2007 Defender latest.

Congestion no one can drive flat out anymore.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-08-26, Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> The fabled rise in fatalities after seatbelt introduction is something
> that's often mentioned, but figures are always lacking. I suspect
> there's some heavy statistical manipulation going on there to try to
> justify that statement, which is why I've never believed it.
>
> It's like statistics used to justify speed cameras, on the one hand
> deaths have fallen since their introduction, but at the same time
> roads have been improved and car safety measures have greatly improved
> but that's never factored in. I suspect that "rise in fatalities
> after seatbelt introduction" is another one, e.g. raw figures quoted
> rather than percentage of drivers so increase in driver numbers is
> masked etc etc etc.
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

I dare say a half track is even safer, providing you don't use it in a war
zone


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

"Pantelis Giamarellos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> People Hi,
>
> some time ago a URL has been posted with the results of a survey run by
the
> UK police and MoT (IIRC) which showed that the Defender was the safest
> vehicle when you were to be involved in a car accident with fatalities.
>
> Does anyone have it handy by the way?
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
>
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f0d8715c4e%[email protected]...

> We're *always* hearing about moving manfacturing abroad as it will
> reduce cost and how production improvements are going to significantly
> reduce overheads - but despite sacrificing our jobs prices *never*
> drop. That's why I'll never buy a Dyson - all those poor sods in
> Malmsbury who sweated bood for him.......

Ah, but wasn't that (or at least in part) to do with the fact that the
local council wouldn't give him planning permission to build/extend the
factory he wanted to in the SW? Was on the local news at the time I
recall. Don't you just love local councilors!

ah..found the article...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1802723.stm

Matt

On 2006-08-26, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> Congestion no one can drive flat out anymore.

It's hard to speed on the roads around here, too many lorries! A
significant contribution to road safety ;-)

Or they would be if they'd stick to their side of the road on the
local small-ish roads! I've shat my pants many a time when I've been
met by an 18-wheeler taking up far more than its fair share of a road
after exiting a corner.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"hugh" <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <a195605b4e%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> writes
>>In message <[email protected]>
>> "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:1f7d505b4e%[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> <snip>
>>> >
>>> > and a nice basic dash, the fancy one is going to get trashed in a
>>> > working vehicle.
>>> >
>>>
>>> You mean no more "Dad, the sheepdogs have been sat in the front again
>>> all
>>> covered in mud". "Never mind son, just put the hose on it and leave the
>>> doors open for half an hour".
>>>
>>> Ah yes sorry, I was forgetting. The target customer isn't the
>>> hard-working
>>> man and his 'tools' any more. I wonder how that dash will stand up to
>>> "squaddification" or whether a military version will appear without all
>>> the
>>> Chelsea hairdresser add-ons?
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I doubt there will be a military version as such - press reports
>>(for what they are worth) indicate the British Army is intent on
>>severing it's links with LR. If there were a military version, it
>>would certainly be of more interest to me (and a lot of our
>>customers I suspect) than the Chelsea Tractor version pictured
>>though - minus any expensive EMP protection of course!
>>
>>Richard
>>
> ISTR reading that LR also intended severing their links with the military.
> --
> hugh
> Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

The truth is that neither 'intends to sever links' with the other. However,
if the producer does not produce a vehicle that is suitable for the consumer
then new vehicle business between them could be difficult ;-(

Huw

On 2006-08-26, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:

> some time ago a URL has been posted with the results of a survey run by the
> UK police and MoT (IIRC) which showed that the Defender was the safest
> vehicle when you were to be involved in a car accident with fatalities.

It showed that in an accident involving fatalities, where a defender
is involved the deaths are likely to be in the other car. This could
be taken as evidence that the Defender is safer, although personally I
think it shows the opposite!

There's a link to the PDF on the following page, I've not tested it though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_accident_statistics_on_a_model-by-model_basis

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian thanks.

This is the one.

12 days ago my Discovery was hit by a Peugeot 206 after its driver lost
control due to excessive speeding on a tight 90 degrees turn.
If I were to be driving an ordinary car it is almost sure that I would have
been injured on my legs.
The car has not yet been taken to the bodyrepairs shop because of the summer
holidays but it is almost certain that it does have a bent radius arm to
chassis mount, a bent front axle and probably a bent chassis.

