Less likley to die in Defender

[Reads90]

Times have a done a bit of the worlds cars. And found you are less lilley to die in a defender than in any other car

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,351595,00.jpg

[Pedro_The_Swift]

and look Ma!
no airbags!

[solmanic]

What if you are in the military - I think the odds would be higher then... even worse if you drive a Hummer :D

[Michael2]

I notice that one is five times more likely to die or be seriously injured in a Nissan Patrol (Ford Maverick), than in a Land Rover. RACVs figures for vehicle aggresivity also showed the Patrol to be highly aggressive, whereas the Defender was the same as a sedan.

Is this a reflection on the manufacturer, or the calibre of driver attracted to these marques?

I was once told by a Patrol driver that Land Rover Owners were real enthusiaist, while Nissan and Toyota drivers were generally rednecks. After all how many Steerhorn and Bundy stickers do you see on a Land Rover? And how many Land Rovers have mudflaps proclaiming they'd rather be a MACK or a CAT?

Land Rover owners have a pride that reflects in their driving (plus smaller engines) and the others have an arrogance and personality crisis that is evident by their driving.









stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir

[solmanic]

I notice that one is five times more likely to die or be seriously injured in a Nissan Patrol (Ford Maverick),

I think you'll find that the Ford Maverick in the UK is a rebadged Nissan Terrano (the crappy Spanish one) - not a Patrol like we had ages ago. But your point is correct - it is the type of drivers that determine the likliness of a crash in the first place, not the car.

[Reads90]

yeah you are right it is the crappy spanish soft off roader one

[Michael2]

I retract that portion of my statement.

And sorry* to Nissan for the calibre of your clients.












* ah the SORRY word, in this case it means a condolence and not a personal apology.

[Michael2]

What if you are in the military - I think the odds would be higher then... even worse if you drive a Hummer :D

Friendly Fire from an A10 doesn't count as a 2 car accident. Otherwise I'm sure the figures would have been skewed.

[Ace]

I notice that one is five times more likely to die or be seriously injured in a Nissan Patrol (Ford Maverick), than in a Land Rover. RACVs figures for vehicle aggresivity also showed the Patrol to be highly aggressive, whereas the Defender was the same as a sedan.

Is this a reflection on the manufacturer, or the calibre of driver attracted to these marques?

I was once told by a Patrol driver that Land Rover Owners were real enthusiaist, while Nissan and Toyota drivers were generally rednecks. After all how many Steerhorn and Bundy stickers do you see on a Land Rover? And how many Land Rovers have mudflaps proclaiming they'd rather be a MACK or a CAT?

Land Rover owners have a pride that reflects in their driving (plus smaller engines) and the others have an arrogance and personality crisis that is evident by their driving.










stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir stir


Post that on overlander your stirring would be worth while on there, its no good when we all agree with you. :D

[camel_landy]

It's only coz you can't actually get a Defender to go fast enough to cause any real damage. ;)

:wasntme:

M

[Ace]

It's only coz you can't actually get a Defender to go fast enough to cause any real damage. ;)

:wasntme:

M

I dont know, i reckon Reback could. :D

[BigJon]

I was once told by a Patrol driver that Land Rover Owners were real enthusiaist, while Nissan and Toyota drivers were generally rednecks. After all how many Steerhorn and Bundy stickers do you see on a Land Rover? And how many Land Rovers have mudflaps proclaiming they'd rather be a MACK or a CAT?



I have a Bundy sticker on my Rangie, along with assorted Rodeo and Western Wear stickers. Does that make me a Redneck??

YES IT DOES:twisted: :twisted: :p

[DirtyDawg]

The amount of Defenders on the roads would decrease the percentage as they are not a common vehicle. where as there are bucketloads of Disco's which would bump them up on the percentage scale. ie: if there are only 15 defender accidents a year compared with say 330 Disco ones there is a higher percentage of some being fatal in the Disco's... Statistics you can manipulate them how you want..;)

[Outlaw]

Notice it's Pre-2002 Defenders too so i can now brag EVL is much safer than my mates CRV

[cewilson]

I have a Bundy sticker on my Rangie, along with assorted Rodeo and Western Wear stickers. Does that make me a Redneck??

