Cars produced in the world – sources and methods The data on global car production displayed on the Worldometers’ counter is based on the latest statistics on worldwide car production issued by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA). A formula based on the current data available, historical trends, and projections is used to estimate total cars produced in the current year. Because the auto industry is an important sector of the global economy, numerous analysis of sales data and future outlook are issued by financial and economic institutes worldwide. National trade organizations are surveyed on their annual data by OICA. Each summer, a survey on the last six months provides a first estimation of the year’s production figures . Definition of “car” and “production” By “car” we are referring to passenger cars, which are defined as motor vehicles with at least four wheels, used for the transport of passengers, and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat. Cars (or automobiles) make up approximately 74% of the total motor vehicle annual production in the world. The remaining 26%, not included in this statistics, is made up by light commercial vehicles and heavy trucks (motor vehicles with et least four wheels, used for the carriage of goods), buses, coaches and minibuses (comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver’s seat) By “production” we are following the convention used by national trade organizations and referring to completely built vehicle (CBU) as opposed to assembly of completely knocked down (CKD) or semi-knocked down (SKD) sets when vehicle parts originate in another country. How many cars are produced in the world every year? In 2012, for the first time in history, over 60 million cars passenger cars will be produced in a single year (or 165,000 new cars produced every day). After a 9% decline in 2009 (due to the 2008 global financial crisis), global car production immediately jumped back the following year with a 22% increase in 2010, to then consolidate at the current 3% yearly growth rate. Going back in history, in 2006 there were less than 50 million passenger cars produced in the world, with an increase of 6.45% over the previous year. The increase for 2007 was more modest, and 2008 showed a decline. Analysts from various institutes had in fact pegged the year 2007 as the year which would end the 5-year cycle (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006) of record global auto sales worldwide. year cars produced in the world 2011 59,929,016 2010 58,264,852 2009 47,772,598 2008 52,726,117 2007 53,201,346 2006 49,918,578 2005 46,862,978 2004 44,554,268 2003 41,968,666 2002 41,358,394 2001 39,825,888 2000 41,215,653 1999 39,759,847 Which country produces most cars? China. 1 out of 4 cars produced in the world comes from China. China was the world’s third-largest car market in 2006, as car sales in China soared by nearly 40% to 4.1 million units. Soon thereafter, China took the lead and became the world’s first-largest car market, as low vehicle penetration, rising incomes, greater credit availability and falling car prices lift sales past those of Japan. Furthermore, vehicle penetration in China still stands at only about 40 vehicles per 1,000 people, compared with approximately 700 vehicles per 1,000 people in the mature markets of the G7. More than half of the cars are produced in Asia and Oceania, whereas Europe produces almost a third. Below, a summary of global car production by country in 2011: Rank Country Cars produced % of total world production 1 China 14,485,326 24.0% 2 Japan 7,158,525 11.9% 3 Germany 5,871,918 9.7% 4 South Korea 4,221,617 7.0% 5 India 3,038,332 5.0% 6 U.S.A. 2,966,133 4.9% 7 Brazil 2,534,534 4.2% 8 France 1,931,030 3.2% 9 Spain 1,819,453 3.0% 10 Russia 1,738,163 2.9% 11 Mexico 1,657,080 2.8% 12 Iran 1,413,276 2.3% 13 U.K. 1,343,810 2.2% 14 Czech Republic 1,191,968 2.0% 15 Canada 990,483 1.6% 16 Poland 722,285 1.2% 17 Slovakia 639,763 1.1% 18 Turkey 639,734 1.1% 19 Argentina 577,233 1.0% 20 Indonesia 561,863 0.9% 21 Belgium 560,779 0.9% 22 Thailand 537,987 0.9% 23 Malaysia 488,441 0.8% 24 Italy 485,606 0.8% 25 South Africa 312,265 0.5% 26 Romania 310,243 0.5% 27 Taiwan 288,523 0.5% 28 Hungary 211,218 0.4% 29 Australia 189,503 0.3% 30 Sweden 188,969 0.3% 31 Slovenia 168,955 0.3% 32 Uzbekistan 146,300 0.2% 33 Portugal 141,779 0.2% 34 Austria 130,343 0.2% 35 Ukraine 97,585 0.2% 36 Egypt 53,072 0.1% 37 Netherlands 40,772 0.1% 38 Serbia 25,494 0.04% 39 Finland 2,540 0.004% Others 367,138 0.6% Total 60,250,038 100.0% Last Updated: December 1, 2012 Which are the manufacturers and how many cars they produce? The statistics on world car production include the following auto-makers: Anhui, Avtovaz , Beijing, BMW, Brilliance, Byd, Chana, Changhe, Chery, China National, Chrysler, Daewoo, Daihatsu, DaimlerChrysler, Dongfeng, Faw, Fiat, Ford, Fuji, Fujian, Gaz, Geely, General Motors, Great Wall, Guangzhou, Harbin, Hino, Honda, Hyundai, Ij-Avto, Isuzu, Kamaz, Kia, Mahindra&Mahindra, MAN, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Multicar, Nanjing, Navistar, Nissan, Nissan Diesel, Paccar, Porsche, Proton, PSA, Renault, Saic, Scania, Suzuki, Tata, Toyota, Uaz, Vaz, Volkswagen, and Volvo. For detailed statistics on production by manufacturer, make, country and type visit the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers How many cars are there in the world currently? It is estimated that over 1 billion passenger cars travel the streets and roads of the world today. The 1 billion-unit mark was reached in 2010 for the first time ever. In the United States alone, 250,272,812 “highway” registered vehicles were counted in 2010, of which 190,202,782 passenger cars. (Bureau of Transportation Statistics U.S. Department of Transportation)


Just stupid, foolish, childish, reckless, completely avoidable, and outrageous behavior on everyone’s part, to put each others life in danger for the sake of shaving off a few seconds driving time, completely irresponsible as human beings, even animals do not do this to each other when traveling in groups. If any one of you would of just backed off, and gave yourself some stopping distance this wouldn’t of happened to you at least, and if all of you would of backed off it wouldn’t of happened to any one of you. In 20 years our car population is expected to double, when it does, if we keep this same driving attitude, all of our roadways will be clogged with accidents just like this one, and if our freeways were 10 miles wide and a hundred lanes each way, it would still look like this, until we can learn to cooperate with each other, instead of bringing the sports field spirit to the freeways and behind the wheels of our cars. Every accident, every single one of them, is caused by someone driving too close to another object, and every accident of this type is completely avoidable. A traffic death in my opinion is not an accident, it is deliberate murder, and when I am driving down the road at 70 and some jerk is inches off of my rear bumper, it is the same to me as him pointing a loaded gun at my head. And I cannot even begin to express my anger when that scenario is passed by a Highway Patrol. Clar Sisk 2-13-2014



“Someone” said , “The government should not have substantial rights to interfere in individual liberty. If I want to blast out my stereo so be it. If you give them an inch they take a mile.” The Florida Supreme Court agrees with her. So do the police, so her views have wide and legal support. This comment was made in response to a posting I did about car stereos that are so loud that they actually blow out windshields. In the town I am visiting in, there are some guys with stereos so loud that they actually pop my ears when they drive by and it is a few hours before they settle back into place. I know about loud sound, it used to be my business, but when sound is so loud that it actually causes physical injury, I find it hard to defend or tolerate. So I began to do some research on the subject, and the reason that I began to do research on the subject is because the police are saying there is nothing they can do about it. I found that strange. Sure enough, I found that in Florida, the Senate and Supreme Court found that loud music coming from cars is considered freedom of expression and laws restricting it are a violation of constitutional rights. I also found it curious that the police were reminded to not interfere with certain racial or ethnic groups, the exact words. I don’t know about you, but I find the whole thing curious. I also find it to be deliberate, to fit an governmental agenda, a psychological conditioning of the public. The police are even restricted from interfering with a vehicle that is left unattended with the stereo blasting, like at convenience stores and gas stations, parks, recreational areas, parking lots and other gatherings, including right in front of your own home. That’s right folks. someone obviously from some ghetto somewhere, can park their forty thousand watt stereo in their car, open up all of their doors, crank it up full blast and walk away, and the Supreme Court views that as freedom of expression. By the way, in addition to that, the lyrics also cannot be censored, and obscenity can be shouted at 40,000 watts right into the living room of your own home, and there is nothing you or the police can do about it because THERE right of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION are protected. Again I find this curious because in this country, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we are no longer allowed to even speak freely, unless we are in a designated free speech zone, that is normally placed far away from the public at large, deliberately to hinder an audience. There was a time in this country, that if you played music in your car, and this was in the sixties, when we had only AM radio, and 4 track tape, and 5 watt stereos, and the police thought it was too loud for you to be able to safely navigate traffic, they could pull you over and cite you. There was a time in this country, that disturbing the peace, meant that you were infringing on another persons civil liberties. I used to have a stereo in my home that people would come by to listen to because they had never heard anything like that in their lives, and a few times the police were called to my home for me to turn it down. Once they told me that the next time they came out they were going to take it. One officer came by after work to have a listen. In those days, if a pool party, without music carried on to long, the police could break it up. It was not uncommon, for them to even go into night clubs and bars, and restrict the noise pollution. We restrict construction noise to certain hours for a reason. I post this to point out the degree to which our ability to think clearly, and to reason properly have been eroded, all the way up to the highest levels of our government, who’s sole responsibility , who’s only job, is to think and reason clearly, have all lost the ability, or are operating under nefarious instructions. Our government is changing, and little by little you should awaken yourself from your slumber to acknowledge it. What ever pollution is controlling their minds is also controlling the minds of our neighbors and lawmakers, and with each passing day it becomes more obvious. These are just a few more reasons why it is that I believe that there is no way to turn this or any other country around from the brink of self destruction, because they have all lost the last ounce of reason and thinking ability that they ever had, and are now operating under their coded instructions as if on auto pilot, to fulfill their masters will, found written in Agenda 21. I sent out numerous videos of loud stereos, some showing cars parked in front of stores with their stereos turned up so loud that it blew out the stores front windows, and the police do not view this as property damage, they view it as ” Personal Expression” I think that when these sub human species have their children in the cars with them and thousands of watts of power directed right into the ears of little children, it is child abuse, and how any person, can defend the right of another to blow out the eardrums of innocent children, is proof, that this country has lost it’s moral compass, and all that is decent. When we begin to defend by law, the abuse of others we have lost all ability to rationalize, and I believe that we have strayed so far from morality, with all of it’s meanings, that we are no longer able to find our way back, and short of divine intervention, our society will only continue to degenerate. My name is Clar Sisk, and I am the person who developed the original electronic crossover for car stereos in 1979 and 1980 in Burbank Ca, at 100 Cypress Ave, for a company called Car Fi, owned by Bruno Rist, and Andy Brecht, and Belage Brecht. The Car-Fi EXV 100 which subsequently found it’s way into virtually every car stereo in the world. A device which takes a line level input signal, line level is one watt into 600 ohms impedance, and divides the audio frequency spectrum, 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz into three groups of frequencies which crossover points are selectable as well as the attenuation of each groups level. The reason for the design was so that the three divided frequency spectrum’s could then be sent to three individual power amplifiers, whose work loads then would be shared, allowing cleaner sound with less distortion. This original philosophy became distorted, perverted and abused, to our detriment and I apologize for that, it was never my intention to unleash harm to others, or myself. Now sometimes when I am stopped at a light and the music is so loud I am in pain, I have only myself to blame. But I feel that anything intrinsically good, is subject to abuse and misuse, and that is certainly true for car stereos. But nothing can excuse the behavior of those whom we entrust to protect our health and safety, our law makers, and those who enforce those laws. When the public at large has their health, safety and protection at risk, at the hands of law makers, criminality and the highest courts, it drives home the point of a society that is so corrupt, that the only hope for it is its abolishment, along with all of those who openly and willingly defend and support it. How any health official, can defend the rights of these subhuman creatons, to harm all of us, including our innocent children, I lack sufficient descriptive verbiage. I could only wish, a hundred of these vehicles with the most offensive ghetto rap imaginable could park their rolling boom boxes right outside their doors for about a week, with them locked inside, and see if they still defend the rights of others to blast their music so loud that it shatters glass and eardrums, when they are finally released from their homes, with brain concussions, literally, brain concussions, and bleeding ears, perhaps then, they might begin to formulate different thoughts about the physical harming of others as a right of person expression.