The other driver was 100% responsible for excessive speeding on a populated
area (my house is located right on one of the most crowded sea resorts
around Athens and at the time of the accident (18.15) there were several
hundred people on the beach and on the road), having almost useless tyres
(they had less than a mm of tread on them) and most importantly did not know
how to drive (when the Peugeot started sliding he stepped on the brake pedal
instead of pressing the accelerator to pull the sliding rear forwards)

So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that I do not
care for the other driver? My Landy proved strong enough to protect its
driver. The fact that it wrecked the Peugeot and still has not harmed its
driver is extremely good but I am sure he will never forget the view of a
Discovery's front bumper approaching him (even if I were standing still
since I had stopped on my pace and was just waiting for his car to hit mine)

Take care
Pantelis

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-08-26, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > some time ago a URL has been posted with the results of a survey run by
the
> > UK police and MoT (IIRC) which showed that the Defender was the safest
> > vehicle when you were to be involved in a car accident with fatalities.
>
> It showed that in an accident involving fatalities, where a defender
> is involved the deaths are likely to be in the other car. This could
> be taken as evidence that the Defender is safer, although personally I
> think it shows the opposite!
>
> There's a link to the PDF on the following page, I've not tested it
though.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_accident_statistics_on_a_model-by-model_ba
sis
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:

> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that I do not
> care for the other driver?

Most definitely politically incorrect!

You should drive a vehicle that crumples at the mere sight of another
vehicle or pedestrian, even. You should be providing their crumple
zone not they yours.

Remember that it is your responsibility to look after every other
lunatic who is stupid enough to throw him/herself (pc - good, eh!) in
front of you.

On 2006-08-27, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:

> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that I
> do not care for the other driver?

You would be politically incorrect, but given that I drive a landy too
(and have decided not to sell it after all) you won't find me
disagreeing much with you ;-)

My concern however is that the Defender features high on the list not
because it's safe, but because it kills the other driver more often
than other more crash-friendly vehicles. I certainly don't feel safe
from accidents in my landy, the Defender certainly has less crash
protection for its occupants than your Discovery, and none at all for
the car that it hits.

At least in a Defender you have two large chassis beams sticking out
the front and an engine, in my pinzgauer I'm at the front of the
truck, with one central chassis rail and just bodywork between me and
the object I'm hitting, not a nice feeling but the fun of the truck
(when it's working) over-rides that.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2006-08-27, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> You should drive a vehicle that crumples at the mere sight of another
> vehicle or pedestrian, even. You should be providing their crumple
> zone not they yours.

The latest drive to demonise fat people should take this into account,
I wonder if the number of lives saved due to decreased heart problems
would be offset by the number of pedestrians killed due to a reduction
in their own personal crumple zones ;-)

Also thin people are harder to see than fat people, and fad diet
eaters don't have the energy to leap out of the way of an oncoming
4x4, such a shame. The thought of a vegetarian ****ting themselves
makes me shudder too, it would take ages to clean up.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Dougal wrote:
> Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:
>
>> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that
>> I do not care for the other driver?
>
> Most definitely politically incorrect!

**** political correctness, it's for spazzes & puffs.



Nige

Nige wrote:
> Dougal wrote:
>
>>Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that
>>>I do not care for the other driver?
>>
>>Most definitely politically incorrect!
>
>
> **** political correctness, it's for spazzes & puffs.
>
>
>
> Nige
>
>
Nice to see the reasoned response again from Nige!

Stuart

Srtgray wrote:
> Nige wrote:
>> Dougal wrote:
>>
>>> Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that
>>>> I do not care for the other driver?
>>>
>>> Most definitely politically incorrect!
>>
>>
>> **** political correctness, it's for spazzes & puffs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nige
>>
>>
> Nice to see the reasoned response again from Nige!
>
> Stuart

Was only kiddin!!

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-08-27, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that I
>> do not care for the other driver?
>
> You would be politically incorrect, but given that I drive a landy too
> (and have decided not to sell it after all) you won't find me
> disagreeing much with you ;-)
>
> My concern however is that the Defender features high on the list not
> because it's safe, but because it kills the other driver more often
> than other more crash-friendly vehicles. I certainly don't feel safe
> from accidents in my landy, the Defender certainly has less crash
> protection for its occupants than your Discovery, and none at all for
> the car that it hits.
>
> At least in a Defender you have two large chassis beams sticking out
> the front and an engine, in my pinzgauer I'm at the front of the
> truck, with one central chassis rail and just bodywork between me and
> the object I'm hitting, not a nice feeling but the fun of the truck
> (when it's working) over-rides that.
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

My worry in a landy is being hit on the side where there is less metal in
the way just outriggers and Ally panels rock sliders seem like a dammed fine
idea.I reckon in the Pinz the buggers (Corsa Gti wannabes) are likely to be
sat underneath the chassis in a side impact I was haveing a look at some
6x6 V8 Tdi Pinzes being outfitted a couple of weeks ago with 'stuff -
military unspecified' and I think I'm in love- mean sods wouldn't let me
have the keys probably just as well.
Derek

Ian and Derek Hi,

The Pinz must be an absolute joy to drive.

