Defenders and Discos the safest road vehicles report request

P

Pantelis Giamarellos

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #1

Fellow members Hi,

I would like to kindly ask you to advise me of the URL where the official
MoT and Road Traffic Police report is posted stating that Land Rover
Defender and Land Rover Discovery vehicles were the safest vehicles would
could drive if you were to be in a road accident with human fatalities
involved.

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance and input.

Take care
Pantelis Giamarellos
LAND ROVER CLUB OF GREECE

 

M

Moving Vision

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #2

In article <[email protected]>, Pantelis Giamarellos
<[email protected]> writes
>Fellow members Hi,
>
>I would like to kindly ask you to advise me of the URL where the official
>MoT and Road Traffic Police report is posted stating that Land Rover
>Defender and Land Rover Discovery vehicles were the safest vehicles would
>could drive if you were to be in a road accident with human fatalities
>involved.
>
>Thank you in advance for your kind assistance and input.
>
>Take care
>Pantelis Giamarellos
>LAND ROVER CLUB OF GREECE
>
>
>

Land rovers are very safe for the people riding in them but a lot more
dangerous for those who collide with them. Land Rovers are more like
light commercial vehicles with independent chassis. Most modern cars are
designed to absorb impact energy through crumple zones, whilst retaining
safety cages as a last redoubt should the incoming mass exceed the
crumple zone.

The problem with crumple zones when in collision with a sold ungiving
object like a Land Rover is that by not giving in a reciprocal way the
Land Rover causes greater impact shock to the ordinary car. Therefore
the safety issue with Land Rovers is somewhat dualistic. Just like
drivers of heavier commercial vehicles, Land Rover drivers should be
particularly aware of just how extra dangerous to others their vehicles
can be in an accident.
--
John Lubran

 

H

Hirsty's

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #3

Land Rover drivers should be
> particularly aware of just how extra dangerous to others their vehicles
> can be in an accident.

Perhaps you tell that to every bloody pratt that cuts me up on Traffic
islands and in traffic.

Remember accidents usually have a reason ( driver error ), that would make
all drivers equally responsible. Just because it happens to be a LR and the
results can be more interesting does'nt excuse ALL drivers other than LR of
their duty of care and attention on the road.

Stick to the rules, be courteous, observe others and 99% of accidents will
be mechanical failure.

Can't remember the last time I saw a LR speeding down the motorway in the
outside lane oblivious to the rain pouring down.
Plenty of Beamers, Mercs and the like though. Possibly a reason for a good
safety record ?

 

T

Tim Hobbs

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #4

On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:17:14 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Land Rover drivers should be
>> particularly aware of just how extra dangerous to others their vehicles
>> can be in an accident.
>
>Perhaps you tell that to every bloody pratt that cuts me up on Traffic
>islands and in traffic.
>
>Remember accidents usually have a reason ( driver error ), that would make
>all drivers equally responsible. Just because it happens to be a LR and the
>results can be more interesting does'nt excuse ALL drivers other than LR of
>their duty of care and attention on the road.
>
>Stick to the rules, be courteous, observe others and 99% of accidents will
>be mechanical failure.
>
>Can't remember the last time I saw a LR speeding down the motorway in the
>outside lane oblivious to the rain pouring down.
>Plenty of Beamers, Mercs and the like though. Possibly a reason for a good
>safety record ?
>

The main reason for that piece of "safety statistics" is that it is
nothing of the kind. It says that in a fatal accident, the surviving
driver is most likely to be in a Defender.

There's lots of ways of reading that. You could equally say that an
accident involving a Defender is more likely to be a fatal accident.
Or that Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first
place.

The Defender must be one of the least safe cars on the road, taking a
balanced view of it. Virtually no rollover protection, little
deformability, masses of solid metal structures to hit, lack of
secondary safety like airbags etc..... OK for the Land Rover driver
who hits a Fiesta and lets that take the strain, but you are more
likely to kill the family in the Fiesta.




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

 

P

Pieter Vroom

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #5

On a similar note, a Defender might be "safe" hitting another car, and
basically using its crumple zone, but hitting a solid object like a tree or
wall will put enormous forces on the occupants.

Pieter

"Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:17:14 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Land Rover drivers should be
>>> particularly aware of just how extra dangerous to others their vehicles
>>> can be in an accident.
>>
>>Perhaps you tell that to every bloody pratt that cuts me up on Traffic
>>islands and in traffic.
>>
>>Remember accidents usually have a reason ( driver error ), that would make
>>all drivers equally responsible. Just because it happens to be a LR and
>>the
>>results can be more interesting does'nt excuse ALL drivers other than LR
>>of
>>their duty of care and attention on the road.
>>
>>Stick to the rules, be courteous, observe others and 99% of accidents will
>>be mechanical failure.
>>
>>Can't remember the last time I saw a LR speeding down the motorway in the
>>outside lane oblivious to the rain pouring down.
>>Plenty of Beamers, Mercs and the like though. Possibly a reason for a good
>>safety record ?
>>
>
> The main reason for that piece of "safety statistics" is that it is
> nothing of the kind. It says that in a fatal accident, the surviving
> driver is most likely to be in a Defender.
>
> There's lots of ways of reading that. You could equally say that an
> accident involving a Defender is more likely to be a fatal accident.
> Or that Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first
> place.
>
> The Defender must be one of the least safe cars on the road, taking a
> balanced view of it. Virtually no rollover protection, little
> deformability, masses of solid metal structures to hit, lack of
> secondary safety like airbags etc..... OK for the Land Rover driver
> who hits a Fiesta and lets that take the strain, but you are more
> likely to kill the family in the Fiesta.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Tim Hobbs
>
> '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
> '77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
> '03 Volvo V70

 

J

JD

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #6

Pieter Vroom wrote:

> "Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:17:14 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Land Rover drivers should be
>>>> particularly aware of just how extra dangerous to others their vehicles
>>>> can be in an accident.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you tell that to every bloody pratt that cuts me up on Traffic
>>>islands and in traffic.
>>>
>>>Remember accidents usually have a reason ( driver error ), that would
>>>make all drivers equally responsible. Just because it happens to be a LR
>>>and the
>>>results can be more interesting does'nt excuse ALL drivers other than LR
>>>of
>>>their duty of care and attention on the road.
>>>
>>>Stick to the rules, be courteous, observe others and 99% of accidents
>>>will be mechanical failure.
>>>
>>>Can't remember the last time I saw a LR speeding down the motorway in the
>>>outside lane oblivious to the rain pouring down.
>>>Plenty of Beamers, Mercs and the like though. Possibly a reason for a
>>>good
>>>safety record ?
>>>
>>
>> The main reason for that piece of "safety statistics" is that it is
>> nothing of the kind. It says that in a fatal accident, the surviving
>> driver is most likely to be in a Defender.
>>
>> There's lots of ways of reading that. You could equally say that an
>> accident involving a Defender is more likely to be a fatal accident.
>> Or that Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first
>> place.
>>
>> The Defender must be one of the least safe cars on the road, taking a
>> balanced view of it. Virtually no rollover protection, little
>> deformability, masses of solid metal structures to hit, lack of
>> secondary safety like airbags etc..... OK for the Land Rover driver
>> who hits a Fiesta and lets that take the strain, but you are more
>> likely to kill the family in the Fiesta.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Hobbs
>>
>> '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
>> '77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
>> '03 Volvo V70

> On a similar note, a Defender might be "safe" hitting another car, and
> basically using its crumple zone, but hitting a solid object like a tree
> or wall will put enormous forces on the occupants.
>
> Pieter
>

Certainly round here almost all fatal accidents involve hitting fixed
objects or a vehicle travelling in the other direction. At typical highway
speeds of 100-120kph it makes little difference whether the vehicle has a
crumple zone or not, especially if the vehicle coming in the other
direction is a B-double or road train.
On the other question, as to whether the vehicle type affects the overall
safety and whether this relates to safety features (not just fatalities in
a fatal accident but also looking at the accident rate and fatal vs
non-fatal) I have never seen anything published, although this information
must exist in insurance company files. Unfortunately, even with this
information, the conclusions will not represent the overall safety of the
vehicle, but the safety of the vehicle/driver/environment - and safe/bad
drivers are likely to choose different types of car, and the type of car
chosen is likely to be different on average for different environments.
JD

 

C

cyberwraith

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #7

I find that other drivers cut me up in my Disco and say that they did not
see me!! If they cannot see a Disco maybe they should not be driving?


