[Godzira]

Okay so every year there's a scare or 2 to BAN all rhd vehicles or "close the ports" etc. and I'm sure you guys don't really care since this is Alberta but if you want to take the survey and stop it from happening every vote counts! maybe if they get enough "No's" they might lay off for good and who knows if they do end up banning them in Alberta it would probably only be a matter of time before BC does as well. It takes a few minutes to finish the survey but I'll just leave this here. you don't need to give any personal information or anything..


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-A19D5Ip7yVA/VH_a_pOZsDI/AAAAAAAACmY/6ePiXUZ8k3I/w877-h812-no/RHD_Survey.jpg



link:


https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BN2TLYF

[white rocket]

I always thought that once the government allows a vehicle to be here they can't revert back. How fair would that be? You buy a car that are within the specs of the transport ministry then they decide that it's not allowed and your fucked? I dunno, I don't think it will happen or if it did they would just close the ports and not allow anymore in. But those that are here already are grandfathered in.

The same as Mitsubishi pulling out of Canada. If they did they would need to remain here to honour their warranty until the last registered car warranty expires. Their sales would stop though.

[duy-]

well thats crap, vote against / latest pic of yo rhd whip thread!

[Godzira]

I always thought that once the government allows a vehicle to be here they can't revert back. How fair would that be? You buy a car that are within the specs of the transport ministry then they decide that it's not allowed and your fucked? I dunno, I don't think it will happen or if it did they would just close the ports and not allow anymore in. But those that are here already are grandfathered in.

The same as Mitsubishi pulling out of Canada. If they did they would need to remain here to honour their warranty until the last registered car warranty expires. Their sales would stop though.

Apparently they would either grandfather what is already here or once your registration is up you can't renew and it is strictly a track car

[Tone Loc]

They will likely just apply the grandfather rule to already-landed RHD cars... sort of like with prohibited firearms. There is no way to obtain one or buy one unless you already had one before the law came into effect.

Honestly a lot of these studies are BS, they effectively blame the car for being RHD, when in reality it is 99% of the time the driver. Consider that the majority of RHD cars imported are cheap, high-performance vehicles... who is buying them? Young people whose crash statistics are already higher and, frankly, are too immature to handle something that powerful on public roads.

[InvisibleSoul]

Honestly a lot of these studies are BS, they effectively blame the car for being RHD, when in reality it is 99% of the time the driver. Consider that the majority of RHD cars imported are cheap, high-performance vehicles... who is buying them? Young people whose crash statistics are already higher and, frankly, are too immature to handle something that powerful on public roads.

That may be a factor, but I can't see it possibly accounting for a 32-40% increase. I don't think there can be any debate about it being harder to turn left with a RHD vehicle, especially when there is no designated turning lane.

Even with a LHD vehicle, it's sometimes hard seeing the opposing traffic when there is no left turn lane. It would be much worse with a RHD vehicle, where I can imagine you'd have to guess at times whether there's oncoming traffic or not.

That being said... what about the RHD garbage trucks? :concentrate:

[Edison_Chen]

^ or even those small Canada Post mail trucks too..

[BBMme]

I don't drive a RHD car but most accident I've seen or heard about are mostly LHD =p

[BoostedBB6]

Say it poses an increase risk, but does not back with facts about incidents involving RHD vehicles.....seems legit.

[underscore]

That may be a factor, but I can't see it possibly accounting for a 32-40% increase. I don't think there can be any debate about it being harder to turn left with a RHD vehicle, especially when there is no designated turning lane.

Even with a LHD vehicle, it's sometimes hard seeing the opposing traffic when there is no left turn lane. It would be much worse with a RHD vehicle, where I can imagine you'd have to guess at times whether there's oncoming traffic or not.

The "trick" is to drive it the same as any other car: only make a move when you're sure it won't result in a collision. If you're guessing at whether it's clear or not you need to have your license revoked.

[hchang]

I don't drive a RHD car but most accident I've seen or heard about are mostly LHD =p

Well no shit considering there's more left hand drive cars than right hand

[Godzira]

Well no shit considering there's more left hand drive cars than right hand

nothing gets passed you

[Indy]

I would like to see a study from France or Germany or the like showing statistics of accidents involving cars from the UK to help validate or disprove this argument.

[Godzira]

I would like to see a study from France or Germany or the like showing statistics of accidents involving cars from the UK to help validate or disprove this argument.

the argument would be that those right hand drives are meant for their roads.

[SpartanAir]

I would love to see these so called studies.

In Europe, you can drive a RHD UK car through the Chunnel to the mainland and go wherever you need to go, on the right side. And vice versa, if you drive a French car to the UK. This happens all the time, how is this not an issue?

In Japan, German cars like Porsche, BMW, Mercedes are brought in as LHD to Japan, hence all the "JDM" low mileage, weird, rare German cars here in Vancouver.

Can either of those places prove the cars with opposite side driving positions cause more accidents? I would think because there are so many, that it's not even a factor, and accidents happen from poor driving and nothing else.

A country like Australia might only have RHD cars because you can't get a LHD car there short of shipping one.

I've owned 4 RHD cars since 2006, and no incidents (knock on wood). I just take extra care turning left at intersections, and rarely come across a chance to pass on a single lane highway here in the city.

It's all a bunch of bullshit pushed by people who have interest in the used car market who are losing sales because people prefer buying a JDM import than a piece of shit high mileage Canadian car.

[sdubfid]

tim Hortons is behind this

[hchang]

nothing gets passed you

*past

[The_AK]

I did the survey. Last thing I would like to happen is this passing in one province, setting a precedent, and moving to other provinces.

[E-SPEC]

There are too many cars on the street anyways. So sure bann them.

[InvisibleSoul]

The "trick" is to drive it the same as any other car: only make a move when you're sure it won't result in a collision. If you're guessing at whether it's clear or not you need to have your license revoked.

I've never driven a RHD car so I can't speak from experience, but I know I sometimes have to creep out slightly into the opposing lane to see if there's oncoming traffic. I would imagine you'd have to be halfway into the opposing lane to see in a RHD car.

[boostfever]

There are too many cars on the street anyways. So sure bann them.

Yeah esp Honda sedans...

I know you don't care about your car bro... :troll:

[Hondaracer]

i dont really care as most of the japanese imports are kinda POS's anyways and i'm not dieing to see some R34 roaming the street anymore as they are pretty dated now that they are legal here.

I think the people who will be hurt the most by this are the older wealthier crowd who want your older euro classics as a sunday car, not the guy driving the R32 with the bumper falling off

[Nicotine]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/6c/6c8b9a631c117d7d87be76d2eb65c0014662142a8b3a9107cf 2f195a70c5e3e0.jpg

[underscore]

I did the survey. Last thing I would like to happen is this passing in one province, setting a precedent, and moving to other provinces.

Didn't they already do this in Quebec?

I've never driven a RHD car so I can't speak from experience, but I know I sometimes have to creep out slightly into the opposing lane to see if there's oncoming traffic. I would imagine you'd have to be halfway into the opposing lane to see in a RHD car.

You don't creep out any further in a RHD car, you wait until you can see clearly (no left turners opposing you) or wait for a red. Anyone stupid enough to blindly stick their car into oncoming traffic would do the same in a LHD car so it's a moot point.

Honestly I'm starting to wonder if some of you guys are competent enough to operate any vehicle, let alone something RHD.

[SpartanAir]

You don't creep out any further in a RHD car, you wait until you can see clearly (no left turners opposing you) or wait for a red. Anyone stupid enough to blindly stick their car into oncoming traffic would do the same in a LHD car so it's a moot point.

Honestly I'm starting to wonder if some of you guys are competent enough to operate any vehicle, let alone something RHD.

This.

If I'm turning left, I wait til a yellow/red light and a clear path to turn. If there are opposing left turners I just wait to see around them or until they turn. It's just being a safe driver. Trying to squeak a left turn between speeding cars is a risky move regardless of RHD or LHD.

And when it comes to overtaking a car on a single lane highway, that's generally a risky move anyways, so again, be 100% sure there is no oncoming traffic. Same as you would do if it was LHD.

If you really cared, there's always this option:
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc265/Procunier/96.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc265/Procunier/78.jpg

[bomiheko]

Wait, people drive in the oncoming lane?

[swfk]

^Badluck Brian: Opposing left turner is RHD as well

[Tone Loc]

The "trick" is to drive it the same as any other car: only make a move when you're sure it won't result in a collision. If you're guessing at whether it's clear or not you need to have your license revoked.

Exactly this. Unless you are 100% sure it's clear, RHD or LHD, you shouldn't be making a left anyway...

By that logic, low cars shouldn't be allowed either because it's harder to scope left turns, and tall (lifted) cars shouldn't be allowed because they impede people's vision. Which is SOCIALISM

Jk.

...and if someone honks at you, which inevitably will happen, you have a middle finger for a reason. No sense in getting your car totalled, or worse, hurting yourself or a passenger, just because Joe Douche is 5 minutes late for the brower shift at McD's.

[Hondaracer]

So what you guys are essentially saying is that you are impeding traffic by operating a car not designed for these roads.

[underscore]

When making a left turn you're impeding traffic no more than any other vehicle, since you aren't actually required to pull forward and try to make a turn.

[InvisibleSoul]

You don't creep out any further in a RHD car, you wait until you can see clearly (no left turners opposing you) or wait for a red. Anyone stupid enough to blindly stick their car into oncoming traffic would do the same in a LHD car so it's a moot point.

I knew that was going to be the argument. The bottom line is driving a RHD car is more difficult and inherently more prone to accidents because of the reduced visibility.

[Manic!]

Wait, people drive in the oncoming lane?
http://drivinginstructorblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/774a-e1365682310868.jpg

[underscore]

You guys who have never driven RHD let alone owned a RHD vehicle yet are still making claims about what driving RHD is like are starting to sound a bit stupid.

I knew that was going to be the argument. The bottom line is driving a RHD car is more difficult and inherently more prone to accidents because of the reduced visibility.

No, it isn't, because you follow the same basic principals as driving a LHD vehicle. It's different, but it's no more difficult. When was the last time you heard of a mail truck being in an accident that was caused by it being RHD?

[bomiheko]

To me, driving RHD is really no different than driving LHD. I can drive both and can switch between RHD and LHD easily. I always mentally picture myself when driving in the middle so it doesn't affect me much. I use my mirrors too. Turning left pose no problems either. I have only been honked at once and that guys face turned red when he almost hit someone when going around me to turn left.

[Tone Loc]

I knew that was going to be the argument. The bottom line is driving a RHD car is more difficult and inherently more prone to accidents because of the reduced visibility.

You can make that argument about any car, really.

Going from my AE86 to a new Corolla was "difficult" because of all the blind spots caused by the high belt-line and relatively small size of the windows.

Going from my AE86 to a slightly lifted Toyota Pickup was "difficult" cuz that thing was huge in comparison.

And my AE... well, it's quite low and turning left can be difficult. But I just wait for the light to turn yellow or red, and make especially sure I am 100% clear before making my turn. Like any RHD driver should do... or wait, no, like EVERY driver should do since if you get hit, RHD or LHD, you are automatically at fault unless the guy who hit you ran a red.

The point is, the argument can be made for any car being somewhat more difficult to drive in terms of certain aspects... the real culprit IMO is the driver rather than the car. An educated, mature driver would be able to drive safely LHD or RHD. Instead, as I said before, the types of people who buy JDM imports are typically not these people...

[right angle]

I knew that was going to be the argument. The bottom line is driving a RHD car is more difficult and inherently more prone to accidents because of the reduced visibility.

Such a weak argument

Even if it were true that RHD cars were more prone to accidents, it's a useless conclusion. "More prone" just means a non-zero non-negative value. It could be completely miniscule, almost undetectable.

So you have less visibility when passing in an oncoming lane on a highway and left turning in heavy traffic. Why would a RHD user just simply not choose to not pass or wait until it was clear to left turn? Who could be dumb enough to not understand they shouldn't try and turn or pass when they can't fucking see.

But forget safety, these situations would hold up traffic wouldn't they? Yes, but again, the actual effect this has on traffic is so minimal it can almost be safely ignored. The actual left turns that a RHD vehicle can't make are in situations where there is an opposing left hand turn lane that has a particularly obstructive vehicle in it. If you're left-turning in a RHD car, and there is no car in an left hand turn lane, across the intersection, then there is no obstruction. I drive a RHD car, which is why my ass is sore over this, and the frequency that I have to be conservative in left turning is so rare. Take the number of times you're at intersections where there is frequently an obstructive car, subtract the amount of times that you just turn on a left turn signal there, subtract the amount of times there happens to be no obstruction in an opposing left turn lane, subtract the times that you're first in line to left turn and actually might have been able to go but didn't because you couldn't see anything, subtract the times that you piggypack on someone else who goes through a yellow, and finally subtract the number of times where all these conditions were met.. and there wasn't actually someone sitting behind you.

