3 ms·
yes true. I think that the Defender's low number of driver casualties might be due to the type of people who drive them (conservatively). Unlikely that somebody
by DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
yes true. I think that the Defender's low number of driver casualties might be due to the type of people who drive them (conservatively). Unlikely that somebody wants to race in that car. My previous cars were BMW's and these things turned me into a reckless douche the minute I sat behind the steering. The saying is Defenders "don't go fast but they can go everywhere". I changed my driving habit and attitude on the road considerably (I started taking the scenic routes and learned to enjoy the ride, with an unusually high sitting position, wave at other defender drivers if I see them, and could fit all friends of my kids inside).
AFAIK the pedestrian safety rating for them is why older models (after the Ford/Puma engine) was abysmal and they discontinued. If you hit a pedestrian or cyclist that's probably it. That has always been my main worry. But I think the safety for the driver/passenger is pretty good when using common sense and when not driving them like the stig. I hit a wild pig once in a forest in France and it was splattered across the front but not so much as a dent in the car.
They also come with roll-over cages on the US market which tells something about what can go wrong if you lose control. Never got one since I don't drive rallys. Still their handling (directness of the steering) is much better than a Wrangler (where the steering is horribly "spongy").
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago> I think that the Defender's low number of driver casualties might be due to the type of people who drive them (conservatively). The owners are a massively understated source of differences in performance and perception of both manufacturers and specific models.