"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pieter Vroom wrote:
>
>> "Tim Hobbs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:17:14 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Land Rover drivers should be
>>>>> particularly aware of just how extra dangerous to others their
>>>>> vehicles
>>>>> can be in an accident.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you tell that to every bloody pratt that cuts me up on Traffic
>>>>islands and in traffic.
>>>>
>>>>Remember accidents usually have a reason ( driver error ), that would
>>>>make all drivers equally responsible. Just because it happens to be a LR
>>>>and the
>>>>results can be more interesting does'nt excuse ALL drivers other than LR
>>>>of
>>>>their duty of care and attention on the road.
>>>>
>>>>Stick to the rules, be courteous, observe others and 99% of accidents
>>>>will be mechanical failure.
>>>>
>>>>Can't remember the last time I saw a LR speeding down the motorway in
>>>>the
>>>>outside lane oblivious to the rain pouring down.
>>>>Plenty of Beamers, Mercs and the like though. Possibly a reason for a
>>>>good
>>>>safety record ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The main reason for that piece of "safety statistics" is that it is
>>> nothing of the kind. It says that in a fatal accident, the surviving
>>> driver is most likely to be in a Defender.
>>>
>>> There's lots of ways of reading that. You could equally say that an
>>> accident involving a Defender is more likely to be a fatal accident.
>>> Or that Defenders are more likely to have accidents in the first
>>> place.
>>>
>>> The Defender must be one of the least safe cars on the road, taking a
>>> balanced view of it. Virtually no rollover protection, little
>>> deformability, masses of solid metal structures to hit, lack of
>>> secondary safety like airbags etc..... OK for the Land Rover driver
>>> who hits a Fiesta and lets that take the strain, but you are more
>>> likely to kill the family in the Fiesta.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Tim Hobbs
>>>
>>> '58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
>>> '77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
>>> '03 Volvo V70
>
>> On a similar note, a Defender might be "safe" hitting another car, and
>> basically using its crumple zone, but hitting a solid object like a tree
>> or wall will put enormous forces on the occupants.
>>
>> Pieter
>>
>
> Certainly round here almost all fatal accidents involve hitting fixed
> objects or a vehicle travelling in the other direction. At typical highway
> speeds of 100-120kph it makes little difference whether the vehicle has a
> crumple zone or not, especially if the vehicle coming in the other
> direction is a B-double or road train.
> On the other question, as to whether the vehicle type affects the overall
> safety and whether this relates to safety features (not just fatalities in
> a fatal accident but also looking at the accident rate and fatal vs
> non-fatal) I have never seen anything published, although this information
> must exist in insurance company files. Unfortunately, even with this
> information, the conclusions will not represent the overall safety of the
> vehicle, but the safety of the vehicle/driver/environment - and safe/bad
> drivers are likely to choose different types of car, and the type of car
> chosen is likely to be different on average for different environments.
> JD

 

N

Nige

Guest

• May 24, 2005

• #8

cyberwraith wrote:
> I find that other drivers cut me up in my Disco and say that they did
> not see me!! If they cannot see a Disco maybe they should not be
> driving?


Happens to me all the time in my silver Subaru WRX, happened in every silver car I have had (asp when
dirty) Never happens in a stand out coloured car!

Nige

 

J

Jack

Guest

• May 25, 2005

• #9

"Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Can't remember the last time I saw a LR speeding down the motorway in the
> outside lane oblivious to the rain pouring down.
> Plenty of Beamers, Mercs and the like though. Possibly a reason for a good
> safety record ?
>
>

I hadn't realized that LR could speed. Mine sure as hell can't.

 

S

Simon Barr

Guest

• May 25, 2005

• #10

In article <[email protected]>, Nige wrote:
> cyberwraith wrote:
>> I find that other drivers cut me up in my Disco and say that they did
>> not see me!! If they cannot see a Disco maybe they should not be
>> driving?
>
>
> Happens to me all the time in my silver Subaru WRX, happened in every silver car I have had (asp when
> dirty) Never happens in a stand out coloured car!
>
> Nige
>
>

My 110 is bright yellow, people still pull out on me from time to time! It's
'cos people don't look I reckon, far more interested in their stereo or
bloody 'phone or whatever else.


--
simon at sbarr dot demon dot co dot uk
Simon Barr.
'97 110 300Tdi.

 

H

Hirsty's

Guest

• May 25, 2005

• #11

>
> My 110 is bright yellow, people still pull out on me from time to time!

Now that I can understand !! My wife has a yellow Ka :-(