This number is obviously remarkably low. Left turn lanes that are often busy often have left turn signals, and if I'm at a busy intersection trying to left turn then it's probably so busy I can't turn without a yellow anyways. It's seriously such a rare scenario, that it might hold up traffic as much as someone who is just not aggressive and likes to be sure of their left turns, or just not focused on turning at the first opportunity because they're talking to a passenger or something.

But that's not even the most important part. As of now the amount of RHD cars in the GVRD is low, the amount of these that are actually dailies and going to be in high traffic Vancouver roads is lower. IF you were to actually total the amount of minutes that a RHD holds up traffic due to being a RHD you'd probably have to wait years before that number approached a week's worth of people trying to text and drive or running on bald all seasons in the winter. Just by virtue of how few RHD cars actually drive around.

Banning RHD cars because of safety or holding up traffic is pointless. It's such a drop in the bucket, and it denies enthusiasts of a lot of non-USDM cars what they want to own for such little reason.

oh and for RHD users you can buy one of these and completely eliminate any blindspots if you want: KRUGOZOR UNIVERSAL MIRROR SYSTEM FOR RHD AND LHD CARS | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/KRUGOZOR-UNIVERSAL-MIRROR-SYSTEM-FOR-RHD-AND-LHD-CARS-/181585443665?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2a4755fb51) IT's a bit overpriced so make one yourself if you want :toot:


Oh and also, I have been lurking here for a while, what's with this HondaRacer's weird manchild anger about how people "like" (can't believe someone would like a car i dont smh -_-) GT-Rs ??? He seems like a huge fag? Considering that there are plenty of sub 100k km mint NSX, GT-Rs, Supras, RX-7s, etc. for sale in Japan I hardly think these cars are "POS's". Thanks for reading.

[ncrx]

I knew that was going to be the argument. The bottom line is driving a RHD car is more difficult and inherently more prone to accidents because of the reduced visibility.

i guess im a super hero then, i've daily'd mine for 8 years and no accidents

[FN-2199]

i guess im a super hero then, i've daily'd mine for 8 years and no accidents

Ditto. I've been driving RHD for about 4+ years now, and the only accidents I've been in are ones where my car wasn't moving.

Of course the issue brought up is left hand turns, and the defense will always be due diligence during these turns
Yes, RHD cars were made for left-sided roads, but it's easy enough to imply that they're more dangerous on our right-sided roads. It's also easy to say that most RHD owners are immature speeding pricks, but these are all ignorant assumptions without actually experiencing one.

Simply put, not all of us RHD owners are immature, incompetent, shitty driving, speeding pricks. Driving in one almost feels as if I'm a better driver because of the extra precautions I take.

[Qmx323]

Ditto. I've been driving RHD for about 4+ years now, and the only accidents I've been in are ones where my car wasn't moving.

Of course the issue brought up is left hand turns, and the defense will always be due diligence during these turns
Yes, RHD cars were made for left-sided roads, but it's easy enough to imply that they're more dangerous on our right-sided roads. It's also easy to say that most RHD owners are immature speeding pricks, but these are all ignorant assumptions without actually experiencing one.

Simply put, not all of us RHD owners are immature, incompetent, shitty driving, speeding pricks. Driving in one almost feels as if I'm a better driver because of the extra precautions I take.

Ahha but society never notices the norm do they?

There's enough immature incompetent shitty driving speeding pricks to go around and ruin the fun for all of us (LHD or RHD)

[Godzira]

This is where they get their stats from


23156
23157

[twitchyzero]

chase-her lol
the drift guys with banged up corollas and S chassis and stance guys with ridiculous hellaflush probably aren't helping the dangerously modified/defective image

[jdmfemme]

i guess im a super hero then, i've daily'd mine for 8 years and no accidents

Ditto. I've been driving RHD for about 4+ years now, and the only accidents I've been in are ones where my car wasn't moving.

Me as well. I own 2 RHD cars and have been driving them for just over 4 years with no accidents. :)

[InvisibleSoul]

I don't know why some of you guys are getting so defensive. The claim here is that driving a RHD vehicle on the road is more prone to getting into accidents than a LHD vehicle. This seems to be a proven statement.

Right Hand Drive Vehicles in a Left Hand Drive World | DriveSmartBC (http://drivesmartbc.ca/miscellaneous/right-hand-drive-vehicles-left-hand-drive-world)

A 2007 study by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia found that drivers of RHD vehicles used here in B.C. are more than 40% more likely to be involved in a crash than those using "normal" left hand drive (LHD) vehicles. The risk appears to extend for the long term rather than being reduced by the driver becoming more familiar with using a right hand drive vehicle in a left hand drive environment.

Similar studies conducted in Britain where LHD vehicles regularly mix with RHD vehicles from the continent showed the same indications. Collisions appeared to be most common in turning, passing and lane changing situations. It is surmised that the increased risk of collision is a consequence of the reduced direct field of view for drivers to the side and rear that is more easily viewed by the majority.


I don't understand how you guys are so vehemently denying this.

No, it isn't, because you follow the same basic principals as driving a LHD vehicle. It's different, but it's no more difficult.

I understand it's the same principals. But the fact that you have reduced visiblity makes it more difficult.

When was the last time you heard of a mail truck being in an accident that was caused by it being RHD?
When was the last time you heard of any mail truck being in an accident? Just because you or I haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. I don't know whether it has happened or not.

You can make that argument about any car, really.

Going from my AE86 to a new Corolla was "difficult" because of all the blind spots caused by the high belt-line and relatively small size of the windows.

Going from my AE86 to a slightly lifted Toyota Pickup was "difficult" cuz that thing was huge in comparison.

And my AE... well, it's quite low and turning left can be difficult. But I just wait for the light to turn yellow or red, and make especially sure I am 100% clear before making my turn. Like any RHD driver should do... or wait, no, like EVERY driver should do since if you get hit, RHD or LHD, you are automatically at fault unless the guy who hit you ran a red.

The point is, the argument can be made for any car being somewhat more difficult to drive in terms of certain aspects... the real culprit IMO is the driver rather than the car. An educated, mature driver would be able to drive safely LHD or RHD. Instead, as I said before, the types of people who buy JDM imports are typically not these people...

Yes, I suppose you CAN make that argument about any car... and it doesn't make it less valid. Maybe the new Corolla IS slightly more accident prone than an AE86 because of the slightly reduced visibility out of it. The difference here is that a RHD may be SIGNIFICANTLY more accident prone than a LHD vehicle, not just slightly.

I never said or implied educated, mature drivers aren't able to drive a RHD vehicle safely. The problem is you can't assume every single driver is this educated and mature.

Question: Given someone that is NOT that great of a driver and takes some unsafe risks, do you think he is more likely to get into an accident in a LHD vehicle or a RHD vehicle?

I'm pretty confident he would get into more accidents in a RHD vehicle.

Even if it were true that RHD cars were more prone to accidents, it's a useless conclusion. "More prone" just means a non-zero non-negative value. It could be completely miniscule, almost undetectable.
Yes, but it doesn't appear to be in this case. I'm not sure it's as high as 40% more, but I'm confident the difference in accident rates between LHD and RHD vehicles is not insignificant.

So you have less visibility when passing in an oncoming lane on a highway and left turning in heavy traffic. Why would a RHD user just simply not choose to not pass or wait until it was clear to left turn? Who could be dumb enough to not understand they shouldn't try and turn or pass when they can't fucking see.

That's the problem. You assume there aren't dumb drivers, but there are. Plenty of them. Maybe not you, maybe not me, and maybe not the majority of people here... but they are out there, and for those dumb drivers, the claim is they are more likely to get into an accident in a LHD vehicle than a RHD vehicle. Even for the good drivers, the risk overall is low, but I'm arguing that it's still higher in a RHD vehicle than a LHD vehicle.

I drive a RHD car, which is why my ass is sore over this, and the frequency that I have to be conservative in left turning is so rare. Take the number of times you're at intersections where there is frequently an obstructive car, subtract the amount of times that you just turn on a left turn signal there, subtract the amount of times there happens to be no obstruction in an opposing left turn lane, subtract the times that you're first in line to left turn and actually might have been able to go but didn't because you couldn't see anything, subtract the times that you piggypack on someone else who goes through a yellow, and finally subtract the number of times where all these conditions were met.. and there wasn't actually someone sitting behind you.

This number is obviously remarkably low. Left turn lanes that are often busy often have left turn signals, and if I'm at a busy intersection trying to left turn then it's probably so busy I can't turn without a yellow anyways. It's seriously such a rare scenario, that it might hold up traffic as much as someone who is just not aggressive and likes to be sure of their left turns, or just not focused on turning at the first opportunity because they're talking to a passenger or something.
You're taking this personally, which you shouldn't be. Nobody is saying that all drivers of RHD vehicles are incompetent. Not at all. The main problem is with the incompetent drivers. They are already at a higher risk to get into accidents period. The risk is even higher if you put them in a RHD vehicle.


Banning RHD cars because of safety or holding up traffic is pointless. It's such a drop in the bucket, and it denies enthusiasts of a lot of non-USDM cars what they want to own for such little reason.
Just to be clear, never once did I say I support the proposal of banning RHD vehicles. I'm just saying that it is most likely true that RHD vehicles get into accidents in a higher propotion than LHD vehicles.

[duy-]

i drive both rhd and lhd, cant tell the difference honestly... drive throughs are a bit harder because you have to lean over but clearly everyones exaggerating left turns or clearly do not daily RHD. its as hard to drive as automatic vs standard, which isnt hard at all, if anything its more fun. my only complaint is more tracks here are counter clockwise, its more annoying to see the apex

[underscore]

A 2007 study by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia found that drivers of RHD vehicles used here in B.C. are more than 40% more likely to be involved in a crash than those using "normal" left hand drive (LHD) vehicles. The risk appears to extend for the long term rather than being reduced by the driver becoming more familiar with using a right hand drive vehicle in a left hand drive environment.

Similar studies conducted in Britain where LHD vehicles regularly mix with RHD vehicles from the continent showed the same indications. Collisions appeared to be most common in turning, passing and lane changing situations. It is surmised that the increased risk of collision is a consequence of the reduced direct field of view for drivers to the side and rear that is more easily viewed by the majority.

Surmised: suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.

So they don't actually have any evidence to prove this, they're just guessing. That sounds like a really solid basis for writing laws upon.

I understand it's the same principals. But the fact that you have reduced visiblity makes it more difficult.

Your visibility isn't reduced, it's just different. There are times that you're able to see things in a RHD car that you aren't able to see if you're LHD.

I never said or implied educated, mature drivers aren't able to drive a RHD vehicle safely. The problem is you can't assume every single driver is this educated and mature.

Question: Given someone that is NOT that great of a driver and takes some unsafe risks, do you think he is more likely to get into an accident in a LHD vehicle or a RHD vehicle?

I'm pretty confident he would get into more accidents in a RHD vehicle

That's the problem. You assume there aren't dumb drivers, but there are. Plenty of them. Maybe not you, maybe not me, and maybe not the majority of people here... but they are out there, and for those dumb drivers, the claim is they are more likely to get into an accident in a LHD vehicle than a RHD vehicle. Even for the good drivers, the risk overall is low, but I'm arguing that it's still higher in a RHD vehicle than a LHD vehicle.

You're taking this personally, which you shouldn't be. Nobody is saying that all drivers of RHD vehicles are incompetent. Not at all. The main problem is with the incompetent drivers. They are already at a higher risk to get into accidents period. The risk is even higher if you put them in a RHD vehicle.

If the problem is the drivers then we should be focusing on making people better drivers/punishing the shit ones more severely, not dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator like society does for everything else these days. If someone is stupid enough to get into an accident caused by visibility in a RHD car, they're just as likely to get into an accident in a LHD car. It might not be the same accident, but eventually the bad habits will cause an accident.

edit: Alternative thought, instead of banning RHD vehicles, why not require an additional road test/license step for RHD? What additional training do posties and garbage men have? It'd be annoying but better than a firewall swap (which done incorrectly is probably more dangerous than a RHD car).

[InvisibleSoul]

Surmised: suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.

So they don't actually have any evidence to prove this, they're just guessing. That sounds like a really solid basis for writing laws upon.

Read it again.