READING, Pa. (AP) — Orange cones and flashing police lights confronted Ricardo Nieves as he rounded a bend on the way to his mother’s house. Before he knew what was going on, Nieves said, a man working for a government contractor stepped in front of his car and forced him to turn into a parking lot. There, a woman repeatedly tried to question him about his driving habits and asked for a mouth swab that would detect the presence of illegal or prescription drugs in his system. Nieves refused. Then he sued, contending his rights were violated. His Dec. 13 experience has been repeated thousands of times in cities around the country as the federal government tries to figure out how many of the nation’s motorists are driving while drunk or high. U.S. transportation officials call the National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving, which has been conducted five times since 1973, a vital tool for monitoring the safety of America’s roadways. But some motorists and civil liberties advocates contend the government’s methods are intrusive and even unconstitutional. Some police departments have refused to partner on the survey or regretted their decision to do so in the wake of public outcry. In Tennessee, legislation that would ban law enforcement from helping out on the survey unanimously cleared the state Senate last month. In the southeastern Pennsylvania city of Reading, Nieves is angered over what he views as an abuse of power. “I didn’t even have a choice to make a decision” to stop for the survey or keep going, he said. “That choice was taken away the moment he stepped into my right of way.” Conducted in 60 cities around the nation, the survey yields the government’s best estimate of the prevalence of impaired driving. It works like this: Motorists are randomly selected — either by a uniformed police officer or a private contractor working for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and waved into a parking lot, where they are questioned about their drinking and driving habits, asked to take a breath test, and offered money if they provide saliva and blood samples or agree to answer a more extensive written survey. Federal officials stress the survey is both voluntary — a large sign at each survey site says so — and anonymous, with local police enlisted to provide security and divert selected motorists from the flow of traffic. Any driver found to be impaired is offered a ride home or put up in a hotel. The survey’s supporters include Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a group funded by auto insurers whose president, Adrian Lund, said it lets researchers and policymakers monitor how national alcohol policies are working. Though the rate of drunken driving has plummeted over the past 40 years, impaired motorists kill thousands a year. Highway deaths involving drunken drivers rose 4.6 percent from 2011 to 2012, when it numbered 10,322, according to federal statistics. “This is a very minimal intrusion on privacy,” Lund said. “If you know that by participating in this survey, (it) means that we may develop policies that make it less likely you’re killed by an alcohol-impaired driver, I think that’s well worth the price.” But the government’s own documents acknowledge concerns about the National Roadside Survey at least as far back as 2007. The tactics used by the Maryland-based contractor, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, are “not routine by any means,” according to a survey methodology that describes how some police departments had balked at participating in the 2007 version of the survey because they believed they were barred by law. “The major barrier … was obtaining police department support for the study. In some localities, city attorneys or the police leadership believed that legal limitations to randomly stopping vehicles, including potential liability, prevented their participation,” the document said. View gallery In this image from a Jan. 29, 2014 video, Ricardo Nieves stands in a parking lot where he says he wa … While federal officials contend the survey is voluntary, that’s not entirely the case. Survey-takers use a device, called a passive alcohol sensor, to collect a breath sample before the motorist’s “consent or refusal of the survey,” according to the methodology. That lets researchers maximize the amount of data they collect while helping them get impaired drivers off the road, the document said. Later on, motorists are asked to blow into another device that measures blood-alcohol content more precisely. Kim Cope said there was nothing voluntary about her experience with the survey last November. Cope was heading out on her lunch break when she was funneled into a single lane of traffic, then directed into a parking lot by a uniformed Fort Worth, Texas, police officer. Cope agreed to take a breath test because she thought it would get her out more quickly, but she wasn’t happy about it. “It was very frustrating,” she said. “If it’s voluntary, then you’d think you would have a choice to pull into that parking lot or pull into that parking spot, and I was given no choice in either of those.” Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead apologized for his officers’ role in the survey and said it wouldn’t happen again. In a statement posted on the department’s Facebook page, he said the survey “caused many of our citizens frustration” and jeopardized the public’s trust. In general, police can’t stop a motorist without first suspecting that a law was broken. The Supreme Court has carved out an exception for sobriety checkpoints, saying the government’s interest in getting drunken drivers off the road outweighs the minor intrusion of a brief stop. But critics of the National Roadside Survey say a study doesn’t carry the same weight as a checkpoint. “It certainly isn’t an immediate public safety measure,” Mary Catherine Roper, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said via email. “So, even though a sobriety checkpoint may be more intrusive in that you can’t say no and drive away, this is illegal, we think, because there’s no sufficient reason for making people pull over and talk to government officials in the first place. “And I am just talking about the stop itself,” she said. “This doesn’t even take into consideration some of the coercive strategies people have alleged are part of this program.” The 2007 methodology shows how the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation relied on its survey-takers to persuade reluctant motorists to take part. The company offered bonuses to interviewers who were most successful at getting motorists’ compliance and replaced those who didn’t get enough motorists to say yes. A company spokeswoman referred questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which said the 2013-14 survey is being conducted in the same manner as the 2007 version. The $7.9 million survey is now nearing completion. But Nieves, 48, an Army veteran and chaplain for an American Legion post, said an important principle is at stake. “The Fourth Amendment clearly states that I’m allowed to go about my business without government intrusion, that I’m allowed to go about freely where I need to go,” he said. “And on that day, no one here, in my city government or that police department, was protecting me.” Nieves’s attorney, Aaron Martin, said his client thought he’d be arrested if he didn’t pull over “because it appeared it was a traffic stop by police. In fact, it was, by all appearances.” Last week, PIRE asked a judge to throw out Nieves’ lawsuit, pointing out the civilian survey-taker immediately told Nieves he was not in trouble and that his participation was voluntary. Nieves “was in no way compelled to stop, and, indeed, hundreds of other vehicles completely ignored the civilian data collector and continued on their merry way,” the company’s lawyer wrote. The city of Reading likewise said that Nieves “suffered no injury or damages.” City officials declined to comment to The Associated Press, citing the pending lawsuit, but promised they won’t participate in future surveys, according to a legal memo filed by PIRE’s attorney. While some motorists view the survey as problematic, others have no problem. “I hate to say it, but it was an easy $65,” said Mary Marchione, 44, of Virginia Beach, Va., who provided saliva and blood samples and completed the written survey. “I felt like it was voluntary right from the get-go. … They just really want to know who’s driving with what in their system.” In the Boston suburb of Hingham, Mass., police Sgt. Steven Dearth said the survey went smoothly, with no complaints and a line of motorists waiting to provide blood samples. “If offered the opportunity, we would do it again,” he said. “The data will obviously be beneficial to the cause.”