that both new cars and car repairs are both more expensive?
Of course the problem is as you said how do you price carbon emissions.
But, that already isn't what happens. A totaled vehicle is almost never thrown away. They're sold for salvage value. Some of them are repaired, and sold as rebuilt vehicles. Others are stripped for parts that are recycled to fix other vehicles. And anything left over is recycled for raw material.
In the past body shops would realign frames, pull body work back into shape, and weld in new pieces but it's just not safe and practical to do that with unibody vehicles even if you did have the tooling and machinery to ensure that it was done right and everything is actually back into factory spec and alignment.
It's almost a shame that the electric vehicle 'skateboard' concept (essentially a rolling chassis in industrial/truck vehicle terminology) didn't really get anywhere - but I have to imagine that design constraints, extra weight from attaching the body to the chassis, and other relevant factors that pushed us into unibody vehicles in the first place also made concept unfeasible.
Unibody cars are repaired safely all the time, whether for collision or rust repair. It may have been easier in the body-on-frame days, but it safe and practical now still.
When most cars are "totaled," the car itself is sold for salvage. If it can be fixed relatively easily, the car will be purchased at a salvage auction, fixed, and resold.
If it can't be easily fixed, the parts that can be salvaged will be resold to other autobody shops.
While the consumer might be "throwing away" the car, the car itself isn't generally being thrown in a landfill until all of the functional parts are reused in some way.
One was charged thousands to fix a snow sensor. We don't get snow in Sydney.
Guy who runs a fleet of luxury vehicles said the sensors are cheap and simply fail after five or so years.
My own VW Passat randomly failed to start occasionally with some mysterious light on. (I forget the details). I sold it.
Many people are happy to have a mismatched bumper or hood in exchange for $700 in their pocket.
Only in Texas and Colorado. Almost all states require cars to be declared a total loss before that.
The most common definitions are
1. The Total Loss Formula, which is when the value of the car is less than or equal to the repair costs plus the salvage value of the vehicle
2. 75% threshold -- which is when the repair costs are 75% of the price to replace your vehicle
https://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/total-loss-thresholds....
We generally get about 8 years out of a car before we start running into larger repairs. This tends to become the point we decide to trade it in for something new.