A 2007 study by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia found that drivers of RHD vehicles used here in B.C. are more than 40% more likely to be involved in a crash than those using "normal" left hand drive (LHD) vehicles. The risk appears to extend for the long term rather than being reduced by the driver becoming more familiar with using a right hand drive vehicle in a left hand drive environment.

Similar studies conducted in Britain where LHD vehicles regularly mix with RHD vehicles from the continent showed the same indications. Collisions appeared to be most common in turning, passing and lane changing situations. It is surmised that the increased risk of collision is a consequence of the reduced direct field of view for drivers to the side and rear that is more easily viewed by the majority.

The surmised part is that the increased risk of collision is because of the reduced visibility. It is NOT saying that the INCREASED RISK or the 40% higher likelihood is surmised. Do you understand the difference?


Your visibility isn't reduced, it's just different. There are times that you're able to see things in a RHD car that you aren't able to see if you're LHD.
Sure, you would have a better view of a hot chick on the sidewalk. Seriously though, I would like to hear a specific example of where the view from the RHD perspective is beneficial over LHD.

If the problem is the drivers then we should be focusing on making people better drivers/punishing the shit ones more severely, not dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator like society does for everything else these days. If someone is stupid enough to get into an accident caused by visibility in a RHD car, they're just as likely to get into an accident in a LHD car. It might not be the same accident, but eventually the bad habits will cause an accident.
WRONG. They are NOT just as likely to get into an accident in a LHD car. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.

Nobody is saying they WON'T get into accidents in a LHD car. It's to say that they would get into even MORE accidents in a RHD car.

edit: Alternative thought, instead of banning RHD vehicles, why not require an additional road test/license step for RHD? What additional training do posties and garbage men have? It'd be annoying but better than a firewall swap (which done incorrectly is probably more dangerous than a RHD car).

Because it's not logically viable. Why not have speed tests to allow good drivers to drive 70kmph instead of 50kmph on city streets? I would love to have that. Will it ever happen? Nope. Too hard to enforce.

For the record, I have been driving for over sixteen years, and the only at fault accident I've been in was when I fell asleep at the wheel as a teenager.

[underscore]

Since we're sharing here I've been driving 9 years with zero accidents, the last 3 having been part time in a RHD car.

The surmised part is that the increased risk of collision is because of the reduced visibility. It is NOT saying that the INCREASED RISK or the 40% higher likelihood is surmised. Do you understand the difference?

Correlation vs causation, it's all well and good to say RHD vehicles are involved in 40% more crashes, but if you don't have any evidence that the 40% increase is actually caused by the cars being RHD what have you got?

I also looked into that ICBC study and found some other flaws:
- they used claims instead of accidents.
- they didn't record coverage held by the claimant, so people with complete coverage are shown more likely to have a collision than people with only liability coverage.
- they didn't include data on severity of collisions.
- they determined RHD as being everything imported.

A fair number of RHD imports are sports cars owned by car enthusiasts, who are 1) generally more likely to have full insurance, 2) more likely to make a claim if their car in damaged in any way, which will skew this study. Second, since they just went off import status, this includes US imports that are LHD, again skewing the study.

Sure, you would have a better view of a hot chick on the sidewalk. Seriously though, I would like to hear a specific example of where the view from the RHD perspective is beneficial over LHD.

For starters, any road with a slight curve to the right you can see more clearly around the vehicles in front of you. Parallel parking is easier and it's safer for RCMP officers.

Nobody is saying they WON'T get into accidents in a LHD car. It's to say that they would get into even MORE accidents in a RHD car.

Well considering how piddly the amount of RHD cars is that's hardly a significant increase anyways. I pulled some stats and here's what we've got:

According to gov't stats there are ~21M passenger vehicles in Canada, 95k of which are RHD. In BC there are ~2.7M passenger vehicles, which is ~12.8% of the vehicles in the country. Assuming we have approximately the same spread of RHD cars across the country that gives BC ~12k RHD cars, which make up just 0.44% of all the cars in BC. ICBC says there's 260k collisions in BC each year, so ~9.6% the cars in BC are involved in an accident each year (possibly less, I'm not sure if the 260k includes commercial vehicles as well).

If the accident stats for LHD and RHD were equal we'd have 1155 RHD accidents a year, ignoring the previously mentioned flaws adding 40% more crashes gives us 1618 RHD crashes a year. So that's an increase of 463 crashes per year by allowing RHD vehicles on the road, or a whopping 0.18% increase in crashes vs banning RHD.

Now I'm not sure where you guys went to school but I'm pretty sure 0.18% is jack fucking shit, that's probably even less than the rounding error in ICBC's crash numbers. And keep in mind those aren't all big accidents, this includes parking lot fender benders and people bumping into parked cars.

[ncrx]

the real reasons for icbc wanting the rhd cars off the road,
one market protection they are likely heavily lobbied by ppl such as jim pattison who have a stake in lost sales,
two its more expensive to fix when something specific needs to be imported

and the excuses of poor visibilty, thats more down to shitty driving skills, come out to autox, and i'll show u how poor your visibility skills are in a left hand drive or right hand drive car or in a kart

[InvisibleSoul]

Since we're sharing here I've been driving 9 years with zero accidents, the last 3 having been part time in a RHD car.
That's great. You didn't need to prove anything with your driving record to me, because this debate isn't about any one person, nor is the claim that some people can drive RHD without getting into accidents. I only shared mine because you seem to think I think it's harder driving a RHD because I'm a shitty driver.

Correlation vs causation, it's all well and good to say RHD vehicles are involved in 40% more crashes, but if you don't have any evidence that the 40% increase is actually caused by the cars being RHD what have you got?
:fulloffuck: What else could it be then?!


I also looked into that ICBC study and found some other flaws:
- they used claims instead of accidents.
- they didn't record coverage held by the claimant, so people with complete coverage are shown more likely to have a collision than people with only liability coverage.
- they didn't include data on severity of collisions.
- they determined RHD as being everything imported.
Do you have a link to this study?


For starters, any road with a slight curve to the right you can see more clearly around the vehicles in front of you.
Which is fully negated by roads with LHD vehicles on a slight curve to the left. Net additional benefit equals zero for a RHD vehicle.

Parallel parking is easier
... Sure, I guess? Not so sure it's much of a safety factor to be able to parallel park easier, but okay.

and it's safer for RCMP officers.
If you're talking about RCMP officers that are on the side of the road, not sure how legitimate this one is. I don't think most cops that get hit are because the driver misjudged how much space is between their car and the cop. I think most are either drunk or have lost control of their vehicle. I dunno, maybe cops do get hit slightly less with RHD than LHD. I doubt there are any statistics to support or refute the claim. However, I'll counter with LHD vehicles are safer for fast food windows, toll booths, and border agents.


Well considering how piddly the amount of RHD cars is that's hardly a significant increase anyways. I pulled some stats and here's what we've got:

According to gov't stats there are ~21M passenger vehicles in Canada, 95k of which are RHD. In BC there are ~2.7M passenger vehicles, which is ~12.8% of the vehicles in the country. Assuming we have approximately the same spread of RHD cars across the country that gives BC ~12k RHD cars, which make up just 0.44% of all the cars in BC. ICBC says there's 260k collisions in BC each year, so ~9.6% the cars in BC are involved in an accident each year (possibly less, I'm not sure if the 260k includes commercial vehicles as well).

If the accident stats for LHD and RHD were equal we'd have 1155 RHD accidents a year, ignoring the previously mentioned flaws adding 40% more crashes gives us 1618 RHD crashes a year. So that's an increase of 463 crashes per year by allowing RHD vehicles on the road, or a whopping 0.18% increase in crashes vs banning RHD.

Now I'm not sure where you guys went to school but I'm pretty sure 0.18% is jack fucking shit, that's probably even less than the rounding error in ICBC's crash numbers. And keep in mind those aren't all big accidents, this includes parking lot fender benders and people bumping into parked cars.
Great stats. I can't validate them, nor do I really care to. Your argument is flawed though. It doesn't matter that it's only 0.18% increase in the total number of crashes. It's only 0.18% because of the hugely disproportionate number of LHD vehicles vs RHD vehicles.

What if there are only 1000 RHD vehicles, and 10M LHD vehicles? Let's say the crash rate for LHD vehicles is 10%, but just an as example, the crash rate is 100% for RHD vehicles?

That means you'd expect there to be 1M crashes involving LHD vehicles, and 1000 (instead of 100) crashes involving RHD vehicles.

By your logic, that's only a 0.09% increase in the total number of crashes... but yet in this fictitious example, RHD vehicles are crashing 10x more than LHD vehicles. Should ICBC be looking at the 0.09% increase, or the 10x more crashes metric? Logically, it'd be the second one, which is the same case as the real life example, just not as extreme.

Oh, and I state again that I never said I am for the banning of RHD vehicles. Again, I'm just stating that RHD vehicles are in fact more likely to get into accidents than LHD vehicles. That's it, that's all.

[underscore]

That's great. You didn't need to prove anything with your driving record to me, because this debate isn't about any one person, nor is the claim that some people can drive RHD without getting into accidents. I only shared mine because you seem to think I think it's harder driving a RHD because I'm a shitty driver.

I never said you were a shitty driver, and seeing as you've never driven a RHD vehicle your history or views on such things are pretty much worthless.

:fulloffuck: What else could it be then?!

It could be a complete fluke for all ICBC knows. Because there are relatively few RHD vehicles here, each claim involving a RHD vehicle weighs more heavily into these stats. Like I showed above, it takes only a few hundred RHD claims to bump them from being equal to LHD up to being 40% more claims. Hell, they don't even mention if the RHD vehicles were considered at fault in those claims, just that there were claims made involving those cars (and to me that's a huge red flag on this whole "study").

Do you have a link to this study?

It's the same study you first brought up.

Which is fully negated by roads with LHD vehicles on a slight curve to the left. Net additional benefit equals zero for a RHD vehicle.

You asked for an example, I gave you one. Both sides of the roads will have pros and cons.

If you're talking about RCMP officers that are on the side of the road, not sure how legitimate this one is. I don't think most cops that get hit are because the driver misjudged how much space is between their car and the cop. I think most are either drunk or have lost control of their vehicle. I dunno, maybe cops do get hit slightly less with RHD than LHD. I doubt there are any statistics to support or refute the claim. However, I'll counter with LHD vehicles are safer for fast food windows, toll booths, and border agents.

I'm referring to officers that get hit by a second vehicle while at the window of the first one they pulled over, when they're talking to the driver of a RHD car they're on the shoulder instead of having cars whiz by their butt. There aren't going to be stats for that but it is going to be a safer place for them to be. I'm not sure what kind of drive thrus/toll booths/borders you go through but I doubt RHD vs LHD will affect "safety" at 2km/h.

Great stats. I can't validate them, nor do I really care to. Your argument is flawed though. It doesn't matter that it's only 0.18% increase in the total number of crashes. It's only 0.18% because of the hugely disproportionate number of LHD vehicles vs RHD vehicles.

Spend 3 minutes on Google and you can verify all those numbers. It does matter that it's only 0.18% when ICBC is using bullshit scare tactics calling it a 40% increase to try to justify banning such a small number of vehicles. Like I said before, due to the small number of RHD vehicles each claim involving one has a disproportionately large impact on the numbers the way that ICBC is looking at it.

What if

If you're going to go into what ifs and made up stats you can fuck right off. Sorry, but being willing to make up your own stats when you're unwilling to look at the ACTUAL NUMBER makes you sound like a fucking idiot.

Oh, and I state again that I never said I am for the banning of RHD vehicles. Again, I'm just stating that RHD vehicles are in fact more likely to get into accidents than LHD vehicles. That's it, that's all.

Even if the study from ICBC wasn't full of crap, it's still such a small number of vehicles that it only takes a handful of claims above the average to come to their conclusion. You can't use such a relatively small group to form conclusions the way ICBC has and say its very accurate.

[InvisibleSoul]

I never said you were a shitty driver, and seeing as you've never driven a RHD vehicle your history or views on such things are pretty much worthless.
Because sitting in the passenger seat of a LHD vehicle doesn't offer the same visibility perspective? I'm arguing that RHD has decreased visibility in general versus LHD, and is inherently less safe. I can't state this without having driven RHD before?

It could be a complete fluke for all ICBC knows. Because there are relatively few RHD vehicles here, each claim involving a RHD vehicle weighs more heavily into these stats. Like I showed above, it takes only a few hundred RHD claims to bump them from being equal to LHD up to being 40% more claims. Hell, they don't even mention if the RHD vehicles were considered at fault in those claims, just that there were claims made involving those cars (and to me that's a huge red flag on this whole "study").
I'm pretty sure the sample size is large enough that it's not a statistical anomaly.

