Less likley to die in Defender

**Reads90** · 16th October 2006, 07:23 AM

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

**Pedro_The_Swift** · 16th October 2006, 07:36 AM

and look Ma!
no airbags!

**solmanic** · 16th October 2006, 07:48 AM

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

**Michael2** · 16th October 2006, 08:11 AM

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** · 16th October 2006, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Michael2

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** · 16th October 2006, 08:33 AM

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

**Michael2** · 16th October 2006, 08:50 AM

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** · 16th October 2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by solmanic

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

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

**Ace** · 16th October 2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by 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

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

**camel_landy** · 16th October 2006, 02:08 PM

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

M

Thread: Less likley to die in Defender

Thread Tools

Less likley to die in Defender

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions