Scooters - Would you buy one?

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

Cancel each other out? Can statistics cancel each other out can they? Hmm thats new.

They sure can. if (hypotheticaly) for every 10 fatalities, you need 100 crashes, then for 5 bike/scooter fatalities, you would need 50 crashes, for 50 car fatalities, you would need 500 crashes, so untill you have some stats to prove otherwise, then yes, they cancle eachother out as untill then, it is totaly unfounded to assume either way, 10:100 is exactly the same ratio as 50:500.

I said scooters are safer for the rider based on the document provided, and I said the public is safer if you ride a scooter based on commonsense (hit me with a scooter anyday if the only other option is a car).

Earlier you said this...

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

You can make the facts say whatever you want basically!

Then you said this......

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

And that my friend cannot be argued in any way shape or form to be correct

......
Which way is it? can the facts be made to say whatever I want, or can it not be argued in any way shape or form?



Another point that I brought up earlier was that nobody has suggested bycicle riders should take a course, yet fatalities are the same, and I see more scooters/motorbikes around on the road than I do pushbikes.

As far as spelling goes.... I dont proffess to be a spelling ace, infact, I openly admit Im probably one of the worst spellers you'll stuble across. Even still, you seem to be able to understand what was implied by each word, spelt correctly or not so get over it.
Your the only one going around in circles, and by attacking my spelling to try and give your argument more credibility, well, now your just clutching at straws

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

.......with its neck snapping acceleration has caused you a brain injury.........

Maybe it just has, and with that, two more words spring to mind.....

'Toolus', 'Magoolus'

Could you tell me if they are spelt correctly or not?? :

[jonk]

I can verify robbo yobbo claim about depreciation. Their were second hand 6 year old bolwell's that were just barely selling under the new sticker price - plus they had faded paint, wear and tear issues because they were 'rentals'.

Do a search on google about bike vs scooter safety - I like the common point made about scooters have their rider's legs within the metal box but bikes don't ofcourse, and the step through nature of a scooter tends to allow the rider more escape chances.

[XA Coupsta]

Ah Yobbo. Its such a shame that you choose to quote less than one line of my posts to try and rebute the argument at hand. You really have nothing do you.

Its this simple. You cannot realistically claim that scooters are 'safer' because there was only 5 fatalities of this vehicle type.

My point is this - there is a direct relationship between total accidents occured verse total fatalities - that even a mildly intellectual person can understand.

They cannot be viewed independently of each other - nor 'cancle' out as you would suggest.

As for the depreciation argument - you've already given that fight up earlier.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

-scooters are very easy to re-sell, at no depreciation, 1 add and the phone will ring within the hour. bikes are not so easy to sell, you will loose more on your bike.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

the ones that purchase new, will loose out (I dont argue that), but after the initial new-to-used loss, its all roses my friend.

So thanks Yobbo. They do depreciate. Ive never argued the rate of depreciation - just your statment of no depreciation.

Knock yourself out with the personal attacks mate - you're the one on a scooter!

[robbo_yobbo]

Dude, what are you smoking?????

Im pretty sure I have time and time again mentioned second hand.
Im pretty sure that time and time again, Ive acknowledged that the person buying new wears the loss, and that thats the only loss to be worn. You are abviously completeley missing the point (I doubt its anything to do with my spelling thats causing this all to go straight over your head).

My opinion is plain and simple: buy a second hand scooter, and you wont loose money, IT WONT DEPRECIATE, and if your lucky, you might even make money if you get it cheap enough.

As far as the safetey aspect, re-read my posts to get a clear view of my opinion on 2 wheeled safetey, or would you like me to quote myself to make it easy for you?...........

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

No I dont believe Im safer to myself on a scooter than in a car (I do believe Im less danger to the public though)

That summs up my POV in a nutshell.

Theres no point arguing FACTS, because they are FACTS. Nothing you can say will change that. All you can do is try and change my OPINION (and your doing a pretty lousy job of that so far).

I can see you obviously dont agree with the depreciation side of things, probably because you havnt looked into it yourself and your "Flying Blind" so to speak with your argument. Maybee if you do some investigations yourself you will see the light.

Im not realy sure exactly what your trying to convince me of safetey wise though??? maybe you could shed some light on your actual point.....

