# Poll on CTV *dot* ca about the LAV-3



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2008)

The question:
"Should Canadian troops still be using the LAV III (light armoured vehicle)?"
The choices:
yes
no
The results as of 1606L 07Jan08:
1589 "yes"
1692 "no"

I imagine that the Taliban have all gone on the internet and voted "no", because I'm pretty sure that they don't want us to use it either.

This to me is a classic case of why opinion polls don't matter.  Here we have a bunch of ill informed people being asked for an opinion.  That would be like asking me what the weather will be like tomorrow: I could guess, I may get it right, but if I did, it would be a sheer fluke as I have zero training in meteorology.

Five killed in theatre by roll-overs since late 2005 and now alarm bells are ringing.  Here's a hint, people: roll-overs happen.  They don't happen on purpose, that's why they are called "accidents".  Yes, they are tragic, but hey, I knew a guy who was killed in an M113 roll-over in Bosnia in 1993.

Link to the poll:
http://www.ctv.ca/news
(It's on the right hand side of the page, near the top)


----------



## patt (7 Jan 2008)

you are right ill imformed people taking a poll they know nothing about, now i cant wait for these defence "experts" to talk about it.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

I suppose that 1692 people must understand the implication of their vote -- & realize then that we should be _walking_ everywhere or utilizing a vehicle _inferior_ to the LAV instead. Fuck, do they even have a clue?  :  Obviously not.

It's what we've got -- it's what we do -- for crying out loud we are doing our jobs, let us friggin' well do them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jan 2008)

Good thing they never put a comment option there, I am sure we would be reading some spirited ones.


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Jan 2008)

Come on, those 1692 voters actually have GREAT foresight.

They know that if they raise enough of a stink, we'll get rid of those crappy LAVs, and finally aquire those hover-tanks that are all the rage.

Great poll, CTV.  :


----------



## RCR Grunt (7 Jan 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Good thing they never put a comment option there, I am sure we would be reading some spirited ones.



I sent a comment here:  news@ctv.ca  with the subject heading "Poll questioning use of the LAV III, 07JAN08"

My message was as follows:

"To whomever,

The results of this poll matter about as much as my predictions as to who will win the next World Cup.  You see, I know next to nothing about soccer, except that it is played by kicking a ball with your feet and you can't use your hands.  Equally so, most Canadians know next to nothing about their military and the equipment it uses or requires except that it costs the taxpayer money.  The poll regarding the use of the LAV III vehicle in Afghanistan is asinine at best.  The vehicle in question has saved far more Canadian lives than have been lost due to accidents and IED's.  All you are looking for are some sensational numbers to report to buy yourselves more ratings."

I encourage anyone as upset as I was to do the same with the same subject heading.

If anything, it made me feel better.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (7 Jan 2008)

I just voted and was astounded at the no vote! Came here right away to see if anyone had commented...and of course I wasn't disappointed. This is somewhat equivalent to asking people whether they agree with complicated physics formulas....how would they know?? Didn't stop them from voting though. I bet none of them even know what a LAV III looks like.


----------



## Bane (7 Jan 2008)

"This is not a scientific poll " - You don't say....

+1 IN HOC, a stupid question.


----------



## BigRudy (7 Jan 2008)

I just don't get the point of generating polls complaining about every single piece of equipment we get, anytime something goes wrong. I remember similar discussions on the news about the RG31 after we lost 6 guys on July 4th. "is this the right vehicle for Canada? news at 11" ....Sometimes, in war, and I know this is shocking to many, but bad things happen, and sure it sucks..... but until we get issued our CTS jet packs, people are going to die because that's just the nature of the beast on the ground in a war zone. Sorry, Canada!

For anyone that has walked the ground, Zhari/Nalgham isn't the best driving country, and (I am not speculating here)  all it takes is the ground giving way into a wadi, and _any _ vehicle, LAV III or not, is going to pay the price, to say nothing of the poor boys inside.

It just seems like the general population-fueled by our wonderfully bloodthirsty media- is compelled to have a cynical backlash whenever something bad happens, particularly with our armed forces and policing(reference tasers). 95% of the population doesn't have the experience or knowledge to answer this poll, or polls like it, intelligently and objectively. They just see the news, and feel the need to express an ignorant opinion.

As an example, I don't write to medical journals giving my thumbs up or thumbs down to a piece of surgical equipment, because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about...

I don't write to zoos giving my thoughts on panda breeding techniques, because I don't know a thing about it beyond a show I saw on discovery channel... 

it's the same concept of giving an uneducated opinon. 

But, at the end of the day, everyone has an opinion, ignorant or not... and that's not going to change just because I take offense to it.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jan 2008)

Perhaps Sparky and company have flooded the NO votes.


----------



## Carbon-14 (7 Jan 2008)

"Should Canadian troops still be using the LAV III (light armoured vehicle)?"

If someone doesn't know that LAV in LAV III stands for light armoured vehicle, they have no business voting.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jan 2008)

BigRudy said:
			
		

> I just don't get the point of generating polls complaining about every single piece of equipment we get, anytime something goes wrong.



Reminds me of the phone conversation I had today with a fellow who asked me what the mortality rate was in Afghanistan.  I pondered that for a few moments and then replied that it was a hard question to answer.  I went on to say that it was probably better than Toronto, with over 78 murders a year, compared to the 70 plus we have lost in Afghanistan over a period of six or seven years.  Come to think of it, Afghanistan is safer.  He seemed to agree.


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

I have a public opinion poll on the phone with me right now ...

This should be interesting ...  :

What are the odds??


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Jan 2008)

Well here is what it is at now: Yes 1928 votes No 2010 votes

Would this be the same reaction if it were a RG31 or a G wagon  :


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Jan 2008)

George, (quick thread hijack) while you are correct in terms of a number, (and I am sympathetic to the intent of your response) you are not correct in terms of rate, which was the question.  The rate is based on the population as a whole and since the population of Toronto is considerably higher than the population of Canadians in (or even rotated through) Afghanistan the mortality "rate" of casualties in Afghanistan per capita is considerably higher than the murder rate in Toronto.

Part of the difficulty in calculating such a rate is that one would need consider how to count those going on mulitple tours over the extended time.  The nature of the variables present make such a comparison problematic.    (thread hijack ends)


----------



## armyvern (7 Jan 2008)

On the Atlantic Lottery Coorporation.


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2008)

I'm surprised not to see this poll being hotly debated on the CF Facebook group.



			
				redleafjumper said:
			
		

> Part of the difficulty in calculating such a rate is that one would need consider how to count those going on mulitple tours over the extended time.  The nature of the variables present make such a comparison problematic.


 not hard it is = (total killed/average population in theater over same time) x 100%


----------



## NomadWarriorSoul (7 Jan 2008)

My brothers' LAVIII was hit by an IED.

He got to go home unharmed (there were no injuries to anyone) to his loving wife, kids and family.

I'm e-mailing the addy.  They should have asked the personnel and troops using them for reasons stated prior, and not left the results open to the other side getting their $0.02, that's just negligent.  How many average people even have an idea what a LAV looks like, much less seen one in real life, to have any idea what the problem is?

I like that point about Toronto too.


----------



## blacktriangle (7 Jan 2008)

It's the media...nothing will ever change when it comes to this sort of thing. There's a reason they didn't ask anyone with experience, that wouldn't accomplish the goal of the poll...


----------



## Haggis (7 Jan 2008)

CANOE has an even more bizzare poll question: "Five Canadian soldiers have been killed in light armored vehicle rollovers. Should the vehicle be banned from combat zones?"

OK.... where are they supposed to be used?  Toronto?  The front isn't suitable for mounting a snowplow blade.....  :


----------



## Mike Baker (7 Jan 2008)

Like it has been said, most people who are voting have 0% knowledge on the subject about military vehicle, let alone a LAV 3. I hardly ever read from CTV anymore, because of stuff like this....


----------



## Pte.Butt (7 Jan 2008)

Seeing there is thousands of automobile related deaths per year here in Canada, maybe we should rid this country of cars?  :

On a plus side, it would certainly be better for the environment!


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Jan 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> CANOE has an even more bizzare poll question: "Five Canadian soldiers have been killed in light armored vehicle rollovers. Should the vehicle be banned from combat zones?"
> 
> OK.... where are they supposed to be used?  Toronto?  The front isn't suitable for mounting a snowplow blade.....  :



[sarcasm] Why not  we'll stop using the LAV, just fork over more tax money, so we can buy something else that may have the same problem  : [/Sarcasm]


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Jan 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> CANOE has an even more bizzare poll question: "Five Canadian soldiers have been killed in light armored vehicle rollovers. Should the vehicle be banned from combat zones?"
> 
> OK.... where are they supposed to be used?  Toronto?  The front isn't suitable for mounting a snowplow blade.....  :



I wonder how many Canadians have been killed in rollovers of ATVs in the same time frame, and what their solution is for that.


----------



## Mike Baker (7 Jan 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I wonder how many Canadians have been killed in rollovers of ATVs in the same time frame, and what their solution is for that.


Here in NL alone about 10-20, give or take some, every year.


----------



## Pte.Butt (7 Jan 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> I wonder how many Canadians have been killed in rollovers of ATVs in the same time frame, and what their solution is for that.




I can think of atleast 10 during the summer here in Newfoundland, which alone doubles said amount of Canadians killed in traffic accidents in Afghanistan.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Jan 2008)

Back on topic please

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2008)

As of 1926EST:

Should Canadian troops still be using the LAV III (light armoured vehicle)?
Yes 	2333 votes 	   (50 %)
No 	2351 votes 	   (50 %)
Total Votes: 4684


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2008)

To me online polls are about as useful as comments on youtube


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jan 2008)

Here's video from CTV's Murray Oliver; note the "newly-released memo":
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=SEAfghanistan&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/07/ctvvideologger2_500kbps_2008_01_07_1199704459.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/07/ctvvideologger2_218kbps_2008_01_07_1199702264.wmv&clip_start=00:00:04.77&clip_end=00:04:38.54&clip_caption=CTV%20Newsnet:%20Murray%20Oliver%20from%20Kandahar&clip_id=ctvnews.20080106.00229000-00229252-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080106&slug=afghanistan_soldiers_080107&archive=CTVNews

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Jan 2008)

Newly released to the press, that is.  :


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2008)

Roll-overs are clearly a problem unique to the LAV.  Nothing else has ever rolled.  Not ever!


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2008)

Never Ever!


----------



## geo (7 Jan 2008)

Great picture of Suffield MCG.
Neat way to gain access to the tracks for maintenance.
Uhh.... how do they flip it "on demand"?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Jan 2008)

As of 12:32 am NST

Should Canadian troops still be using the LAV III (light armoured vehicle)?


Yes   2890 votes     (51 %) 

No   2786 votes     (49 %) 

  
Total Votes: 5676


----------



## Rayman (8 Jan 2008)

Like George said I guess Sparkys found something relevant to his intrests. Ive never been in a LAV or used one yet, but do Canadians want something better armoured? Something totally different? Im sure a brand new vehicle program will cost tax payers millions, if not billions, for a more highly armoured vehicle to replace every LAV III we have now. Though as someone else noted to me in another thread, the Taliban will just continue to build bigger bombs to take on whatever else we throw at them. As well as for rollovers lets not get into the media frenzy (or maybe we should) that was when SUV's became popular. I remember watching a whole thing about it on 20/20. Yet still theres millions of those out there.


----------



## Franko (8 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps Sparky and company have flooded the NO votes.



Super Gavins to the rescue!

Regards


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (8 Jan 2008)

Rayman said:
			
		

> Like George said I guess Sparkys found something relevant to his intrests. Ive never been in a LAV or used one yet, but do Canadians want something better armoured? Something totally different? Im sure a brand new vehicle program will cost tax payers millions, if not billions, for a more highly armoured vehicle to replace every LAV III we have now. Though as someone else noted to me in another thread, the Taliban will just continue to build bigger bombs to take on whatever else we throw at them. As well as for rollovers lets not get into the media frenzy (or maybe we should) that was when SUV's became popular. I remember watching a whole thing about it on 20/20. Yet still theres millions of those out there.



They want us in Iltis's with blue helmets....the nostalgia is palapable.


----------



## Rodahn (8 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reminds me of the phone conversation I had today with a fellow who asked me what the mortality rate was in Afghanistan.  I pondered that for a few moments and then replied that it was a hard question to answer.  I went on to say that it was probably better than Toronto, with over 78 murders a year, compared to the 70 plus we have lost in Afghanistan over a period of six or seven years.  Come to think of it, Afghanistan is safer.  He seemed to agree.



George; I would have told him that it was the same as everywhere else, 100%..... Nobody gets out alive... But then again that's my flippant side coming through....


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2008)

"Sparky Syndrome" may explain some of these poll results.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Jan 2008)

Five Canadian soldiers have been killed in light armored vehicle rollovers. Should the vehicle be banned from combat zones? 

Yes.   39% 
No.   61% 

Total Votes for this Question: 1247  


Poll from CANOE News (Scroll down, right side of screen)


----------



## geo (8 Jan 2008)

Funny thing.  When put in perspective (CANOE) the answer is a resounding vote of support for the LAV

The CTV POLL without context is a useless exercise in futility..... Typical

They're even worse than the CBC


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (8 Jan 2008)

Next Poll: 5 children in the last ten years have been injured from bicycle helmet related problems. Should Canada ban the use of all bicycle helmets for kids?

Yes: 61%

No: 39%

Please note that 61% of people surveyed did not have kids and were unfamiliar with what bicycles were. 

:


----------



## Bane (8 Jan 2008)

YES! For God's sake get those child killing death magnets off our children! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


"Next on Hardcopy: Did you know that greedy helmet manufacturers are trying to kill babies? Did you also know that the government is letting them?"


----------

