Reply With QuoteA 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.
Super Moderator
DDOriginally Posted by 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..
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
You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.
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.
ChatterBox
SupporterI 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.
ChatterBox
SupporterQ. What's so stupid about driving a Rolls (Royce)?
A. I know - you should be driving a Range Rover.
RoverLord
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
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Posting Permissions
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks