Enthusiasts don’t buy cars as status symbols, but I don’t think it’s controversial to accept that people do. I’ve had friends and acquaintances ask what car they should buy next while in the same breath telling me how much they like the car they own now. So maybe keep that?
Still, I think it’s curious how often cars are the obvious target when people look at status-driven buying behaviours. I understand that cars are expensive, but we don’t have the same discussions about conservatories, cockapoos or chips, and you can’t even use those to get to work or visit your gran.
What’s also striking is that how many cars we buy seems inextricably linked to the country’s prosperity. A large new car market is perceived as a marker of a healthy economy, in a way that isn’t true of, say, toasters.
Those we buy when we need them. Cars, meanwhile, we buy because the finance term is coming to an end and the cambelt will soon need changing, or the company decides it’s time you deserved something shinier to keep you working there, so off it goes to be replaced by something a bit better than the neighbours have.
But, as Oswald noted, “modern cars have an enormously long life and are relatively inexpensive to maintain”, so even if we paused buying, we would still be able to get places. And his point about longevity is true.
At least it is for now. But, I wonder, in times of £1800 headlight clusters, multiple electronic control units to let cars meet emissions and safety rules at a cost of thousands a time and what often just generally feels like an inbuilt obsolescence, for how long cars will remain cheap to maintain into their later life.
We buy enough cars when they’re affordable to fix; how many will we get through when driving into a pheasant writes off an older one?
I don’t think the optimum number of cars for us to buy is none, and this is something that will stay only a thought. But if we didn’t buy quite so many and more were simpler and designed to stay affordable, I don’t think that would be a bad thing.