Think about your argument here and what your actualy trying to convince me of, then you might actualy stand a chance trying to convince me of your point of view.

[XA Coupsta]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

So scooters/motorbikes are no less safe than bicycles, and allot safer than large vehicles which had 47 fatalaties.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

In actual fact, its more dangerous to be a pedestrian than on a motorcycle/scooter, as 7 fatalaties involved pedestrians!

More dangerous to be a pedestrian than a scooter rider?! How many pedestrians compared to scooter riders do you think there are Yobbo? Oh boy these are good.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

Now I thik that we can all agree scooters pose less threat to a pedestrian than a big car, so its fairly safe to assume (based on the documented evidence of SA roads) that scooters riders are less likeley to be in a fatal crash than car drivers,

Scooter riders are less likely to be in a fatal crash than car drivers?! :

I'll take you back one last time Yobbo to what im saying - all you had to make these statements are fatality statistics. Thats all. So how you have calculated chance into those statistics - when you dont know total number of accidents occured?

Total fatalities divided by total accidents would give you a percentage - which is your 'chance' element.

But - you dont know the total amount of accidents it took to have those fatalities occur. So please stop insulting others intelligence by trying to pass off your unsubstantiated claims.

So this.............

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

so its fairly safe to assume (based on the documented evidence of SA roads) that scooters riders are less likeley to be in a fatal crash than car drivers,

........is total rubbish!!!!

Your opinion is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I dont want to change your opinion at all - thats the beauty of message boards is differing opinions and points of view. If you and I are only discussing opinions this would have ended a page or so ago.

BUT. You went and included some very minimal statistics to now try and prove your opinion as correct - and thats where the issue begins. If you are going to stick your neck out on using stats make sure they stack up huh.

Mate I ride a bike - and in no way am I naive enough to think they are safer than cars. Certainly not safer than pedestrians either!

This is tiresome. Im done. I expect you to continue your charade but go for it mate. Thread has gone totally off topic anyway.

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

The last post was to give the "he man scooter haters club" a bit of a razz, I threw out the bait, you took it hook line and sinker......And your still running !!!! .

The quotes you have made all come from the same post that the above comments reffers to.... jeeze, hook line and sinker was an understatement, man, you took the whole friggin boat!

But seen as you are persisting. Heres a few things that are undoubtably true and correct.............

Mode of transport you are most likeley to die or be seriously injured in; from highest likeleyhood to lowest....
1. CAR!!!! (yep argue it all you will its still the facts)
2. WALKING - Pedestrian
3. Pushbike (equal 4th)
4. Motorcycle/scooter (equal 3rd).

This does not mean that while you are sitting on your 2 wheeled vehicle that you are less likeley to crash or be killed/injured in a crash than while you are sitting in your car, but it does mean that over the duration of your life, the likeleyhood that you will die or be injured on a bike/scooter, is much lower than than the likeleyhood of death/injury in your car.

It also means that if you randomly selected a group of people, there will be allot more poeple in that group that are killed or injured in cars than on bikes.

Yes theres allot of reasons for this, and allot of things to consider when analyzing the true meaning of the data for yourself, but these reasons dont change the final outcome, or the above current facts.

Its like Sharks vs Bees. I think we can all agree that sharks far more capable of inflicting serious injury than a little bee, but more people die each year from bee stings than shark attacks!! That doesnt mean that your chances of surviving a shark attack are better than a bee sting, it just means that over the course of your life, it is more likeley that you will die from a bee sting, than die from a shark atttack.

following yet???? or should I keep reeling?

[kremmen]

Hold onto anything for long enough, and it will be worth more than what you paid

[XA Coupsta]

So if you apparently throw bait out (its a duck for cover Yobbo - cmon man up) how do we know what post you are trying to be real with and what post you are playing games with?

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

Mode of transport you are most likeley to die or be seriously injured in; from highest likeleyhood to lowest....
1. CAR!!!! (yep argue it all you will its still the facts)
2. WALKING - Pedestrian
3. Pushbike (equal 4th)
4. Motorcycle/scooter (equal 3rd).

PROVE these statements then - and your methodology as to how you reached a conclusion of 'likeleyhood'............

I said I was out but your stupidity intrigues me too much.

