Spyderco Forums

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

Airbags have been known to cause accidents due to malfunction. So by your own reasoning we should remove airbags to prevent one in a hundred thousand accidents.

Airbag malfunction (going off when they shouldn't) is so rare that it's not even tracked as a statistic. If you're seriously contending that airbags are dangerous you seem to be leaving out the part where they save ~2500 lives per year in the USA alone.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

I been driving for over 50yrs and never had an accident like the one you describe.

I've never had an accident beside a very, very light fender bender. Doesn't matter -- car accidents are a leading cause of death. That's why government and manufacturers both invest so much energy into safety features. This is why, for instance, you can't buy a car without an airbag or a seat belt.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

You don’t mention injuries caused by airbags, the industry never does

Because it's extremely uncommon.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

I don’t want explosives Inches from my ear such as side curtain airbags.

You're sitting on a tank of explosives. It's easy to make safe things sound dangerous.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

The biggest safety “feature” of any car is the driver. Most drivers suck however I have seen no improvement in driver training or testing in those 50yrs, only added weight, cost and complexity to cover for a total lack of driver training or periodic testing.

Can I interest you in a wide variety of computer aided driver features? They're not my favorite thing, and I don't know if there's data yet to say whether they reduce accidents. But there's a lot of work into compensating for bad drivers.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

After age 40 driver test should be required for renewal.

That's a really strange age to choose for that. 60 would make more sense.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

Also you shouldn’t even be able to get a license until at least 21 and only then after 3yrs of training.

How will the 18 year olds we send off to war report for duty if they can't drive til they're 21?

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

The driver is the cause of nearly all accidents so safety should start there and not in my car with explosives.

Unless we remove drivers from the equation, accidents are going to happen. Posing a false dichotomy between improving driver performance and implementing crash worthiness is a very odd position to take. And a dangerous one, which is why I've bothered to type all this out, lest other people make poor choices based on your logic.

I would like to call your attention to this graph:



And I will make a claim that the amazing decline in fatalities over the decades is not due to drivers becoming better drivers. It's because people whose job it is to make people safer did their job instead of yelling at the sky about "explosives".

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

Airbags have been known to cause accidents due to malfunction. So by your own reasoning we should remove airbags to prevent one in a hundred thousand accidents.

Airbag malfunction (going off when they shouldn't) is so rare that it's not even tracked as a statistic. If you're seriously contending that airbags are dangerous you seem to be leaving out the part where they save ~2500 lives per year in the USA alone.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

I been driving for over 50yrs and never had an accident like the one you describe.

I've never had an accident beside a very, very light fender bender. Doesn't matter -- car accidents are a leading cause of death. That's why government and manufacturers both invest so much energy into safety features. This is why, for instance, you can't buy a car without an airbag or a seat belt.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

You don’t mention injuries caused by airbags, the industry never does

Because it's extremely uncommon.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

I don’t want explosives Inches from my ear such as side curtain airbags.

You're sitting on a tank of explosives. It's easy to make safe things sound dangerous.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

The biggest safety “feature” of any car is the driver. Most drivers suck however I have seen no improvement in driver training or testing in those 50yrs, only added weight, cost and complexity to cover for a total lack of driver training or periodic testing.

Can I interest you in a wide variety of computer aided driver features? They're not my favorite thing, and I don't know if there's data yet to say whether they reduce accidents. But there's a lot of work into compensating for bad drivers.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

After age 40 driver test should be required for renewal.

That's a really strange age to choose for that. 60 would make more sense.

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

Also you shouldn’t even be able to get a license until at least 21 and only then after 3yrs of training.

How will the 18 year olds we send off to war report for duty if they can't drive til they're 21?

Jesla wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:25 am

The driver is the cause of nearly all accidents so safety should start there and not in my car with explosives.

Unless we remove drivers from the equation, accidents are going to happen. Posing a false dichotomy between improving driver performance and implementing crash worthiness is a very odd position to take. And a dangerous one, which is why I've bothered to type all this out, lest other people make poor choices based on your logic.

I would like to call your attention to this graph:



And I will make a claim that the amazing decline in fatalities over the decades is not due to drivers becoming better drivers. It's because people whose job it is to make people safer did their job instead of yelling at the sky about "explosives".

My Spyderco purchases have certainly slowed down as prices increased over time. After years of accumulation, all my bases are covered, including backups. I am much more selective these days.

Brock O Lee wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 22, 2025 2:09 am

My Spyderco purchases have certainly slowed down as prices increased over time. After years of accumulation, all my bases are covered, including backups. I am much more selective these days.

Ohh I’m at the same place, I can still open a draw or tray and find a Spyderco or three I have never used….

Oddly I don’t look at pocket knives as much now as I have more of an inclination to carry a fixed blade these days. (Being 54 and 12 months off retirement I doubt I will carry a pocket knife when I move to a bush block down south)

@standy99

Retirement at 54! Good for you, congratulations.

8th_Note wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 10:35 am

aicolainen wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 21, 2025 3:16 am

R100 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 08, 2025 9:14 pm

zhyla wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 08, 2025 9:03 pm

A basic Para 2 is $200. That’s about half the cost of a handgun. And things only go up from there. Telling people to not express their concerns about price just isn’t a practical thing to say IMO.

Yes, but you can buy a Tenacious with a better, thinner grind and more cutting edge for $56 if $200 for a Para 2 is too much for you. I don't know how many people you have shot lately but you may find more utility in a pocket knife than a handgun and it would therefore be better value.

Dan

Circling back to the gun comparison, and this could be a Norwegian/European phenomenon, but the secondary market for guns is a real buyers market. You can get fantastic deals on used guns, whereas the secondary knife market is dominated by sellers trying to make a profit on rare or discontinued knives. So in practice the equation is even more in favor of guns.
Then again, if you’re not an enthusiast and only buy the one or two you really need, neither knives or guns will cause financial ruin.

There are still many deals to be had on the secondary knife market. But you have to look for them and be ready to pounce when they pop up. Here's a few examples that I've gotten recently

Police 3 - $130
PM2 S90V teal exclusive - $90
Lil Native compression lock - $55

well… as I said this issue relates specifically to the secondary market here in Norway. I’m sure there are good deals to be made somewhere. Once in a blue moon it happens even here :)

Anyway, the point of my comment wasn’t so much to complain about knife prices, but rather to point out how relatively expensive they are compared to knives. Especially around here where more people are into guns than knives

Unfortunately a lot of things have out paced inflation. Worse yet our current inflation rate has been watered down since the Carter era. Now we use a “substitution” method greatly under reporting true inflation.

In 2015 a PM2 S30V had a MSRP of $190. While MAP did not start until 2016, in 2016 it was 60%, for a final cost of $114.

In 2025 a PM2 S30V has a MSRP of $265. In 2025 the MAP is 75% with a final cost of $199.

This is unfortunately a 75% jump in price over the past 10 years out pacing inflation which was 36% (new not real inflation). Notably if based off MSRP it’s only a 40% cost increase.

I feel this shows everyone can be right. It feels like Spyderco prices have gone up quickly, because they have. But this does not mean Spyderco has priced their knives too high. For one not all items have similar inflation, look at healthcare, food and college. Spyderco is also still very competitive prices wise with other high end brands. You could make the argument that knife prices all have gone up faster than inflation but Spyderco is doing their best to “run a company” and everything that comes with it, while keeping their prices reasonable.

IMO Spyderco prices have gone up faster than inflation, but in this market you are still getting a great knife from a great company for the price they charge. Not to mention they make a great knife in every price range.