As for the rocksliders the potential increase in side impact related
accidents is most probably the main reason I have also chosen to install
them in one of my camels (the other one is 100% genuine so I have not
swapped the plastic door sills with rocksliders)

The research did not mention that the Defender or Discovery vehicles were
dangerous to other drivers or occupants of other vehicles.
It was focused on the protection factor of the vehicles occupants and most
importantly their driver.
I do wish to say that the Defender or the Disco is safe for other drivers
but as already quoted if I were to chose between my life and that of another
driver, especially if he is to be the only reason for the accident
happening, I will chose myself everyday of the year.

Take care
Pantelis

"Derek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 2006-08-27, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that I
> >> do not care for the other driver?
> >
> > You would be politically incorrect, but given that I drive a landy too
> > (and have decided not to sell it after all) you won't find me
> > disagreeing much with you ;-)
> >
> > My concern however is that the Defender features high on the list not
> > because it's safe, but because it kills the other driver more often
> > than other more crash-friendly vehicles. I certainly don't feel safe
> > from accidents in my landy, the Defender certainly has less crash
> > protection for its occupants than your Discovery, and none at all for
> > the car that it hits.
> >
> > At least in a Defender you have two large chassis beams sticking out
> > the front and an engine, in my pinzgauer I'm at the front of the
> > truck, with one central chassis rail and just bodywork between me and
> > the object I'm hitting, not a nice feeling but the fun of the truck
> > (when it's working) over-rides that.
> >
> > --
> > Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>
> My worry in a landy is being hit on the side where there is less metal in
> the way just outriggers and Ally panels rock sliders seem like a dammed
fine
> idea.I reckon in the Pinz the buggers (Corsa Gti wannabes) are likely to
be
> sat underneath the chassis in a side impact I was haveing a look at some
> 6x6 V8 Tdi Pinzes being outfitted a couple of weeks ago with 'stuff -
> military unspecified' and I think I'm in love- mean sods wouldn't let me
> have the keys probably just as well.
> Derek
>
>

On 2006-08-28, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:

> The research did not mention that the Defender or Discovery vehicles were
> dangerous to other drivers or occupants of other vehicles.

If it's the same report that I read about some time ago, it was a
report specifically about what vehicle survivors were in when a fatal
accident took place, i.e. in a fatal accident the survivors were most
often in a Defender. From the way a Defender is built, it's pretty
obvious that it can turn an accident into a fatal accident much more
readily than other cars, which is why I think it featured so high up
the list; not because it's safe, but because it kills the occupants of
the other car much more readily than other cars so featured in more
fatal accidents at lower speeds than other cars.

Just guesswork obviously, but it should be plain from the way the
Defender/Discovery is made that it's not a nice vehicle to be hit by,
worse than most other 4x4s although IIRC the Toyota Landcruiser used
to use chassis rails too until relatively recently.

> It was focused on the protection factor of the vehicles occupants and most
> importantly their driver.

The defender certainly has pretty much no driver protection at all,
other than a battering ram at the front. Fine if you hit a small car,
as you'll crush it and kill the occupants, but if you hit a lorry,
tree or another defender that's when the lack of driver protection in
the defender will come back to hit you.

The Defender also has the handling characteristics of a sponge, trying
to brake hard and avoid something is quite challenging as I found out
when a deer jumped out in front of me some time ago!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:17:30 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> scribbled the following nonsense:

>On 2006-08-26, Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No amount of "safety equipment" will help, since risk compensation
>> nearly always cancels this out. Witness the *rise* in fatalities
>> following the introduction of both compulsory motorcycle helmets and
>> seat belts.
>
>The fabled rise in fatalities after seatbelt introduction is something
>that's often mentioned, but figures are always lacking. I suspect
>there's some heavy statistical manipulation going on there to try to
>justify that statement, which is why I've never believed it.
>
>It's like statistics used to justify speed cameras, on the one hand
>deaths have fallen since their introduction, but at the same time
>roads have been improved and car safety measures have greatly improved
>but that's never factored in. I suspect that "rise in fatalities
>after seatbelt introduction" is another one, e.g. raw figures quoted
>rather than percentage of drivers so increase in driver numbers is
>masked etc etc etc.

how about the one where they noticed that lots of soldiers were
suffering non fatal head injuries after the introduction of steel
helmets, but never took into account the reduction in cases of death
from head injury during WW1
--

Simon Isaacs

"Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote"
George Jean Nathan (1882-1955)

ROT13 me....