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

So if you apparently throw bait out (its a duck for cover Yobbo - cmon man up) how do we know what post you are trying to be real with and what post you are playing games with?

Thats the art of fishing isnt it..... The fish doesnt know it was bait untill its caught . looks like I caught me a beauty!
but I mean come-on, sureley this comment gave it away right at the end

Originally Posted by robbo Yobbo

guess that makes scooters the all around safer option! - SAFER THAN WALKING TOO!

can anyone take that seriously?
And if that wasnt enough, try comparing that single document analysis to my previous, and following statements, which show my actual point of view, such as

Originally Posted by robbo Yobbo

.... above all, a skooter driver is risking thier own saftey .....

If you cant recognise the bait from the real deal, you deserve to be caught :togo:

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

PROVE these statements then - and your methodology as to how you reached a conclusion of 'likeleyhood'............

I said I was out but your stupidity intrigues me too much.

You must be thick as a brick. :
a conclusion of 'likeleyhood' means: while it is not a guarantee (less than 100%), there is a much better chance that something will happen as opposed to not happen.

Now even still, the proof is in the pudding.

if there are time and time again more crashes in cars than bikes, and the stats to proove it, then by following current trends, it is more than fair to assume that history will continue repeat itself as it always has.

All current stats say that there are more car fatalities than bikes, and that there is no reason for this to change in the immediate future.

What more proof would you like??? Ive already supplied one document, (its from transport SA, so its not like it lacks credibility) theres hundreds more documents on the same site you can investigate for yourself all saying the same thing, I put it to you provide anything to contradict it.

Im starting to enjoy these little 'debates', it amuses me how you try to contradict a point, get defeted, move onto another point, get defeated, and go round in circles trying to pry open any gap you can to get leverage on your argument as a whole..

Just for reference, these are the points that seem to have been raised and contested here......
1)I said, yep, get a scooter........You said "Nup get a real sized bike, not a scooter"
2)You said "bikes are safer because they go faster" - the stats say that over 80% of 2 wheeled motor vehicle incidents that result in death or serious injury, involve speeds in excess of 90kmph, you also confirmed that a scooter would have to "wring its neck off" to reach 60kph
3)I said used scooters dont depreciate, and are easier to sell than bikes - you dissagreed. I know its true, I did my own market research, others that have been on the buyer/seller market for scooters have also confirmed this, you seem to have dropped this argument after realising your wrong.
4)you suggested increasing speed was a safer option to being tailgated (as opposed to my advice of stopping, slowing down, changing lanes or pulling over) - I said that any professional instructor would dissagree with you
5) Now your just arguing documented statistics, and asking me to proove them. I say that the documented stats are the proof, and am intrested to see what you come up with next.

[XA Coupsta]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

a conclusion of 'likeleyhood' means: while it is not a guarantee (less than 100%), there is a much better chance that something will happen as opposed to not happen.

Im not asking for a definition of likelyhood. Thanks though. Ive asked you to prove this likelyhood aspect you have based your argument upon. You are yet to do so.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

All current stats say that there are more car fatalities than bikes, and that there is no reason for this to change in the immediate future.

Aha. This is where you are starting to fall on your own sword. Sure. There are more car fatalities than bikes. So what. Where is this chance and likelyhood you speak of and are apparently proving?

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

What more proof would you like??? Ive already supplied one document, (its from transport SA, so its not like it lacks credibility) theres hundreds more documents on the same site you can investigate for yourself all saying the same thing, I put it to you provide anything to contradict it.

Show me where that document discusses or indicates a risk associated with vehicle types and likelyhood of being in a fatality in one?

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

1)I said, yep, get a scooter........You said "Nup get a real sized bike, not a scooter".

Well didnt you know - scooters are gay? lol Oh hang on - your's is big bore with a zorst. You are hardcore.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

2)You said "bikes are safer because they go faster" - the stats say that over 80% of 2 wheeled motor vehicle incidents that result in death or serious injury, involve speeds in excess of 90kmph, you also confirmed that a scooter would have to "wring its neck off" to reach 60kph".

Dont entirely disagree here. I am still of the OPINION that bikes are safer. So many times in the traffic that I ENCOUNTER - scooters are holding up traffic coz they cant do the speed limit.