I also don't know where you find that they are going by all claims instead of just crashes.

That study says:

Crashes were separated into culpable and non-culpable events from the perspective of the target driver. A culpable event was one in which the driver was assigned 50% or more of the responsibility during the subsequent claim adjustment process. Events where the driver was assigned less than 50% were classed as non-culpable.


You asked for an example, I gave you one. Both sides of the roads will have pros and cons.
If it wasn't actually obvious and I have to spell it out for you, it should be an example where there is a NET benefit.

Spend 3 minutes on Google and you can verify all those numbers. It does matter that it's only 0.18% when ICBC is using bullshit scare tactics calling it a 40% increase to try to justify banning such a small number of vehicles. Like I said before, due to the small number of RHD vehicles each claim involving one has a disproportionately large impact on the numbers the way that ICBC is looking at it.
Do you understand how statistics work? It doesn't MATTER that it's only 0.18% of the overall crashes. What does matter are the numbers for crashes involving RHD vehicles, and it is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than for LHD vehicles. If they are looking to reduce the number of crashes, even IF it's only a few hundred a year, wouldn't banning RHD vehicles be an easy way to achieve that?

If you're going to go into what ifs and made up stats you can fuck right off. Sorry, but being willing to make up your own stats when you're unwilling to look at the ACTUAL NUMBER makes you sound like a fucking idiot.
Obviously logic is not your strong suit, because this just went way over your head. The example is to prove WHY your argument isn't valid. It doesn't NEED to be real numbers in order to make that point.

[InvisibleSoul]

I am out of word. I'm skimming through the study for the first time, and I have no idea how you're coming up with some of these claims of trying to disprove it.

You said that they are including all imported vehicles in their stats, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

In September of 2006, ICBC began identifying imported RHD vehicles greater than 15 years of age. During the seven-month period up to the end of March, 2007 there were 1083 such vehicles of which 578 represented passenger vehicles with active policies. In order to obtain a larger sample which would be required in order to assess crash rates compared to LHD vehicles, the ICBC policy/vehicle records were searched to identify BC-assigned VINs for vehicles of model year (MY) 1986-1992.

All vehicles imported into BC from abroad are issued new VINs which begin with the character string “2BG”. These VINs are also issued for various “home-made” specialty vehicles such as kit-cars and so the list resulting from the search had to be reduced to include only recognizable Japanese and British makes of passenger vehicles which should be RHD. Then this reduced list was further restricted by eliminating those for which no policy existed or for which the first policy was earlier than 2001 (1986+15) or less than 15 years after the vehicle model year.

They did their best to only include vehicles that are RHD. Was it 100% accurate? Maybe not, but it is definitely not including all imported vehicles. Not even sure why you were arguing this point, because it would actually HELP your cause if they DID include more LHD imported vehicles, since the difference in crash statistics would be LOWER.

Regarding the statistics, not sure how much clearer it needs to be laid out for you.

http://i60.tinypic.com/1tk1oo.png

I'm no statistics major, so I can't say I understand the pages and pages of lead up to this chart, but I'm pretty sure this is proof that the difference seen between RHD and LHD vehicles is almost certainly not due to chance.

They have also tried removing as many variables as they could, and this is only for crashes, not just "claims".

RHD vehicles are 31% more likely to get into accidents than LHD vehicles.

There just aren't any ifs and buts about this.

[Tone Loc]

Yes, I suppose you CAN make that argument about any car... and it doesn't make it less valid. Maybe the new Corolla IS slightly more accident prone than an AE86 because of the slightly reduced visibility out of it. The difference here is that a RHD may be SIGNIFICANTLY more accident prone than a LHD vehicle, not just slightly.

I never said or implied educated, mature drivers aren't able to drive a RHD vehicle safely. The problem is you can't assume every single driver is this educated and mature.

I don't think we actually disagree... I too believe many drivers are immature, and I also believe that stupid people, and lack of common sense, is a leading factor in many collisions.

But like I said before, the "very visible" minority of people who drive performance-oriented (your Silvias, RX7's, Impreza WRX, Supras, Skylines, etc.) RHD vehicles are - not to generalize here - idiots. Drifting, hooning, racing, all the time. I drive a lot every day and I see this frequently. Not to mention a lot of them have N signs, and the entire N stage exists because people at that age/driving experience simply are at greater risk to crash.

What I am trying to say here is that the car itself isn't the problem - its the driver. Think about it, a car by itself is not, in and of itself, "dangerous".

Can you think of other, relatively normal, LHD vehicles that would be banned if that were the case, i.e, a few idiot drivers who ruin it for everyone? Here are a few:

Lifted domestic trucks
White Lexus SUVs
Any BMW
Any black car from Surrey with chrome wheels 20" in size or larger
Toyota Prius

Perhaps instead of going on about how RHD cars are 'bad', we could make people take a driving test in one before they can insure it... or flat out increase driver education and awareness, something I find in BC is sorely lacking.

[InvisibleSoul]

What I am trying to say here is that the car itself isn't the problem - its the driver. Think about it, a car by itself is not, in and of itself, "dangerous".
It's a combination of the driver and the car, and it doesn't only apply to RHD vehicles. Maybe high performance vehicles with 500HP are more likely to get into accidents as well. I don't know if this is true or not, but it could be. The problem applies to both good drivers and bad drivers, but the issue is magnified for bad drivers.

Let's say you're a good driver, and the chance of you getting into a single crash in 10 years of driving is 10% in a LHD vehicle. Let's say the risk only marginally increases to 14% in a RHD vehicle. Odds are you won't get into any accidents regardless of whether you drive a LHD or a RHD vehicle. There's a slight increase in risk, but overall it's still low.

The bigger problem is with the bad drivers. Let's say on average they get into two crashes every 10 years in a LHD vehicle. With the same 40% increase, they are likely to get into three crashes in the same 10 year period. Basically, the argument would be that one crash per bad driver could be reduced every ten years by banning RHD vehicles.

Perhaps instead of going on about how RHD cars are 'bad', we could make people take a driving test in one before they can insure it... or flat out increase driver education and awareness, something I find in BC is sorely lacking.
I already addressed this one, and while this sounds like a logical solution, but it's not practical. It's just not going to happen. They would rather just ban RHD vehicles than come up with a seprate licensing system to allow it.

[underscore]

Because sitting in the passenger seat of a LHD vehicle doesn't offer the same visibility perspective? I'm arguing that RHD has decreased visibility in general versus LHD, and is inherently less safe. I can't state this without having driven RHD before?

Sitting on the passenger side of a LHD car really isn't the same thing since you're not driving, actually driving a car from that side is different from being a passenger (just like being a RHD passenger is different from being a LHD driver). Again the visibility isn't decreased, it's just different, but if visibility is the real concern then why not also go after LHD vehicles with relatively poor visibility?

I'm pretty sure the sample size is large enough that it's not a statistical anomaly.

Out of 260,000 incidents/year, it only takes a couple hundred to make RHD appear higher than LHD. I'm not saying that it's just an anomaly, but that is a possibility when the numbers sit like that.

Do you understand how statistics work? It doesn't MATTER that it's only 0.18% of the overall crashes. What does matter are the numbers for crashes involving RHD vehicles, and it is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than for LHD vehicles. If they are looking to reduce the number of crashes, even IF it's only a few hundred a year, wouldn't banning RHD vehicles be an easy way to achieve that?

Yes the 0.18% is the part that matters, since they're considering this for "safety" reasons going after something that contributes less than the rounding error in the stats is fucking stupid. If they do ban RHD vehicles, and they decrease claims by 0.18%, do you think that's significant in ANY way whatsoever? Because it really, really doesn't mean jack shit.

You said that they are including all imported vehicles in their stats, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

They did their best to only include vehicles that are RHD. Was it 100% accurate? Maybe not, but it is definitely not including all imported vehicles. Not even sure why you were arguing this point, because it would actually HELP your cause if they DID include more LHD imported vehicles, since the difference in crash statistics would be LOWER.

In September of 2006, ICBC began identifying imported RHD vehicles greater than 15 years of age. During the seven-month period up to the end of March, 2007 there were 1083 such vehicles of which 578 represented passenger vehicles with active policies. In order to obtain a larger sample which would be required in order to assess crash rates compared to LHD vehicles, the ICBC policy/vehicle records were searched to identify BC-assigned VINs for vehicles of model year (MY) 1986-1992.

All vehicles imported into BC from abroad are issued new VINs which begin with the character string “2BG”. These VINs are also issued for various “home-made” specialty vehicles such as kit-cars and so the list resulting from the search had to be reduced to include only recognizable Japanese and British makes of passenger vehicles which should be RHD. Then this reduced list was further restricted by eliminating those for which no policy existed or for which the first policy was earlier than 2001 (1986+15) or less than 15 years after the vehicle model year.

Since the insurance papers say "RHD" on them, ICBC *should* already know what's RHD and what isn't, why did ICBC have to pull a bunch of shenanigans to guess at a number? They knew they only had 578 cars to check, yet they added the part in bold which would have included any cars imported that were a Japanese or UK make, ie if someone brought in a Toyota they just assumed it was RHD and added it to their count.

Using that to correct my rough math the accidents are even lower, by banning RHD vehicles they would prevent a measly 22 claims a year. Out of 260k. Congrats, they could reduce accident claims by 0.008%. That of course also means it only takes that small number of accidents to skew the results one way or the other.

[InvisibleSoul]

Again the visibility isn't decreased, it's just different
You're fucking kidding me, right? You refuse to even admit it's harder to see the oncoming traffic in a RHD vehicle when you're trying to turn left?

but if visibility is the real concern then why not also go after LHD vehicles with relatively poor visibility?
If they can prove that these vehicles also have a significantly similar higher rate of crashes, then maybe they should.

Out of 260,000 incidents/year, it only takes a couple hundred to make RHD appear higher than LHD. I'm not saying that it's just an anomaly, but that is a possibility when the numbers sit like that.
STATISTICS. 95% confidence interval means it is very unlikely that it's an anomaly.

Yes the 0.18% is the part that matters, since they're considering this for "safety" reasons going after something that contributes less than the rounding error in the stats is fucking stupid. If they do ban RHD vehicles, and they decrease claims by 0.18%, do you think that's significant in ANY way whatsoever? Because it really, really doesn't mean jack shit.
Obviously you still don't get it.

Yes, it is significant, because they easily just prevented an additional few hundred crashes per year or whatever it is. Do you have an easier way to reduce the number of crashes by a few hundred per year?

Since the insurance papers say "RHD" on them, ICBC *should* already know what's RHD and what isn't, why did ICBC have to pull a bunch of shenanigans to guess at a number? They knew they only had 578 cars to check, yet they added the part in bold which would have included any cars imported that were a Japanese or UK make, ie if someone brought in a Toyota they just assumed it was RHD and added it to their count.

Please improve your reading comprehension.

In September of 2006, ICBC began identifying imported RHD vehicles greater than 15 years of age. During the seven-month period up to the end of March, 2007 there were 1083 such vehicles of which 578 represented passenger vehicles with active policies. In order to obtain a larger sample which would be required in order to assess crash rates compared to LHD vehicles, the ICBC policy/vehicle records were searched to identify BC-assigned VINs for vehicles of model year (MY) 1986-1992. All vehicles imported into BC from abroad are issued new VINs which begin with the character string “2BG”. These VINs are also issued for various “home-made” specialty vehicles such as kit-cars and so the list resulting from the search had to be reduced to include only recognizable Japanese and British makes of passenger vehicles which should be RHD. Then this reduced list was further restricted by eliminating those for which no policy existed or for which the first policy was earlier than 2001 (1986+15) or less than 15 years after the vehicle model year.

ICBC only started putting RHD on the insurance papers of cars imported after 2006. The "shenanigans" they pulled were to try to identify all of the RHD cars that were imported before 2006.

Make sense?!

[right angle]

I

http://i60.tinypic.com/1tk1oo.png

I'm no statistics major, so I can't say I understand the pages and pages of lead up to this chart, but I'm pretty sure this is proof that the difference seen between RHD and LHD vehicles is almost certainly not due to chance.

They have also tried removing as many variables as they could, and this is only for crashes, not just "claims".

RHD vehicles are 31% more likely to get into accidents than LHD vehicles.

There just aren't any ifs and buts about this.

you don't have to be a stats major, just take a 100 level course.

The numbers here are much less certain that you assert them to be. The data given reads as follows:

"There is a 95% chance that the average rate of crashes for a RHD vehicle is within the range of 1.09-1.56" So.. there's a 5% chance the true rate isn't actually in this range, and to say what it actually is for certain is actually not really asserted, it's just in that range. This isn't to say that the data is useless but I'd just like to see it interpreted correctly.