On or around Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:20:05 +0300, Kalev Kadak <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Larry wrote:
>> I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in the new
>> defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out some
>> vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it
>>
>>
>
>Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT.

If you can prove the manufacture date of the engine, then it gets tested as
per the engine date, not the vehicle date. Mods to the bodywork might be
dodgy if they decide that it's structural at that point.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

In message <[email protected]>
"Pantelis Giamarellos" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ian thanks.
>
> This is the one.
>
> 12 days ago my Discovery was hit by a Peugeot 206 after its driver lost
> control due to excessive speeding on a tight 90 degrees turn.
> If I were to be driving an ordinary car it is almost sure that I would have
> been injured on my legs.
> The car has not yet been taken to the bodyrepairs shop because of the summer
> holidays but it is almost certain that it does have a bent radius arm to
> chassis mount, a bent front axle and probably a bent chassis.
>
> The other driver was 100% responsible for excessive speeding on a populated
> area (my house is located right on one of the most crowded sea resorts
> around Athens and at the time of the accident (18.15) there were several
> hundred people on the beach and on the road), having almost useless tyres
> (they had less than a mm of tread on them) and most importantly did not know
> how to drive (when the Peugeot started sliding he stepped on the brake pedal
> instead of pressing the accelerator to pull the sliding rear forwards)
>
> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that I do not
> care for the other driver? My Landy proved strong enough to protect its
> driver. The fact that it wrecked the Peugeot and still has not harmed its
> driver is extremely good but I am sure he will never forget the view of a
> Discovery's front bumper approaching him (even if I were standing still
> since I had stopped on my pace and was just waiting for his car to hit mine)
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
>

At about the same time I skidded my 110 (diesel on the road) into
the back of a 205. I'm really miffed that I slightly bent my front
bumper - though the 205 was a mess! Had I been driving any other
vehicle that I can think of I'd have been looking at a new front end
(even on a Discovery I'd have done the front bumper, lights,
front valance and quite likely the radiator), never mind carrying
on the journey without even bothering to seriously check for damage.
Just that one incident tells me which vehicle I'd rather drive!

Richard

> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 2006-08-26, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > some time ago a URL has been posted with the results of a survey run by
> the
> > > UK police and MoT (IIRC) which showed that the Defender was the safest
> > > vehicle when you were to be involved in a car accident with fatalities.
> >
> > It showed that in an accident involving fatalities, where a defender
> > is involved the deaths are likely to be in the other car. This could
> > be taken as evidence that the Defender is safer, although personally I
> > think it shows the opposite!
> >
> > There's a link to the PDF on the following page, I've not tested it
> though.
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_accident_statistics_on_a_model-by-model_ba
> sis
> >
> > --
> > Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>
>

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

In message <[email protected]>
"Derek" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 2006-08-27, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> So in this case will I be very politicaly incorrect if I say that I
> >> do not care for the other driver?
> >
> > You would be politically incorrect, but given that I drive a landy too
> > (and have decided not to sell it after all) you won't find me
> > disagreeing much with you ;-)
> >
> > My concern however is that the Defender features high on the list not
> > because it's safe, but because it kills the other driver more often
> > than other more crash-friendly vehicles. I certainly don't feel safe
> > from accidents in my landy, the Defender certainly has less crash
> > protection for its occupants than your Discovery, and none at all for
> > the car that it hits.
> >
> > At least in a Defender you have two large chassis beams sticking out
> > the front and an engine, in my pinzgauer I'm at the front of the
> > truck, with one central chassis rail and just bodywork between me and
> > the object I'm hitting, not a nice feeling but the fun of the truck
> > (when it's working) over-rides that.
> >
> > --
> > Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
>
> My worry in a landy is being hit on the side where there is less metal in
> the way just outriggers and Ally panels rock sliders seem like a dammed fine
> idea.I reckon in the Pinz the buggers (Corsa Gti wannabes) are likely to be
> sat underneath the chassis in a side impact I was haveing a look at some
> 6x6 V8 Tdi Pinzes being outfitted a couple of weeks ago with 'stuff -
> military unspecified' and I think I'm in love- mean sods wouldn't let me
> have the keys probably just as well.
> Derek
>
>

The EU set criteria for side impacts - which all LR vehicles (this
was pre-Freelander) passed without modification. The criterea then
had to watered down after protests form the manufacturers......
yes, including Volvo.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive