ICBC Anti-RHD Propoganda Report!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rockcrete]

ICBC has released an anti-RHD propoganda report claiming that we are 40% more likely to be involved in an accident!!!!

http://www.icbc.com/inside_icbc/august2007news.asp#5

[rockcrete]

Here is the actual study itself, this thing is a COMPLETE joke, here is the exact reason we have a higher accident rate:

20% of RHD drivers <25 9% of LHD drivers <25
85% of RHD drivers Male 55% of LHD drivers Male

Then if we combine this with the higher percentage of RHD's being sports cars and SUV's.........
This study is completely flawed and actually demonstrates us as being MUCH safer when the figures are corrected and we compare apples to apples.

ANd why are they not vocal about our 21% lower injury rate???

http://www.icbc.com/library/research...ety_report.pdf

[rockcrete]

All the raw data is missing from the ICBC study, it is virtually useless without it. Another unmentioned factor in all of this is that the person that would buy a RHD vehicle is obviously more of a risk taker than somebody that buys LHD as the general answer from the general public about RHD is "that is way harder, I'd never drive RHD", so obviously something fundamental is different between the two groups. Also, they say they corrected the statistics by comparing vehicles of same body style and make. OK, so 99% of domestic Nissan two door coupes have no turbo, and 99% of imported Nissan two door coupes do have turbos............ that is really a viable comparison, isn't it? (The domestic population would include Sentras and 240's mostly with a few 300ZX's thrown in).

Now, another interesting item here is that probably 60% of the domestic population at least, would be automatic transmission, with imports (owing to a large number of Fairlady's) maybe 30% max?

[dieselDaryl]

Interesting.. This was document was definately prepared by a group of beauroeacrats who had some ideas in their head but were also very cautious about saying anything written in stone. For example, if one were to count the number of "may"s "could lead to" "not to say" "perhaps" "it may or may not" , one coul dperhaps make en excellent drnkung game out of said document. It alludes to a a few things, but really doneas;t say much.. which means to me that they aren't sure..

I think we would be wise to pull a few key sentances out of the document and make a nice memo retort.. but thats just me..

Althougth its a bit disappointing as far as "tone" , its also not a document that should lead to immediate changes in rates, etc.. because it's pretty vague as "real evidence" goes...

If anything, it gives us all sorts of avenues for FOIP requests to ICBC..

Daryl

[rockcrete]

I was just thinking about the comparison of Toyota 2 door coupes now.........

JDM = Twin Turbo Soarers and Supra's

NA = Automatic Tercel's, Corrolla's, and we can't forget about all those automatic Celica's out there with the optional high performance 128HP engine.

The more I look at this, the bigger a pile of nonsense it becomes.........

Mazda

JDM = almost exclusively turbo RX7's

NA = automatic 323's and a few non-turbo RX7's

[KAMworks]

Man they are persistent. I just hope everyone else here is just as stubborn as I am and challenges this kind of rhetoric.
I give them credit in two areas though. One is the strong recommendation to do your homework or due diligence. i.e Know what you are getting into when you buy one. The other area is to be more cautious while driving. The first shoud be a natural on anything we buy.

I'm not sure about the rest of the members but I know that I'm a lot more cautious driving mine RHD than when I am in my regular vehicles. I get lazy and complacent in both my truck and Mustang, but all the vehicles have their blind and dangerous areas.

Doesn't ICBC have anything better to do than pick on RHD when there are some very real issues when it comes to transportation safety and what's going on our roads? It's beginning to look like a whole different country out there. Heck my study and statistics says ICBC is 98 per cent full of it and themselves.

I appologize to our BC members for that last comment. I don't understand, but I'm with you in the fight.

It still looks to me that ICBC is behind the entire thing or is being used as the front;. Eitherway this is not good public respresentation in what is supposed to be a democratic country.

[rockcrete]

I think we should ask them to add motorcycles in the mix there, too, I want to see their accident rates.........

The good news is that despite the initial appearances, this study is full of many massive holes and doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

[Shadao]

well i helped defunct, the last report that came out, so i will have some fun doing this one...

i will come back with an edit to see what i came up with...

this below is a brief outline of what i have come up with after doing a quick scan...

They claim the risk period for a collision in a RHD vehicle is 223 days(or 31 weeks or 7 months) with all the literature i have read, as well as driving a RHD vehicle once(havent got my car yet) i find that to be very untrue... i found that after 15-25mins of drivingi was comfortable and was familiar enough with the controls and blind spots that i felt safe.

they admit through out there study and there brief public notice that there is NO evidence showing RHD vehicles offer less protection.

They finally admit in the public notice BUT not in the study, that imported vehicles 15yrs or older are exempt from CMVSS standards but do have to meet the Provincial standards...

They claim 200 Vehicles per month are being imported... so hold on a moment here... 200 per month equals 2400 per year, yet they claim that over 15,000 vehicles are being imported per year in another study... smells fishy dont it...

i gotta love the ratios they made, do you under stand them? i dont... any one here have an MD in Mathematics? i think we need it...

one of my fav things they showed was accidents... this paragraph right here doesnt make sense.... to me at least...

notice the bold so they had 359 RHD crashes and 1204 LHD crashes(these crashes were commited by people who own RHD vehicles) and then they found that 880 of the 1204 were in a RHD vehicle?... so wouldnt that mean that they had 359+880=1239 RHD crashes?

To consider potential RHD drivers who had not been involved in a crash while driving the RHD vehicle, it was necessary to identify the principal operators (POs) listed for the policies (at ICBC a PO is someone who will be driving the insured vehicle more than 50% of the time and such persons must be identified in the policy records). Then the records of these POs were examined to extract all crash events involving vehicles other than the RHD ones. As with all such data matches at ICBC, key identifiers such as driver license number were deleted after the files were created and no personal information was retained. A total of 359 RHD and 1204 LHD crashes were identified. Of the latter, 880 were via the RHD PO route.

in the last report given to us public citizens they showed us numbers where they got there information from... they showed us the baisis from which they got there results...

im gonna brood over this for the next few days and see what elese i can come up with

[rockcrete]

Well, going by their model of comparable vehicles here are two 1999 Dodge two door coupes both driven by equivalent 18 year old drivers. Red cars must be more dangerous, because the red two door coupe has a higher accident rate with a 18 year old driver than the white one.



As ridiculous as this looks, this is EXACTLY the comparison they have made, as far as they are concerned, the cars are the same because they are both two door Dodge coupes with 18 year old drivers, so obviously red is a dangerous color.

[rockcrete]

Here is a 1992 Domestic market Nissan two door coupe.........


and a domestic 1992 Toyota two door coupe...........


Apparently quite reasonable to compare with Skyline GT-R's and twin turbo Soarer's.........