Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

I was listening to the radio toady ,the Q rock radio station in victoria and during the new's the reader said there are over 200 rhd vehicle's coming in every month and that according to ICBC there were safety concerns at wich point they played a clip of a guy from icbc claiming that rhd vehicle's are 40% more likely to get in an accident than lhd car's and said thing's such as pulling away from the curb are much more dangerous .Is this just the usual bluster or are the winds a changin ? i find 40% really hard to believe and i don't buy that pulling away from the curb is that more dangerous but are they going to use this kind of info to jack up our rate's and of course change the 15 year rule?
bryan

ICBC paper (released today) can be downloaded HERE.

(Summary Below)

Right-hand-drive vehicles more likely to crash

Are you thinking about buying an imported, right-hand-drive vehicle? If so, be sure you understand the risks. A recent study by ICBC shows that right-hand-drive vehicles are more than 40 per cent more likely to crash than similar left-hand-drive vehicles.

Released in August 2007, the study examines whether right-hand-drive vehicles pose an increased crash risk, and whether or not they offer less occupant protection in a crash than built-for-Canada vehicles of a similar age.

No evidence of greater crash or claim severity could be found to suggest that right-hand-drive vehicles offer less protection. The study did not include any testing or review of design elements of right-hand-drive vehicle that relate to the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Road safety is a priority for ICBC, which undertook the study following an increase in the number of right-hand-drive vehicles being imported into B.C. (about 200 per month) and across Canada.

I just scanned the study but it looks to me like they are comparing all RHD crashes to all LHD crashes of similar years with no attempt to control for the type of vehicle. What is the percentage of all RHD cars are sports cars versus the percentage of all LHD cars that are sports cars? I'm guessing proportionally there are significantly more RHD sports cars. It would be nice if they compared RHD vans to LHD van. Their biggest fault seems to be visibility, which I don't find impaired at all driving my Deli.

driver unfamiliarity with the RHD configuration coupled with operational or visibility problems associated with maneuvering such vehicles in a right-side driving environment probably predisposes them to a higher-than-expected collision causation rate. And this increased risk appears to be substantial.

Ooppps....maybe they did try to control for vehicle model

Vehicle model year, make, model and body style were extracted from ICBC’s business information warehouse (BIW) for all RHD vehicles based on VIN, as was policy data. Because matching with an appropriate comparison group was a critical part of the methodology, a number of steps were taken to ensure that the two samples were constituted as similarly as possible. For example, the comparison group of LHD vehicles was selected to reflect the same model years, body styles and vehicle makes as the RHD vehicles. The proportion of model year and body styles existing in the RHD group was applied to the LDH vehicle group.

I sure hope this study isn't used to jack my insurance rates.

Adam wrote:Ooppps....maybe they did try to control for vehicle model

Well, yes and no. They did control, but none of the data and conclusions show that they separated out classes to look for patterns.

40% of the RHD principal operators in the study were under 25 years old. I would guess that most Delica owners are over 30.

On the other hand, there was no evidence to suggest that crashes involving the RHD vehicles were any more severe than those involving LHD vehicles. Of course, in spite of the non-significance of the insurance rate class in the regression, some of the lack of severity effect might be explained by differences in vehicle use or purpose and where, when, how or how much the vehicles are driven. (p.15)

Notice right after saying there is no difference in severity, the authors try to explain this away as being due to something other than the vehicle being inherently just as safe.

RHD vehicles had a lower risk of injury crash involvement (by 21%). However, the difference observed for injury crashes did not reach statistical significance. (p.11)

So, RHD are a lot LESS likely to be in an injury crash, but if they are, the injuries are similar. Indicated the vehicle is just as crash-worthy. But they ignore the why of the very significantly lower accident rate.

I also "enjoyed" the scare tactics used on page 2 about UK-Continent accidents involving heavy trucks. Completely different situation. There, the issue is the driver being in their own vehicle driving in the opposite environment, not being in familiar environment in unfamiliar vehicle.

Some of the obvious problems I have with this study:
* a 20 year old driver driving a 15 year old RHD is probably quite a different person from a 20 year old driving a 15 year old LHD. One wants a Skyline, the other needs cheap transportation.
* a 20 year old Skyline driver (not meaning to pick on Skylines) is quite different from a 50 year old Delica driver.
* they failed to compare vehicles with similar purchase price. Look at, say, LHD $12,000 Delicas with $12,000 RHD minivans. After all, most people tend to set a price, then look for the best vehicle they can get for that price.
* they failed to show data or accident rates based on vehicle type. They lumped all RHD together. That's what I would do if I was doing the study and found huge differences in accident rates based on vehicle type but that didn't suit my purposes.

This study appears to be a classic case of "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I've taken several statistics courses, and every study I did, both in class and on the job, I had data and an hypothesis that I could prove or disprove depending on the tests I used. I really enjoyed one time asking the boss, "what conclusion do you want?" She asked, "what does the data say?". I replied, "I haven't looked at the data yet, I'm asking what you want the result to be." She wasn't familiar with the power of statistics.

Clearly, they had conclusions and set out to prove them. They were quite disappointed that they could not show that RHD vehicles are inherently dangerous from a crash-safety standpoint.

Fred

While reading the ICBC report, I was snooping around the Internet looking for the quote about statistics, and I can across a book by Joel Best about statistics, Damned Lies and Statistics, published by U of California Press.

On the website http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9358/9358.intro.html the introduction of the book gives a good description of the dangers of repeating statistics blindly. He states:

The people who bring social statistics to our attention have reasons for doing so; they inevitably want something, [...] Statistics are tools, used for particular purposes.