YES IT DOES:twisted: :twisted: :p

I was thinking the same thing - there's one on my Defender :D

[cewilson]

It's only coz you can't actually get a Defender to go fast enough to cause any real damage. ;)

:wasntme:

M


I don't know about that. :angel:

[Sandtoyz]

I know you can... go fast that is, dunno 'bout damage though...
My self preservation, and fear of destroying my Landy are my limits.

It does take courage (or is that stupidity?)

Sometimes it doesn't even need to be fast to cause carnage!!!

[DeeJay]

The amount of Defenders on the roads would decrease the percentage as they are not a common vehicle. where as there are bucketloads of Disco's which would bump them up on the percentage scale. ie: if there are only 15 defender accidents a year compared with say 330 Disco ones there is a higher percentage of some being fatal in the Disco's... Statistics you can manipulate them how you want..;)

Well they sure manipulated these ones coz the total percentage of vehicles in accidents are (quick add up) 288%
Errr shouldn't that be 100% ?
:oops2:

[scrambler]

Well they sure manipulated these ones coz the total percentage of vehicles in accidents are (quick add up) 288%
Errr shouldn't that be 100% ?
:oops2:

What are you smoking, Deejay? The percentages are the risk of death or life-threatening injury in an accident with that vehicle. There's no point adding them up.

It doesn't matter how many of each vehicle are on the road - what matters is the type of travel each vehicle is doing. For example, a council bus would be a lot safer than a coach - because it isn't travelling fast enough to kill passengers, despite the design being a lot more dangerous if there was a high-speed crash. Plus it would be in a lot more minor accidents, so as a percentage it's very safe.

This info has been on this site before. Comparable Australian statistics don't show Defenders that safe. My guess is Defender drivers use highways in Australia and, statistically at least, in the UK they're pottering along green lanes.

Steve

[Blknight.aus]

I'd say it again but its in the signature........

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The amount of Defenders on the roads would decrease the percentage as they are not a common vehicle. where as there are bucketloads of Disco's which would bump them up on the percentage scale. ie: if there are only 15 defender accidents a year compared with say 330 Disco ones there is a higher percentage of some being fatal in the Disco's... Statistics you can manipulate them how you want..;)

DD

That is a huge assumption based on inadequate data and if the researchers were from the government, a university or the insurance industry it would be totally wrong.

By your hypothesis you are most likely to die in a Holden Commodore, because there are more of them on the road.

These sort of road casuality statistics are actually based upon the number of crashes in each category and make of vehicle analysing the severty of the injuries sustained in those crashes. The problem of uncommon makes/models is that a single fatality increases the probability factor significantly, where a single fatality in a common make/model has minimal impact on the probability data.

Just my thoughts.

Diana

[mr_sav]

A bit hard to gage how the statistics were compiled, however, so far to say, bloody beauty.

Of course assuming this accounts for an 85ish 110.

Glad it was a two car collision and not including general stupidity accidents, ie: Rolls and the likes.

[Michael2]

I agree with you there Dianna, about the statistical analysis. My SIII go stolen a few years ago. It was recovered the following day and my insurance was due a couple of weeks later. My premium jumped heaps, not because of the claim, but because no Series Land Rover had been stolen for such a long time, that this one incident skewed the figures. The assossor who saw it told me he'd never seen one stolen in the 10 years he'd worked in the job.

Anyway I argued the point, suggesting I was being discriminated against because I'd been a victim of crime..... and they gave me full comp with rating 1 protection for close to what they wanted 3rd party for. :D

[Michael2]

... Glad it was a two car collision and not including general stupidity accidents, ie: Rolls and the likes.

Q. What's so stupid about driving a Rolls (Royce)?

A. I know - you should be driving a Range Rover.

[JDNSW]

(snip)

This info has been on this site before. Comparable Australian statistics don't show Defenders that safe. My guess is Defender drivers use highways in Australia and, statistically at least, in the UK they're pottering along green lanes.

Steve

The Australian statistics are for all accidents, not for two car collisions, which these are for, so they aren't comparable anyway. Apparently in the UK this type of collision is by far the most common cause of death or serious injury. I doubt this is the case in Australia - probably most common is collision with fixed objects (typically trees and posts), where the UK (from my experience) has few high speed roads with such objects close to them, but they do have a lot more cars to hit.

But in my view the major effect on statistics is the type of driver that a particular vehicle attracts rather than any features of the vehicle itself.

John