I think it should be unsurprising that this is a fact. RHD is worse than LHD in a couple situations in traffic. But the real crux of the problem is that the smallness of the number of RHD cars that actually do drive our roads is low enough such that it's not justifiable to ban them.

When you outlaw anything you're restricting the freedom of a citizen to do something that can have value. Obviously in any reasonable society we agree that we should trade some freedom (such as using certain drugs, or taking other people's possessions) for security/stability/safety/etc etc.

A lot of RHD cars fall into this "grey-area" of value to the individuals that enjoy the right to own/use these, and the affect it has on the society. Alcohol is a clear analogy. If no one ever drank alcohol, there would be no alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, alcohol addictions, violent drunken behavior, etc. but the amount that people actually enjoy alcohol outweighs these negative side effects. People have fun, get together, business is done, etc. Other clear analogies are motorcycles and fast motorcycles.

RHD cars are no different. There are really not that many, so the actual net effect they have on accidents rates is so small that banning them is just pointlessly restrictive to the people that want to have them.

[death_blossom]

did the survey, gotta practice due diligence to keep the scene alive.

[Timpo]

What about center steering wheel? Are they gonna ban these cars as well?
Because there are so many center steering cars out there, here are few examples.

Tramontana R
http://noticias.coches.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/tramontana-r4.jpg

Peel P45
https://jimoncars.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/p45.jpg

Tango T600
http://cdn.greenoptions.com/7/78/789dbd86_tangojuly10sf.jpg

HTT Plethore
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8032/7974244762_e8ec43dcea_o.jpg

Nissan New Mobility
http://car.watch.impress.co.jp/img/car/docs/484/059/n01.jpg

BAC Mono
http://cdn2.autoexpress.co.uk/sites/autoexpressuk/files/styles/gallery/public/8-bac-and-radical-town-tracking.jpg

McLaren F1
http://www.thesupercars.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/mclaren-f1-variations.jpg

Bizzarrini Manta
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/2990-1.jpg

Formula Ford
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmZMwk14r4c/maxresdefault.jpg

[InvisibleSoul]

you don't have to be a stats major, just take a 100 level course.

The numbers here are much less certain that you assert them to be. The data given reads as follows:

"There is a 95% chance that the average rate of crashes for a RHD vehicle is within the range of 1.09-1.56" So.. there's a 5% chance the true rate isn't actually in this range, and to say what it actually is for certain is actually not really asserted, it's just in that range. This isn't to say that the data is useless but I'd just like to see it interpreted correctly.

I think it should be unsurprising that this is a fact. RHD is worse than LHD in a couple situations in traffic. But the real crux of the problem is that the smallness of the number of RHD cars that actually do drive our roads is low enough such that it's not justifiable to ban them.

When you outlaw anything you're restricting the freedom of a citizen to do something that can have value. Obviously in any reasonable society we agree that we should trade some freedom (such as using certain drugs, or taking other people's possessions) for security/stability/safety/etc etc.

A lot of RHD cars fall into this "grey-area" of value to the individuals that enjoy the right to own/use these, and the affect it has on the society. Alcohol is a clear analogy. If no one ever drank alcohol, there would be no alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, alcohol addictions, violent drunken behavior, etc. but the amount that people actually enjoy alcohol outweighs these negative side effects. People have fun, get together, business is done, etc. Other clear analogies are motorcycles and fast motorcycles.

RHD cars are no different. There are really not that many, so the actual net effect they have on accidents rates is so small that banning them is just pointlessly restrictive to the people that want to have them.

Thanks for the level-headed response. So I believe the correct interpretation is there is a 95% likelihood that RHD vehicles are somewhere between 9% to 56% more likely to be involved in a crash than LHD vehicles.

There is a 5% likelihood that it is somewhere outside of that range, but even in the 95% likelihood of it being in that range, it can't be ascertained exactly what the real percentage is between 9% and 56%.

[Tone Loc]

The problem applies to both good drivers and bad drivers, but the issue is magnified for bad drivers.

Let's say you're a good driver, and the chance of you getting into a single crash in 10 years of driving is 10% in a LHD vehicle. Let's say the risk only marginally increases to 14% in a RHD vehicle. Odds are you won't get into any accidents regardless of whether you drive a LHD or a RHD vehicle. There's a slight increase in risk, but overall it's still low.

The bigger problem is with the bad drivers. Let's say on average they get into two crashes every 10 years in a LHD vehicle. With the same 40% increase, they are likely to get into three crashes in the same 10 year period. Basically, the argument would be that one crash per bad driver could be reduced every ten years by banning RHD vehicles.


Exactly, so the problem - irrespective of whether we agree or not on the status of RHD vehicles - is bad and/or stupid drivers. Let's face it, our speed limits in certain areas are stupidly low, why? Police cite the fact that a small, but visible, minority of bad drivers ruin it for everybody. The "risk" posed by RHD vehicles is no different.

Personally, increased driver education and increased difficulty in getting/keeping a license would help decrease stats across the board, not just between RHD or LHD cars. I don't think anyone disagrees that a RHD car is inherently at a disadvantage due to the difference in driver position, but we can't let shitty drivers ruin another good thing... :(

If we had to slow all progress down so the slowest, stupidest, and, to borrow a term from Darwin, "unfit" would survive, we wouldn't ever get anywhere. Just my $0.02

[twitchyzero]

What about center steering wheel? Are they gonna ban these cars as well?
Because there are so many center steering cars out there

you just went full Timpo, never go full Timpo :eek5x:

[Godzira]

did the survey, gotta practice due diligence to keep the scene alive.

thank you! This is all I wanted.

[InvisibleSoul]

Exactly, so the problem - irrespective of whether we agree or not on the status of RHD vehicles - is bad and/or stupid drivers. Let's face it, our speed limits in certain areas are stupidly low, why? Police cite the fact that a small, but visible, minority of bad drivers ruin it for everybody. The "risk" posed by RHD vehicles is no different. Personally, increased driver education and increased difficulty in getting/keeping a license would help decrease stats across the board, not just between RHD or LHD cars.
I completely agree with what you just said. The authorities have to set the rules based on what makes sense for the bad drivers. Basically, banning RHD vehicles is one way to stop bad drivers from getting into even more accidents than they normally would with a LHD vehicle. In a perfect world, people would all have different rules according to their skill set and driving records, but unfortunately this isn't feasible to enforce, so it can't ever be implemented.

I don't think anyone disagrees that a RHD car is inherently at a disadvantage due to the difference in driver position, but we can't let shitty drivers ruin another good thing... :(
Well, underscore seems to disagree that a RHD vehicle is at a disadvantage.

[rriggi]

I just got my R32 a few days ago and I really don't see what this left turn fuss is about any more. Just a note I've driven LHD my entire life...

For years I have been heard it time and time again that left turns are impossible, dangerous etc etc and it really isn't. First, if you pay attention to oncoming traffic there isn't any real added risk, and I find it actually easier to see pedestrians crossing the street than I do in an LHD in a left turn situation because of the A pillar and my point of view.

Just use your brain and don't pull all the way into the intersection. I don't care if the argument is that not all drivers are that smart, if you aren't that intelligent to minimise that only real handicap that RHD really has, then you probably shouldn't be driving an RHD. I found by not pulling up all the way, it gives you a good enough visual range to safely judge a turn that you can make.

I feel so much better driving RHD on Lions Gate Bridge though, ban or not ill just register the car elsewhere..

[underscore]

Yes, it is significant, because they easily just prevented an additional few hundred crashes per year or whatever it is. Do you have an easier way to reduce the number of crashes by a few hundred per year?

It was 22 based on the numbers when they did the survey in 2007. Twenty-fucking-two. Out of 260,000. AKA sweet fuck all.

ICBC only started putting RHD on the insurance papers of cars imported after 2006. The "shenanigans" they pulled were to try to identify all of the RHD cars that were imported before 2006.

Make sense?!

No, it doesn't, because you're not even close to reading that correctly.

[CA_FTW]

That ICBC study was proven in-accurate.
http://import-era.com/attachments/assessment-of-the-icbc-report-regarding-the-safety-of-right-pdf.216/

[Phil@rise]

I knew that was going to be the argument. The bottom line is driving a RHD car is more difficult and inherently more prone to accidents because of the reduced visibility.

So are wider over narrower cars, longer over shorter cars, taller over lower cars. the point is a good driver aware of their cars inherit weakness or limitations drives accordingly.
If trends like this continue against our motoring privileges it wont be long till we are all driving the same foam lined auto piloted eggs with the only difference between them being colour.

[Godzira]

the link goes to a log in page can you screen shot ? I'd like to see what it says

[InvisibleSoul]

So are wider over narrower cars, longer over shorter cars, taller over lower cars. the point is a good driver aware of their cars inherit weakness or limitations drives accordingly.
If trends like this continue against our motoring privileges it wont be long till we are all driving the same foam lined auto piloted eggs with the only difference between them being colour.
Again, I never said I am supporting any proposed ban on RHD vehicles.

If any single one of those other factors are proven to be significantly more likely to get into accidents as well, then a case could be made against them too.

[InvisibleSoul]

No, it doesn't, because you're not even close to reading that correctly.

Okay, arguing against stupidity is fruitless.

We're done here.

[lowside67]

I think they should ban all drivers who can't parallel park with a maximum of 1 correction, drive a manual transmission, or run a 1:30 or faster at Mission Raceway's road course, but that's just me.

I have no opinion on whether or not we should ban RHD cars having not read the research, if they are truly not more likely to be in an accident, then I would support not banning them. With that said, to suggest that a RHD car is not disadvantaged when making a left turn with a car opposite doing the same is just silly.

-Mark

[Godzira]

they should just make a rhd vehicle only lane :P
only rhd gets to be in the lane and we go as fast as we want and no cops are allowed to say anything.

[right angle]

I just got my R32 a few days ago and I really don't see what this left turn fuss is about any more. Just a note I've driven LHD my entire life...

For years I have been heard it time and time again that left turns are impossible, dangerous etc etc and it really isn't. First, if you pay attention to oncoming traffic there isn't any real added risk, and I find it actually easier to see pedestrians crossing the street than I do in an LHD in a left turn situation because of the A pillar and my point of view.

Just use your brain and don't pull all the way into the intersection. I don't care if the argument is that not all drivers are that smart, if you aren't that intelligent to minimise that only real handicap that RHD really has, then you probably shouldn't be driving an RHD. I found by not pulling up all the way, it gives you a good enough visual range to safely judge a turn that you can make.

I feel so much better driving RHD on Lions Gate Bridge though, ban or not ill just register the car elsewhere..

You'll notice it eventually when you're trying to left turn and there's a huge truck trying to left turn across the intersection from you. Especially when you're turning across a multi-laned road. Trying to left turn onto willingdon from Kingsway for example. It's rare though.

[PandaDog]

That feel when you see a huge truck waiting to make a left turn at an intersection, and you're in a tiny LHD vehicle waiting to make a left turn as well :badpokerface:

Anyways, with regards to banning RHD I don't have much of an opinion. If you fuck up a left turn at an intersection and cause a collision, it's your fault - it shouldn't matter whether or not you're driving a LHD or RHD vehicle if you aren't certain making the turn is safe then don't do it.

[Phil@rise]

I think they should ban all drivers who can't parallel park with a maximum of 1 correction, drive a manual transmission, or run a 1:30 or faster at Mission Raceway's road course, but that's just me.

I have no opinion on whether or not we should ban RHD cars having not read the research, if they are truly not more likely to be in an accident, then I would support not banning them. With that said, to suggest that a RHD car is not disadvantaged when making a left turn with a car opposite doing the same is just silly.

-Mark

Its at a total disadvantage but a good responsible driver makes adjustments to their driving habits to accommodate such disadvantages much like SUV drivers do over their car counterparts

[CA_FTW]

Oops my link is member only..

here is the text from the report: (I just used OCR to get it so its not perfect)

Assessment of the ICBC Report Regarding the Safety of Right
Hand Drive Vehicles in BC
Mohua Podder, PhD and Rick White, M.Sc.
Statistical Consulting and Research Laboratory
Department of Statistics
University of British Columbia
6356 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, BC
March 26, 2010

1 Introduction
This report evaluates the analyses done by ICBC in their report titled “The Safety of Right-HandDrive
Vehicles in British Columbia”. The request for the evaluation came from the Imported
Vehicle Owners Association of Canada (IVOAC). The number of right-hand-drive (RHD) vehicles
being imported into Canada over the past few years has been increasing. Imported vehicles over
15 years old are exempt from the requirement of having a manufacturers plate or letter stating
that the vehicle is compliant with the Canadian motor vehicle safety standards. This allows RHD
vehicles to retain their RHD control configuration. The belief is that potential issues related to
these vehicles might lead to a greater accident risk for operators of RHD vehicles and people in
RHD vehicles might be more severely injured than people in LHD vehicles.
ICBC conducted a study in order to assess the safety issues of RHD vehicles in BC and published
a report in early 2008. The main purpose of the study was to compare RHD to LHD vehicles in
terms of their risk of crash involvement and their occupant protection potential. The study applied
three different methodologies to try to answer these questions: a Relative Risk Analysis comparing
RHD and LHD culpable crash rates for the same group of drivers; a Survival Analysis to compare
the time to first culpable crash between drivers of RHD and LHD vehicles; and a Poisson Regression
Analysis to compare the risk of RHD vehicles to a similar group of LHD vehicles and their drivers.


2 Data Issues
The data for all three analyses were obtained from the ICBC crash-claim data. Does this database
accurately reflect all crashes in BC or just those that are reported? Drivers may choose not to
report their crash to avoid an increase in insurance rates because the value of the vehicle is low
or the repair is inexpensive relative to the increased insurance cost, perhaps the driver doesn’t
have the appropriate insurance coverage. If the tendency to not report a crash is related to the
drive configuration of the vehicle, it may introduce a bias in the data that could be reflected in the
analyses.
All three analyses rely on the definition of culpability. A vehicle is culpable in a crash if it is
assigned at least 50% of the responsibility during the claim adjustment process. Is blame assigned
by objective criteria or is there a subjective component? If the assignment of responsibility is
affected by the drive configuration of the cars involved in the crash then all analyses based on this
definition will be inherently biased. The assignment must be based on the circumstances of the
crash only. That means if a LHD car involved in a crash is deemed non-culpable then that status
would not change if that car had been a RHD vehicle.

3 Relative Risk Analysis
The first method used looks at the relative risk of culpable crashes to non-culpable crashes between
RHD and LHD vehicles operated by the same driver. This method compares crashes within drivers
to control for driver differences. All drivers involved in crashes while operating a RHD vehicle
since 2001 were included in the analysis. In addition the principal operators (POs) of these RHD
vehicles, if not already included, were selected to provide a set of drivers not involved in a crash
while driving a RHD vehicle. The complete crash history of each driver since 2001 was used in the
analysis. Each crash was classified as culpable or non-culpable from the target driver’s perspective.
After applying several constraints to the data, 359 crashes for RHD and 1204 crashes for LHD
vehicles were identified. Of the 1204 LHD vehicle crashes, 324 were from drivers with RHD vehicle
crashes and 880 were from the RHD PO group, the drivers without a crash while driving a
RHD vehicle. The total number of drivers in each group is not mentioned. A cross tabulation of
culpable/non-culpable crashes versus RHD/LHD vehicle was created. A Chi-squared test of independence
was used to determine if the type of crash was associated with the drive configuration
2of the vehicle. This analysis assumes that all events in the table are independent events not connected
by any other factor whereas here we actually have several 2x2 tables, one for each driver.
The data within each table depends on a specific driver but the tables themselves are independent.
In essence, we have a stratified sample. In order to perform the Pearson’s Chi-squared test for
independence, the stratification is ignored and the individual 2x2 tables are summed across drivers
to make a single 2x2 table. A more appropriate analysis for this type of data would account for the
stratification within the data. A possible analysis method would be the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
test.
Another possible concern for this data is if two vehicles involved in the same accident are
included in the data. This is probably a rare event and therefore a minor concern but should
probably be checked. The 2x2 tables for any drivers involved in the same accident would no longer
be independent and the analysis would need to be adjusted accordingly.

4 Survival Analysis
The second method of analysis uses a Cox proportional hazard regression model to compare the
instantaneous crash rate of RHD and LHD vehicles after they are first insured. The response data
is the time to a culpable crash following the initial insurance policy purchase by a PO for each
vehicle. The model has the advantage of including all vehicles even those that never had a culpable
crash over the course of the study. In addition, the model can also include adjustments for other
factors that might modulate the effect. In this analysis data were collected from “all RHD POs
aged 20 years and older at the time of first policy and all vehicles (RHD and LHD) for which
they were listed as POs”. Only culpable crashes were included as an event. Age and gender were
included as adjustments in the final model.
The sampling method described in section 2.2 sounds like a small set of POs was selected for
the analysis, each having been a PO of several vehicles of which at least one was a RHD vehicle.
The description of the analysis in section 3.2 implies a different set of drivers was included. Section
3.2 claims “A total of 23717 drivers were included in the analysis of which 2882 were associated
with RHD vehicles”. This section also describes the results in terms of vehicles. It is not clear who
has been sampled or what is being modeled here. Is it time to first culpable crash of a driver or
vehicle? Are multiple vehicles of the same driver or PO included in the model? Without a clear
description of the sampling scheme or data being collected, it is hard to comment on the methods.
3If the data is time to first culpable crash of a vehicle and several vehicles are associated with
the same PO, a correlation structure is induced into the data which needs to be adjusted for in
the model. Another concern with POs having multiple vehicles is they may split their time at risk
between their vehicles which further complicates the analysis. If we think of POs as a stratification
variable, a stratified Cox model can be applied to deal with some of these issues.
Ignoring the stratification issue, the analysis assumes that each vehicle is at risk at all times
when in fact a vehicle is only at risk when it is being driven. A vehicle driven 5 days a week is
more likely to have a crash than one driven once a week. The crash risk of a vehicle is also affected
by where and when it is driven. A vehicle driven in rush hour on Monday morning probably has a
different risk than one driven on Sunday morning, as would a vehicle driven in downtown Vancouver
compared to one driven in White Rock. Is there a way to guarantee that RHD vehicles are driven
the same amount of time, under the same conditions and locations as LHD vehicles? If not, what
is the affect of these factors on the results?
Age and Gender were included in the model as covariates. It is unclear if the effects presented in
Table 3 are from a model that contains only main effects or one that contains interactions with RHD
vehicles. As main effects, they modulate both the LHD and RHD crash rates. So all statements
pertaining to the effect of age and gender on RHD vehicles apply equally to LHD vehicles. A model
with interaction allows separate age and gender effects to be estimated and compared for the RHD
and LHD vehicles. The report states that the RHD vehicle group contained more males and was
younger. This causes partial confounding between age, gender and RHD vehicles. Confounding
affects the model estimates especially in a model with only main effects. The model estimates
the crash rate to be higher for males and younger drivers. Confounding may cause the model to
attribute some of these effects to RHD vehicles.

5 Poisson Regression Analysis
In the final analysis, a Poisson Regression model is used to compare the crash rates between RHD
vehicles and a group of similar LHD vehicles. A RHD group consisting of 748 vehicles, was identified
and a LHD group consisting of 8933 vehicles, was selected by model, make, year and body style so
the proportion of vehicles in that group matched the proportions in the RHD group. The response
data is the number of crash-claims in a two year period following the date of a PO’s first policy
with that vehicle. Each crash was classified as injury or material damage only and culpable or
4non-culpable. Covariates considered in the model were gender, age, region (lower mainland or not),
speeding contraventions and non-speeding contraventions.
The main concern of the model is to compare the crash rate between RHD and LHD vehicles.
However matching model-year-style in vehicles does not guarantee that both RHD and LHD vehicles
are exposed to equal amount of driving time or are driven in the same locations or in the same
traffic conditions. The confounding affect of gender and age with RHD vehicle operation also affects
a Poisson regression model in a similar fashion as a Cox model. The distribution and effects for
region and traffic contraventions is not presented in the report.
Another concern with Poisson regression models is overdispersion in the response data. If the
counts are overdispersed than an overdispersed Poisson or Negative Binomial regression model
needs to be fitted otherwise the standard errors of the effects will be underestimated and effect
significance will be overstated. The report does not indicate if overdispersion was checked in the
model.
The analysis is done by vehicle not by driver. The Poisson regression model assumes the data
for each vehicle is independent from each other. However a vehicle can have many drivers and a
driver can operate many vehicles. This may introduce a correlation between the vehicles if the same
driver operated more than one vehicle in the study. If there are many such drivers, the induced
correlation could become an issue for this model as well.
The report says principal operators were also examined to investigate the differences between
RHD and LHD vehicles at the driver level but it doesn’t explain how this is done. Does a RHD
driver always operate a RHD vehicle? If not, how is a crash in a LHD vehicle by a RHD driver
dealt with in the analysis?

6 Summary
There are several issues that could affect the results of the study conducted by ICBC in the report
“The Safety of Right-Hand-Drive Vehicles in British Columbia”. It is possible the conclusion would
remain unchanged even after these issues were resolved but we do not know without actually doing
those analyses.
Reporting a crash to ICBC is not mandatory if an insurance claim is not made. Are the factors
5that affect the tendency to make a claim related to the drive configuration of the vehicle? How is
blame assigned in a crash claim? If blame assignment has a subjective component, is it related to
drive configuration of the vehicle? If either is related to drive configuration then the data contains
a bias that could affect the results of any analysis based on the data and may not reflect the true
risk of a culpable crash of LHD or RHD vehicles in the province as a whole.
In addition to data issues, there are some issues with the analyses themselves. The relative
risk analysis completely ignores the repeated measures within each subject. This analysis is easily
corrected by using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test instead of a Chi-squared test. There is also a
minor issue of some data coming from the same crash but this is probably a rare event and will
have little impact on the results.
The problems with the other two analyses are more subtle and technical. The drive configuration
of the vehicle was not evenly distributed between gender and age. Although the model adjusted for
these factors, imbalance can still affect the estimates in the model. If the data had been matched
on age and gender, the results would be more trustworthy. A stratified or paired analysis might
then be more appropriate in these cases. A More subtle issue is risk exposure. A vehicle is only at
risk of a culpable crash when it is driven. The risk exposure also depends on driving locations and
conditions. A vehicle driven to work every day during rush hour is at greater risk than one driven
once a week on Sunday morning. It is unclear if adequate data can be obtained to adjust for these
factors but they could have a big impact on the results. Drivers using multiple vehicles or vehicles
driven by multiple drivers is another issue. This introduce a correlation into the data that needs
to be taken into account. If there are several such vehicles or drivers in the data and the repeated
measures are properly adjusted for, the results of the analyses could be quite different. Again it is
unclear if such data is available.
Overall, the ICBC report suggests that RHD vehicles and their operators are at a greater risk
than their LHD counterparts but issues with the data and the analyses suggest that further study
is needed. Causation is difficult to establish with observational data. I would caution the use of
the ICBC report as anything more than an indication that further study is needed.
6

[Tone Loc]

Oops my link is member only..

here is the text from the report: (I just used OCR to get it so its not perfect)

Assessment of the ICBC Report Regarding the Safety of Right
Hand Drive Vehicles in BC
Mohua Podder, PhD and Rick White, M.Sc.
Statistical Consulting and Research Laboratory
Department of Statistics
University of British Columbia
6356 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, BC
March 26, 2010

1 Introduction
This report evaluates the analyses done by ICBC in their report titled “The Safety of Right-HandDrive
Vehicles in British Columbia”. The request for the evaluation came from the Imported
Vehicle Owners Association of Canada (IVOAC). The number of right-hand-drive (RHD) vehicles
being imported into Canada over the past few years has been increasing. Imported vehicles over
15 years old are exempt from the requirement of having a manufacturers plate or letter stating
that the vehicle is compliant with the Canadian motor vehicle safety standards. This allows RHD
vehicles to retain their RHD control configuration. The belief is that potential issues related to
these vehicles might lead to a greater accident risk for operators of RHD vehicles and people in
RHD vehicles might be more severely injured than people in LHD vehicles.
ICBC conducted a study in order to assess the safety issues of RHD vehicles in BC and published
a report in early 2008. The main purpose of the study was to compare RHD to LHD vehicles in
terms of their risk of crash involvement and their occupant protection potential. The study applied
three different methodologies to try to answer these questions: a Relative Risk Analysis comparing
RHD and LHD culpable crash rates for the same group of drivers; a Survival Analysis to compare
the time to first culpable crash between drivers of RHD and LHD vehicles; and a Poisson Regression
Analysis to compare the risk of RHD vehicles to a similar group of LHD vehicles and their drivers.


2 Data Issues
The data for all three analyses were obtained from the ICBC crash-claim data. Does this database
accurately reflect all crashes in BC or just those that are reported? Drivers may choose not to
report their crash to avoid an increase in insurance rates because the value of the vehicle is low
or the repair is inexpensive relative to the increased insurance cost, perhaps the driver doesn’t
have the appropriate insurance coverage. If the tendency to not report a crash is related to the
drive configuration of the vehicle, it may introduce a bias in the data that could be reflected in the
analyses.
All three analyses rely on the definition of culpability. A vehicle is culpable in a crash if it is
assigned at least 50% of the responsibility during the claim adjustment process. Is blame assigned
by objective criteria or is there a subjective component? If the assignment of responsibility is
affected by the drive configuration of the cars involved in the crash then all analyses based on this
definition will be inherently biased. The assignment must be based on the circumstances of the
crash only. That means if a LHD car involved in a crash is deemed non-culpable then that status
would not change if that car had been a RHD vehicle.

3 Relative Risk Analysis
The first method used looks at the relative risk of culpable crashes to non-culpable crashes between
RHD and LHD vehicles operated by the same driver. This method compares crashes within drivers
to control for driver differences. All drivers involved in crashes while operating a RHD vehicle
since 2001 were included in the analysis. In addition the principal operators (POs) of these RHD
vehicles, if not already included, were selected to provide a set of drivers not involved in a crash
while driving a RHD vehicle. The complete crash history of each driver since 2001 was used in the
analysis. Each crash was classified as culpable or non-culpable from the target driver’s perspective.
After applying several constraints to the data, 359 crashes for RHD and 1204 crashes for LHD
vehicles were identified. Of the 1204 LHD vehicle crashes, 324 were from drivers with RHD vehicle
crashes and 880 were from the RHD PO group, the drivers without a crash while driving a
RHD vehicle. The total number of drivers in each group is not mentioned. A cross tabulation of
culpable/non-culpable crashes versus RHD/LHD vehicle was created. A Chi-squared test of independence
was used to determine if the type of crash was associated with the drive configuration
2of the vehicle. This analysis assumes that all events in the table are independent events not connected
by any other factor whereas here we actually have several 2x2 tables, one for each driver.
The data within each table depends on a specific driver but the tables themselves are independent.
In essence, we have a stratified sample. In order to perform the Pearson’s Chi-squared test for
independence, the stratification is ignored and the individual 2x2 tables are summed across drivers
to make a single 2x2 table. A more appropriate analysis for this type of data would account for the
stratification within the data. A possible analysis method would be the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
test.
Another possible concern for this data is if two vehicles involved in the same accident are
included in the data. This is probably a rare event and therefore a minor concern but should
probably be checked. The 2x2 tables for any drivers involved in the same accident would no longer
be independent and the analysis would need to be adjusted accordingly.

4 Survival Analysis
The second method of analysis uses a Cox proportional hazard regression model to compare the
instantaneous crash rate of RHD and LHD vehicles after they are first insured. The response data
is the time to a culpable crash following the initial insurance policy purchase by a PO for each
vehicle. The model has the advantage of including all vehicles even those that never had a culpable
crash over the course of the study. In addition, the model can also include adjustments for other
factors that might modulate the effect. In this analysis data were collected from “all RHD POs
aged 20 years and older at the time of first policy and all vehicles (RHD and LHD) for which
they were listed as POs”. Only culpable crashes were included as an event. Age and gender were
included as adjustments in the final model.
The sampling method described in section 2.2 sounds like a small set of POs was selected for
the analysis, each having been a PO of several vehicles of which at least one was a RHD vehicle.
The description of the analysis in section 3.2 implies a different set of drivers was included. Section
3.2 claims “A total of 23717 drivers were included in the analysis of which 2882 were associated
with RHD vehicles”. This section also describes the results in terms of vehicles. It is not clear who
has been sampled or what is being modeled here. Is it time to first culpable crash of a driver or
vehicle? Are multiple vehicles of the same driver or PO included in the model? Without a clear
description of the sampling scheme or data being collected, it is hard to comment on the methods.
3If the data is time to first culpable crash of a vehicle and several vehicles are associated with
the same PO, a correlation structure is induced into the data which needs to be adjusted for in
the model. Another concern with POs having multiple vehicles is they may split their time at risk
between their vehicles which further complicates the analysis. If we think of POs as a stratification
variable, a stratified Cox model can be applied to deal with some of these issues.
Ignoring the stratification issue, the analysis assumes that each vehicle is at risk at all times
when in fact a vehicle is only at risk when it is being driven. A vehicle driven 5 days a week is
more likely to have a crash than one driven once a week. The crash risk of a vehicle is also affected
by where and when it is driven. A vehicle driven in rush hour on Monday morning probably has a
different risk than one driven on Sunday morning, as would a vehicle driven in downtown Vancouver
compared to one driven in White Rock. Is there a way to guarantee that RHD vehicles are driven
the same amount of time, under the same conditions and locations as LHD vehicles? If not, what
is the affect of these factors on the results?
Age and Gender were included in the model as covariates. It is unclear if the effects presented in
Table 3 are from a model that contains only main effects or one that contains interactions with RHD
vehicles. As main effects, they modulate both the LHD and RHD crash rates. So all statements
pertaining to the effect of age and gender on RHD vehicles apply equally to LHD vehicles. A model
with interaction allows separate age and gender effects to be estimated and compared for the RHD
and LHD vehicles. The report states that the RHD vehicle group contained more males and was
younger. This causes partial confounding between age, gender and RHD vehicles. Confounding
affects the model estimates especially in a model with only main effects. The model estimates
the crash rate to be higher for males and younger drivers. Confounding may cause the model to
attribute some of these effects to RHD vehicles.

5 Poisson Regression Analysis
In the final analysis, a Poisson Regression model is used to compare the crash rates between RHD
vehicles and a group of similar LHD vehicles. A RHD group consisting of 748 vehicles, was identified
and a LHD group consisting of 8933 vehicles, was selected by model, make, year and body style so
the proportion of vehicles in that group matched the proportions in the RHD group. The response
data is the number of crash-claims in a two year period following the date of a PO’s first policy
with that vehicle. Each crash was classified as injury or material damage only and culpable or
4non-culpable. Covariates considered in the model were gender, age, region (lower mainland or not),
speeding contraventions and non-speeding contraventions.
The main concern of the model is to compare the crash rate between RHD and LHD vehicles.
However matching model-year-style in vehicles does not guarantee that both RHD and LHD vehicles
are exposed to equal amount of driving time or are driven in the same locations or in the same
traffic conditions. The confounding affect of gender and age with RHD vehicle operation also affects
a Poisson regression model in a similar fashion as a Cox model. The distribution and effects for
region and traffic contraventions is not presented in the report.
Another concern with Poisson regression models is overdispersion in the response data. If the
counts are overdispersed than an overdispersed Poisson or Negative Binomial regression model
needs to be fitted otherwise the standard errors of the effects will be underestimated and effect
significance will be overstated. The report does not indicate if overdispersion was checked in the
model.
The analysis is done by vehicle not by driver. The Poisson regression model assumes the data
for each vehicle is independent from each other. However a vehicle can have many drivers and a
driver can operate many vehicles. This may introduce a correlation between the vehicles if the same
driver operated more than one vehicle in the study. If there are many such drivers, the induced
correlation could become an issue for this model as well.
The report says principal operators were also examined to investigate the differences between
RHD and LHD vehicles at the driver level but it doesn’t explain how this is done. Does a RHD
driver always operate a RHD vehicle? If not, how is a crash in a LHD vehicle by a RHD driver
dealt with in the analysis?

6 Summary
There are several issues that could affect the results of the study conducted by ICBC in the report
“The Safety of Right-Hand-Drive Vehicles in British Columbia”. It is possible the conclusion would
remain unchanged even after these issues were resolved but we do not know without actually doing
those analyses.
Reporting a crash to ICBC is not mandatory if an insurance claim is not made. Are the factors
5that affect the tendency to make a claim related to the drive configuration of the vehicle? How is
blame assigned in a crash claim? If blame assignment has a subjective component, is it related to
drive configuration of the vehicle? If either is related to drive configuration then the data contains
a bias that could affect the results of any analysis based on the data and may not reflect the true
risk of a culpable crash of LHD or RHD vehicles in the province as a whole.
In addition to data issues, there are some issues with the analyses themselves. The relative
risk analysis completely ignores the repeated measures within each subject. This analysis is easily
corrected by using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test instead of a Chi-squared test. There is also a
minor issue of some data coming from the same crash but this is probably a rare event and will
have little impact on the results.
The problems with the other two analyses are more subtle and technical. The drive configuration
of the vehicle was not evenly distributed between gender and age. Although the model adjusted for
these factors, imbalance can still affect the estimates in the model. If the data had been matched
on age and gender, the results would be more trustworthy. A stratified or paired analysis might
then be more appropriate in these cases. A More subtle issue is risk exposure. A vehicle is only at
risk of a culpable crash when it is driven. The risk exposure also depends on driving locations and
conditions. A vehicle driven to work every day during rush hour is at greater risk than one driven
once a week on Sunday morning. It is unclear if adequate data can be obtained to adjust for these
factors but they could have a big impact on the results. Drivers using multiple vehicles or vehicles
driven by multiple drivers is another issue. This introduce a correlation into the data that needs
to be taken into account. If there are several such vehicles or drivers in the data and the repeated
measures are properly adjusted for, the results of the analyses could be quite different. Again it is
unclear if such data is available.
Overall, the ICBC report suggests that RHD vehicles and their operators are at a greater risk
than their LHD counterparts but issues with the data and the analyses suggest that further study
is needed. Causation is difficult to establish with observational data. I would caution the use of
the ICBC report as anything more than an indication that further study is needed.
6

So... cliff notes..?

[Godzira]

I have a problem with people like this Amy girl.


23176

23177

[Tone Loc]

^ By that logic, we should all move to China since all of the stuff we like is made there anyway. Dumb bitch

[boostfever]

This is North America, why not embrace the awesome domestics that are here...

Sure. Let's all drive Chevy Spark :fuckthatshit: what a boring bitch

[Godzira]

Canada made.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10847770_961227297240454_6474649201255684899_n.jpg ?oh=13067e61298dc7ae55109e01d4d28349&oe=5500E20D&__gda__=1425604277_412f4ff015e553cbba01ca6aaa74414 5

[underscore]

She's from fucking Red Deer, what do you really expect?

[Godzira]

If you cant beat them. Ban them.
Ban those shitty right hand drives because you look stupid driving them and the cars are crap.

[duy-]

reminds me of my friends uncle who works for GM as a sales guy
"why the hell are people buying imports (japanese and european lhd cars), theyre hurting the god damn economy!! taking jobs away from hard working canadians!! YOU SHOULD BUY A DOMESTIC, IMPORTS SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY CAME FROM."
this guy cant be reasoned with, ive tried. getting the same vibe from this amy person

[Godzira]

reminds me of my friends uncle who works for GM as a sales guy
"why the hell are people buying imports (japanese and european lhd cars), theyre hurting the god damn economy!! taking jobs away from hard working canadians!! YOU SHOULD BUY A DOMESTIC, IMPORTS SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY CAME FROM."
this guy cant be reasoned with, ive tried. getting the same vibe from this amy person

I also work at gm and we have on average 150 appointments a week for recalls only. Quality made vehicles for sure. :suspicious:

[MarkyMark]

With all the rules they have already I'm surprised they even still let RHD vehicles be driven here. These days any added risk is usually met by just banning it. In reality it's the easiest option, there's so few people that drive them here that no one's going to give a shit except the small minority who's voices might get a two minute segment on the news.

[duy-]

I also work at gm and we have on average 150 appointments a week for recalls only. Quality made vehicles for sure. :suspicious:

to be fair, 50% of those are toyota ECM from the vibe :pokerface:

[Godzira]

to be fair, 50% of those are toyota ECM from the vibe :pokerface:

not alot here-- they've been mostly malibus, cobalts, cadillac has a tiny recall for torquing a tie rod nut back on, a few trucks here and there and impalas

[GS8]

I have a problem with people like this Amy girl.


23176

23177

I love those people who seem to think that just because they're a 'mommy', their opinions suddenly become facts without any supported research

And they are suddenly smarter than people who have spent years in their respective fields.

Save it for wordpress you dumb cunt.

[Tone Loc]

reminds me of my friends uncle who works for GM as a sales guy
"why the hell are people buying imports (japanese and european lhd cars), theyre hurting the god damn economy!! taking jobs away from hard working canadians!! YOU SHOULD BUY A DOMESTIC, IMPORTS SHOULD STAY WHERE THEY CAME FROM."
this guy cant be reasoned with, ive tried. getting the same vibe from this amy person

I can't stand people who say that kind of ignorant shit, especially when most Japanese "imports" are made in Canada/USA by domestic workers...

[jk6221]

I have a problem with people like this Amy girl.


23176

23177

Do have a link to that discussion? Looks pretty entertaining lol

[trollguy]

Do have a link to that discussion? Looks pretty entertaining lol

subtle lets be friends on facebook post

[Godzira]

I don't have a link, a guy shared it and this bitch just lost her mind about "shitty jdm cars and the stupid idiots that drive them"

but I do have a few more screenshots...


original post:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10847992_10203366207252100_9161648960818287295_n.j pg?oh=2bd8c435bf1371601af332518828c22c&oe=5517F986&__gda__=1427581395_8fccde62abfe751f65573c70d2b45e7 2

https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10423805_10203366199331902_8615637860894727371_n.j pg?oh=3aa4690e28f816ec0ddfcd3fa24a0679&oe=55186294

https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10849772_10203366364496031_6135969318486576712_n.j pg?oh=df0a58f1546c7e8c9dfa0720c8ba45b0&oe=54FF14AD


subtle lets be friends on facebook post

lol friend or creep away!
23189

[Timpo]

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Is right hand drive that bad?
Isn't it more dangerous to drive beater with bad brakes/tires than a car with right hand drive?
I would say ban poorly maintained vehicles.

Also when you talk about accidents, what's the biggest cause?

DUI, texting, retarded old farts driving, dumb teenagers driving, street racing, doing burnouts, running red lights, making illegal turns, changing lane without shoulder check, poor physical condition(eye sight/hearing), etc...

It's NOT the car, it's the driver that is causing accidents the most.

In Japan, it's much harder to get a driver's license. Typically the training cost is $3000-$4000. They take driving more seriously and you can't ask your parents or buddies that are age of 25 to take you out for a driving lesson.
Same as Germany, you must be trained by professional driving instructor that is approved by government.

[underscore]

I can't stand people who say that kind of ignorant shit, especially when most Japanese "imports" are made in Canada/USA by domestic workers...

Last I checked, Toyota made more vehicles in Canada than anyone else, and Ford made piles of their stuff in Mexico.

[entrax]

lol at pages 2 and 3:
tl;dr:
1) underscore posts valid argument
2) invisiblesoul fails underscore and posts his own valid argument
3) underscore fails invisiblescore
4) repeat steps 1-3

summary of the summary from CA_FTW's post:
- The problems with the other two analyses are more subtle and technical. The drive configuration of the vehicle was not evenly distributed between gender and age.
- Although the model adjusted for these factors, imbalance can still affect the estimates in the model. If the data had been matched on age and gender, the results would be more trustworthy.
- Overall, the ICBC report suggests that RHD vehicles and their operators are at a greater risk than their LHD counterparts but issues with the data and the analyses suggest that further study is needed. Causation is difficult to establish with observational data. I would caution the use of the ICBC report as anything more than an indication that further study is needed.

[godwin]

I don't know why they even bother banning them.. Just give let ICBC insure them base on their accident rates.. If they get into more accidents, then let the rate reflect the risk.

[Tone Loc]

I don't know why they even bother banning them.. Just give let ICBC insure them base on their accident rates.. If they get into more accidents, then let the rate reflect the risk.

This. ICBC has demonstrated in the past that they care more about profits over safe driving and collision prevention (hello, Chinese DL controversy) to the point that they are willing to go toe-to-toe with the RCMP over it.

I don't see why the RHD situation is any different.

Oh wait, the lower value of RHD cars and scarce availability of replacement parts...

[Godzira]

This thread is getting ridiculous.

Is right hand drive that bad?
Isn't it more dangerous to drive beater with bad brakes/tires than a car with right hand drive?
I would say ban poorly maintained vehicles.

Also when you talk about accidents, what's the biggest cause?

DUI, texting, retarded old farts driving, dumb teenagers driving, street racing, doing burnouts, running red lights, making illegal turns, changing lane without shoulder check, poor physical condition(eye sight/hearing), etc...

It's NOT the car, it's the driver that is causing accidents the most.

In Japan, it's much harder to get a driver's license. Typically the training cost is $3000-$4000. They take driving more seriously and you can't ask your parents or buddies that are age of 25 to take you out for a driving lesson.
Same as Germany, you must be trained by professional driving instructor that is approved by government.

exactly.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t34.0-12/10819057_10154824440340290_1871794897_n.jpg?oh=39e ad628a9d7f4d1bd4991fab98b2d3f&oe=548C944F&__gda__=1418509922_30d21e4a4cf141bb85472e20cb6a4f7 1

[duy-]

lol that skyline has a VI coming

suspension and bushings not designed for the streets with overly aggressive spring rates and super low has to drive ridiculously around a speed bump or at an angle
freshly rebuilt engine designed for racing so yeah hes gon b speeding
no leaks, cant argue with that
roll cage, if he has a halo thats a concussion waiting to happen, i should know... unless he wears a helmet street driving
wide wheels, good tires... cant argue with that, i guess in case it rubs

that being said my car just fit all that description minus the cage which i sold

also icbc charges more insurance for a RHD, cmon its icbc... they got money making monopoly on lockdown.

[jdmfemme]

also icbc charges more insurance for a RHD, cmon its icbc... they got money making monopoly on lockdown.

ICBC does not charge higher insurance rates for RHD vehicles. I'm an insurance agent and I own two RHD vehicles. The only difference is that on my registration there's a 'Y' beside foreign import and right hand drive.

[right angle]

roll cage, if he has a halo thats a concussion waiting to happen, i should know... unless he wears a helmet street driving

Not if you zip-tie some nice foam around it. Probably still not very pleasant but damn I bet it's better than just bashing your head against the roof or door.

[underscore]

exactly.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t34.0-12/10819057_10154824440340290_1871794897_n.jpg?oh=39e ad628a9d7f4d1bd4991fab98b2d3f&oe=548C944F&__gda__=1418509922_30d21e4a4cf141bb85472e20cb6a4f7 1

Half the shit on that Skyline actually makes it more dangerous for the street, that suspension has zero travel, the cage is dangerous, the harness makes it harder to shoulder check, and the brakes and seat likely aren't approved for road use.

[Timpo]

Half the shit on that Skyline actually makes it more dangerous for the street, that suspension has zero travel, the cage is dangerous, the harness makes it harder to shoulder check, and the brakes and seat likely aren't approved for road use.

Obtaining DOT/SAE Approval is very expensive.

Some aftermarket parts may be fine for road use, however cost of approval makes it difficult for manufactures so they just put "off road use only" sign.

You're complaining about coilover's suspension travel and spring rate?
Go look at expensive cars like Pagani Zonda R, Nismo GT-R, Viper ACR, NSX-R, 911 GT3 RS, Caterham Super 7, Lotus Exige LF1, Caparo T1, and list goes on...

In emergency maneuver, I would say the modded GT-R would do much better job than the $500 beater off craigslist.

The only reason modded sportscars would get in trouble is because of perception of cops.
If you're driving a beater, cops will assume that you probably won't be driving fast = safe driver.
Whereas if you drive a fast car = street racer.

[underscore]

Coilovers in general are completely fine, the ones on that Skyline however can't possibly have much travel as it would be smashing the lip into the ground and tires into the fenders constantly if it did.

[Godzira]

Half the shit on that Skyline actually makes it more dangerous for the street, that suspension has zero travel, the cage is dangerous, the harness makes it harder to shoulder check, and the brakes and seat likely aren't approved for road use.
Coilovers in general are completely fine, the ones on that Skyline however can't possibly have much travel as it would be smashing the lip into the ground and tires into the fenders constantly if it did.

C'moon. lol really?
Its just a generalization.. You can't argue it's a lot less dangerous than rusted out / bent frames, broken suspension, brakes that are metal on metal, air in the lines, ball joints are completely fucked, shocks that bounce the car off the road.

But a low km well taken care of jdm car gets vi'd for being low.

[Timpo]

Coilovers in general are completely fine, the ones on that Skyline however can't possibly have much travel as it would be smashing the lip into the ground and tires into the fenders constantly if it did.

If I remember correctly, you can go as low as 90mm to be approved by Transport Canada.
Lamborghini Diablo and Honda NSX had 140mm clearance, so you could lower 50mm(2 inches) legally.

However when you lower your car, the bottom of rims can not be higher than bottom of chassis.
This is because when you get a flat tire, you can retain some of control.

[Timpo]

C'moon. lol really?
Its just a generalization.. You can't argue it's a lot less dangerous than rusted out / bent frames, broken suspension, brakes that are metal on metal, air in the lines, ball joints are completely fucked, shocks that bounce the car off the road.

But a low km well taken care of jdm car gets vi'd for being low.

Yeah there's no secret that cops will target fancy cars for VI.

Look, one car has been very well maintained, babied by the owner, all the maintenance up to date, drives like a new car, braking and handling performance will be very good during emergency maneuver.
Whereas the other one is mechanically unsound, engine could stall anytime, brakes are failing, etc.

Trying going through a road block in these cars and see who is going to get a VI.

http://www.carpictures.com/pics/640/10CM9230114527AA/Toyota-Supra-Turbo-Custom-1995-10CM9230114527AA.jpeg
http://hooniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Cavalier-720x433.jpg

[underscore]

As usual, you two completely miss the point and build up useless "what if's>

[cooke24]

Japanese imports FTW!

im sorry theres no difference after a few months of driving RHD.

they can do it in anywhere else in the world so can Canadians.... sorry americans you have to wait 25 years lol.


i prefer RHD. Why? because if i wanna pass i have to make absolutely sure its safe whereas LHD you can be like oh i have enough time if i gun it fast enough.


same thing goes with left turns.

hers a picture of my pos

http://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad134/cooke91/D6D52D10-534B-40CB-AA45-39000EA912DE-981-0000004499885FF3_zps0c5d4d6e.jpg (http://s929.photobucket.com/user/cooke91/media/D6D52D10-534B-40CB-AA45-39000EA912DE-981-0000004499885FF3_zps0c5d4d6e.jpg.html)

[N8]

^ thats far from a pos :p

[trollguy]

cute car

[MarkyMark]

I like how every RHD car is now seen as practically brand new, no rust and the best suspension money can buy. Let's forget the fact that most of them are POS rust buckets themselves that some kid got as a first car. Neither are safer, and the ones that do have the high end parts didn't do it to drive like a granny on the streets either.

See I can make pointless observations too

[The_AK]

I like how every RHD car is now seen as practically brand new, no rust and the best suspension money can buy. Let's forget the fact that most of them are POS rust buckets themselves that some kid got as a first car. Neither are safer, and the ones that do have the high end parts didn't do it to drive like a granny on the streets either.

See I can make pointless observations too

lol why buy used anyways?

brb no warranty
brb no new car smell
brb lol someone else already put their greasy hands on it before you
brb i was there first

:suspicious:

[Godzira]

lol why buy used anyways?

brb no warranty
brb no new car smell
brb lol someone else already put their greasy hands on it before you
brb i was there first

:suspicious:



^^the only factors to consider when buying a car.



lol :fullofwin:

[The_AK]

^^the only factors to consider when buying a car.



lol :fullofwin:

Think about it man, for the same price you could get a brand new nissan versa (base model)

brb warranty
brb choose your own colour (black, white, silver, beige)
brb don't need to worry about those bothersome vehicle inspections
brb CVT transmission maximizing fuel efficiency

[Godzira]

Think about it man, for the same price you could get a brand new nissan versa (base model)

brb warranty
brb choose your own colour (black, white, silver, beige)
brb don't need to worry about those bothersome vehicle inspections
brb CVT transmission maximizing fuel efficiency



+recalls + loses value the second you drive it away + no power + yick.


+ warranty is bs. I don't want anyone else touching my car. + base model ?? fuck that.




I've owned a brand new vehicle first owner, etc. and a number of 10-25 year old vehicles. I'll never buy brand new again.

http://www.revscene.net/forums/698605-why-i-will-not-keeping-my-997-gt3-why-shitty-cars-better-cars.html


I'll just leave that there..

[The_AK]

Lol I'm just messing with you, long day at work :@

[Godzira]

Lol I'm just messing with you, long day at work :@

:accepted:

[Xul]

I recently discussed this with a person fairly high up the federal govt food chain, who assured me that there is no danger of RHD vehicles being banned, at least on a Federal level.

[Timpo]

I recently discussed this with a person fairly high up the federal govt food chain, who assured me that there is no danger of RHD vehicles being banned, at least on a Federal level.

oh shit, so at provincial/municipal level, RHD cars are still in danger.

[Xul]

oh shit, so at provincial/municipal level, RHD cars are still in danger.

You could look at it that way, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I think/hope they've got more important things to worry about.