That is quite apparent in the ICBC report.

Fred

Ruminante wrote:Well, yes and no. They did control, but none of the data and conclusions show that they separated out classes to look for patterns.

You're right. I would like to see if the results separated out into vehicle type as well as age class.

It's yet another ICBC scare tactic, they have been the primary group behind the push to change the rule to 25 years and are willing to stoop to new lows to ignore any sense of reason and bring out more fear mongering.

To say the study is flawed is a ridiculous understatement.
Doesn't ICBC have any REAL issues to deal with???

This is yet another good reason to get involved in the fight against this idiocy, Join the International Vehicle Owners Association of Canada today to see how you can make a difference! http://www.ivoac.ca

Compare a 240 sx (LHD) to a Silvia (RHD)

Why do people buy the silvia? Because its way F*&%ing faster.

People don't buy RHD cars because they are RHD, they buy them because there is nothing LHD that compares. If there was a turbo'd 240 readily availbable the silvia would be significantly less interesting.

Now, how about icbc checks out crash stats in turbo vs non-turbo sport coupes of those years. (But leave out hte eagle talon)

A representative from IVOAC was interviewed on CBC radio this afternoon. I think he did a pretty good job at questioning their (ICBC's) methodology and motivation. He even mentionded Delicas specifically. Typically Canadian, in that you can't have too much fun w/o big brother getting into the act.

--Todd

they played a clip of that interview on cfax during the new's [local talk/news radio in vic] did'nt hear it myself the wife did ,sounded like he did a good job .
bryan

I agree with Torchard about the Big Brother problem... Canada needs to free itself from the US dependency, control, etc... and should start making its own rules...

That's the BigBrother you're talking about, right???

Fabio
ps
Nothing to do with Delicas, more like Politics... But I had to say it... I think that's the only reason they're thinking about implementing this stupid 25 year rule... To do the same thing they do in the US.

I wasn't referring to the US necessarily, just government in general. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with paying taxes and supporting society and so forth, but it seems like the hand of government has to get involved whenever people start enjoying themselves. But seriously, I think they don't know how to cope with this new market, so their default solution is to rid themselves of the problem. And while I don't usually go for conspiracy theories, you gotta wonder if these people are being lobbied by someone with something to gain from having these vehicles removed from the marketplace....

--T

piyeguyo wrote:I agree with Torchard about the Big Brother problem... Canada needs to free itself from the US dependency, control, etc... and should start making its own rules...

That's the BigBrother you're talking about, right???

Fabio
ps
Nothing to do with Delicas, more like Politics... But I had to say it... I think that's the only reason they're thinking about implementing this stupid 25 year rule... To do the same thing they do in the US.

ICBC have it wrong in so many places. One that caught my eye was the notion that RHD imports are cheap. I'm paying a hefty premium for my Delica over a comparable non-JDM 1992 vehicle, but I know why: a diesel 4x4 that can go anywhere, that can carry things, with a style all its own. Hell, I could just about get an early 1990s 5 Series for what my Delica is costing me. But would it be as much fun?

If there really is increased risk, increase the insurance rates. That's how insurance works. But the risk of a 20 year old new driver in a Skyline is very different than a middle-aged sort like me (with U.K. and Australia RHD experience) trundling around in a Delica. Cars have been killed through insurance (e.g. Pontiac Fiero), but the risk has to be real, and documented.

I just got back from a road trip to the B.C. Interior in my old Jetta. I kept a very close eye on situations where I might have done things differently in an RHD vehicle. There was one, a case where I passed somebody, but probably would not have done so had I been on the other side of the car. Every other time I passed people it was using passing lanes. Most of the time, they passed me.

Maybe my age really is showing.

...laura

marsgal42 wrote:ICBC have it wrong in so many places. One that caught my eye was the notion that RHD imports are cheap. I'm paying a hefty premium for my Delica over a comparable non-JDM 1992 vehicle, but I know why: a diesel 4x4 that can go anywhere, that can carry things, with a style all its own. Hell, I could just about get an early 1990s 5 Series for what my Delica is costing me. But would it be as much fun?

If there really is increased risk, increase the insurance rates. That's how insurance works. But the risk of a 20 year old new driver in a Skyline is very different than a middle-aged sort like me (with U.K. and Australia RHD experience) trundling around in a Delica. Cars have been killed through insurance (e.g. Pontiac Fiero), but the risk has to be real, and documented.

I just got back from a road trip to the B.C. Interior in my old Jetta. I kept a very close eye on situations where I might have done things differently in an RHD vehicle. There was one, a case where I passed somebody, but probably would not have done so had I been on the other side of the car. Every other time I passed people it was using passing lanes. Most of the time, they passed me.

Maybe my age really is showing.

...laura

you don't have to worry about passing people in a delica.

Adrock wrote: you don't have to worry about passing people in a delica.

Sorry. I plead n00bness for my transgression. I should remember my very first car, a 1971 VW Super Beetle. Very little happened when you stood on the accelerator. Except rusty bits fell off.

On a pleasant note, I renewed my insurance yesterday and got a quote on what ICBC will stick me for the privilege of driving a Delica. The Delica will cost me almost exactly the same as my Jetta, about a grand a year (Greater Vancouver, commute < 15km, $3 million liability, collision & comprehensive, max discount).

I'm pleased at the general lack of followup in the media on ICBC's tirade. Maybe they've goofed on this one. The usual reaction when I show people the pictures Japanoid sent me is "What a cool van! Can I get one?" Hardly fertile ground for an FUD campaign.

...laura, counting the days