Banning Right Hand Drive

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by underscore

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.



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]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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]

Originally Posted by PARANOiA-R34

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]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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?

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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]

Originally Posted by underscore

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]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I



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


Peel P45


Tango T600


HTT Plethore


Nissan New Mobility


BAC Mono


McLaren F1


Bizzarrini Manta


Formula Ford

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by right angle

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]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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]

Originally Posted by Timpo

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

[Godzira]

Originally Posted by death_blossom

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

thank you! This is all I wanted.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by PARANOiA-R34

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]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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.

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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/as...right-pdf.216/

[Phil@rise]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

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]

Originally Posted by Phil@rise

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]

Originally Posted by underscore

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]

Originally Posted by 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..

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

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.