Yes absolutely speed is a factor in almost all 2 wheeled accidents. Being able to do the speed limit and doing excessive speeds are two different things.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

3)I said used scooters dont depreciate, and are easier to sell than bikes - you dissagreed. I know its true, I did my own market research, others that have been on the buyer/seller market for scooters have also confirmed this, you seem to have dropped this argument after realising your wrong.

Nice change in argument. If you wanna use that as a win you go for it. Your very first post (and I quoted it previously) said - Scooters dont depreciate. Later you change your tune to secondhand or yadda yadda. So you went from saying they dont to they do - but yeh you won that one.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

4)you suggested increasing speed was a safer option to being tailgated (as opposed to my advice of stopping, slowing down, changing lanes or pulling over) - I said that any professional instructor would dissagree with you.

Are you a professional instructor? Have you done the courses? I know they are both no's. Maybe you were fishing with these comments - who knows.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

5) Now your just arguing documented statistics, and asking me to proove them. I say that the documented stats are the proof, and am intrested to see what you come up with next.

You've rambled but not proven a thing. You defined likelyhood. Wow.

You are using fatality stats to somehow (who knows) demonstrate likelyhood. All you've shown (well that document has shown) is that 47 died in car crashes - 7 on bikes.

I continue to say - so what. 47 and 7, yep great - so how HAVE YOU translated this into a likelyhood percentage?

PROVE your point Yobbo. You can mouth off with the best of them - so I'm calling you out. SHOW these apparent facts on likelyhood. That SA Transport document does not do that.

Someone save me......

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

Im not asking for a definition of likelyhood. Thanks though. Ive asked you to prove this likelyhood aspect you have based your argument upon. You are yet to do so........Aha. This is where you are starting to fall on your own sword. Sure. There are more car fatalities than bikes. So what. Where is this chance and likelyhood you speak of and are apparently proving?......Show me where that document discusses or indicates a risk associated with vehicle types and likelyhood of being in a fatality in one?

Look, Ill dumm it down for you seen as you appear to be a few stubbies short of a sixpack.

Can you proove the future?? No, Not untill it comes. All we can do is make a prediction of what is likeley to happen based on what has happened in the past.
To do that, we need acurate historical data. we use the data to plot a graph, from the graph we can create a trend line which should suggest a LIKELEY outcome. (true, that while likeley, its not guaranteed, but still, Id bet my sorry *** on it that my prediction is accurate).

In this case, we plot a our graph using the data in the document I provided(you could use more of these documents if you like to get a greater historical timespan and more accurate result).
The 'x' axis represents the number of total fatalities (not just road related), while the y axis represents the number fatalities involving cars. We plot our stats on the graph, draw a trend line, and then continue that trend line into the future

Then on the same graph, we use a different collour (lets say cars were red and this one-bikes are blue) and we plot fatalities involving bikes, draw the trend line and continue it into the future.

Now what we find, is that as the total number of fatalities increases, so does the gap between the bike fatalities and the car fatalities. The graph shows that if we follow past and current trends, we will continue to have more car crashes than bike crashes.

You can draw another graph showing only road related deaths and you will find it will still give you the same underlying result - more car crashes than bike crashes.

These graphs say, that as a member of the public, if you were to die tomorrow in a road related event, it is more likeley to be involving a car than a bike/scooter.

I back this theory with $10k - if you still think Im wrong, then take me up on the bet, and if at the end of 07 theres been more bike fatalities than car fatalities, then you can reap the rewards. but the only reason not to take me up on the bet, is if you are lacking confidence in your argument

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

Well didnt you know - scooters are gay? lol Oh hang on - your's is big bore with a zorst. You are hardcore.

Your a bigger tool than I first thought - How hardcore does that make you then on your "Real Mans Bike" as you put it? I dont need to compensate for anything on my scooter, whats your real mans bike making up for>>???

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

Dont entirely disagree here. I am still of the OPINION that bikes are safer. So many times in the traffic that I ENCOUNTER - scooters are holding up traffic coz they cant do the speed limit.

Yes absolutely speed is a factor in almost all 2 wheeled accidents. Being able to do the speed limit and doing excessive speeds are two different things.

If you dont dissagree, then why argue it. As stated, scooters are more than capable of keeping up with city traffic so this isnt a problem. The ones that cant are the grandma scooters that are for footpaths, and electric ones which arent allowed on the road anyway, and maybe ones with worn/damaged engines, which im sure if inspected wouldnt be allowed on the road....... You did disagree at first, you said that stopping or changing lanes was much worse than speeding up (talk of changing your argument)

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

Nice change in argument. If you wanna use that as a win you go for it. Your very first post (and I quoted it previously) said - Scooters dont depreciate. Later you change your tune to secondhand or yadda yadda. So you went from saying they dont to they do - but yeh you won that one.

HAHAHA HOW WRONG ARE YOU!!! That was my argument from the get go. Would you like a quote from my very forst post in this thread........
HERE IT IS! (from the 'pros' list) "-if you buy secondhand, providing you keep it in reasonable codition, you wont loose ANY money on resale."

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

Are you a professional instructor? Have you done the courses? I know they are both no's. Maybe you were fishing with these comments - who knows.

No fishing here, but no Im not a professional instructor, yes I have done several courses. (even a motorcycle road course when I was younger - not for my liscence though). And Seen several drive safe videos, and read the handbooks. All of which suggest to stop, slow down, or change lanes if being tailgated. Looks like maybee you need to do the course again.

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

You've rambled but not proven a thing. You defined likelyhood. Wow.

You are using fatality stats to somehow (who knows) demonstrate likelyhood. All you've shown (well that document has shown) is that 47 died in car crashes - 7 on bikes.

I continue to say - so what. 47 and 7, yep great - so how HAVE YOU translated this into a likelyhood percentage?

PROVE your point Yobbo. You can mouth off with the best of them - so I'm calling you out. SHOW these apparent facts on likelyhood. That SA Transport document does not do that.

So percentage is all your after hey. Well based on those results, of all possible causes of death, you are 85% more likeley to be killed in a crash involving a car, than by a crash involving a bike.

I've shown the facts, Ive asked you to proove otherwise too, Ive put a financial proposition to you if Im wrong, take me up on the offer if you think your so right. I havnt heard a valid constesting argument from you yet. You dont like my proof, but you've failed to proove otherwise

Originally Posted by XA Coupsta

Someone save me......

Mate, it seems your beyond help!

[Zoink]

Have no doubt about it, riding a motor bike is far more dangerous than driving a car.
From the RTA NSW site.
“Severe head and brain injuries often occur in motorcycle accidents and motorcycle riders are 20 times more likely to be killed in a road accident than car occupants”

This from the RTA NSW accident statistics for 2005
Total passenger vehicle’s on the register = 3,264,680 (does not include Rigid truck, van or utility’s)
No of drivers killed = 191

Total motor bikes on the register = 111,253
No of riders killed = 61

Put simply
1 rider death per 1,824 motor bikes on the register
1 driver death per 17,093 passenger vehicle’s

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...tstats2005.pdf

[kremmen]

Ok here is a less gay scooter, actually the trans am is a bit of a worry....

http://gprime.net/video.php/goped

[Neeek]

Good Lord, this is silly.

robbo_yobbo, you know absolutely sweet FA about calculating statistics. I think it's rather funny, actually.

As for the whole "a secondhand scooter will not depreciate further" argument, I have to sound the buzzer, I'm afraid. My wife paid $6,000 or thereabouts for her scooter about 18 months ago. We investigated the possibility of selling it as it wasn't going to be used for a bit, and do you know what? Well, it seems it depreciated! How about that..? We were offered $3,500 for it from the same dealer we bought it from. Granted they would then mark the price up, but I don't think it would be on sale tomorrow at six grand.

So whilst they don't depreciate MUCH in the open market, I'm afraid that like just about every other form of transport under 10-15 years old, they depreciate.

[XA Coupsta]

Neek! Yes! THANK you!

You too Zoink!!

[XA Coupsta]

Firstly - Zoink and Neek - thank you for posting, reading all this rubbish and bringing some sensibility to this.

Yobbo. Thanks for talking about plotting graphs (oh and different colours - lol) and history and future and whatever the hell you are on about. As Neek has so elegantly pointed out - you know FA all about calculating statistics. But you know plenty bout shooting your mouth off.

ps - if you are going to 'dumm' it down for me - at least spell dumb correctly! bah ha ha ha - oh I got a massive laugh from that.

Dude keep your 10k (buy a real bike with it eh?). The 10k offer is BS anyway - just like your posts.

Zoink has beaten me too it.

Originally Posted by yobbo_robbo

So percentage is all your after hey. Well based on those results, of all possible causes of death, you are 85% more likeley to be killed in a crash involving a car, than by a crash involving a bike.

Hows this Yobbo:
* Motorcyclists are around 29 times more likely to be killed than operators of other vehicles travelling the same distance;
* Motorcyclists represent 4% of all road crashes, but account for 10% of all deaths and 7% of all injuries.
From here - http://www.aaa.asn.au/saferroads/bikes.asp

And this:
* Australian and international crash data, and reports in the literature, show that motorcycle riders carry a far greater risk of casualty crash involvement that the occupants of passenger cars. Based on NSW and Victorian data, the risk of casualty per distance travelled for Australian motorcycle riders IS OF THE ORDER OF 16-18 TIMES THAT OF PASSENGER CAR OCCUPANTS.
From here - http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=8&gl=au


So Yobbo. Proven? With proof from relevant websites? Not just by me - but Zoink too.

I'd expect you to be a man and wear defeat but you wont. You are all of 20 or so - maybe you're a late bloomer into manhood.

Give it a rest keyboard warrior.

And be careful riding home this afternoon wont you.

[robbo_yobbo]

No, now were talking 2 completeley different sets of statistics.

These stats dont even fit in to the argument, they are just a side step to try and get around it.

The statistics your refering to sugest the likeleyness of death of a motorcyclist, versus the likeleyness of death of a car driver.

The statistics we were talking about previousley indicate the likeleyness of a person to die on a scooter vs a car.

All your documents show, is that scooters are more dangerous to ride than than cars (which I might is a point that I agree on).

So MR SFA about astatistics. try again, and this time take a good look at the differences.

I stand that you, or any person in australia, is far more likeley to die in a car, than on a bike. My 10K is for real, and theres no chance I will loose, so take me up on the offer and we will see.

Youve even said it yourself you idiot........ "there are more cars on the road than bikes".........The sheer difference in these numbers far outweighs the extra danger to motorcycle riders.

your reply is completeley ofskew with the actual debate.

Just because a motorcycle rider has 29x greater risk of death than other modes of transport, does not change the fact that MORE car drivers WILL DIE each year. 29Xmore risk vs 100x more cars - its a numbers game!
And because theres more cars, and more people die in cars every year, the chance of you, or me, or anyone dying in a car crash, is much greater than dying in a motorcycle crash.

Its basic........
You are more likeley to die in a car, than by testing a 9V battery,
You are more likeley to die in a car, than by having a coconut fall on your head
You are more likeley to die in a car, than in a plane crash
You are more likeley to die in a car, than be eaten by a crockodile
You are more likeley to die in a car, than die on a motorcycle
You are more likeley to die in a car, than die bungie jumping

all these things have an inherrent risk associated with them, but the general public spends allot more time in a car than performing most of the other tasks.

Sure, if you compared 100 motorcycle riders, with 100 car drivers, the car drivers would end up much beter off.....but the numbers just arent even in the real world......And untill that changes, the car will ALWAYS be on top of motorcycles on the "10 most likeley causes of death" chart.

For that matter, here are the actual leading causes of death, and most likeley ways to die (unaturaly)........CAR RANKS #2!!!

1) Suicide (34%)
2) CAR CRASH (20%)
3) Poisoning/overdosing/overmedicating (13%)
4) Accidental falls (5%)
5) Homicide (4%)
6) Drowning (3%)

Motorcycles dont even rank at around 1.5% - check with the bureau of statistics - they too will confirm with you that not only are you much more likley to die in a car crash than a bike crash, but your also more likeley to drow, get shot, fall and kill yourself, get poisoned, or commit suicide.

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by Neeek

Good Lord, this is silly.

robbo_yobbo, you know absolutely sweet FA about calculating statistics. I think it's rather funny, actually.

As for the whole "a secondhand scooter will not depreciate further" argument, I have to sound the buzzer, I'm afraid. My wife paid $6,000 or thereabouts for her scooter about 18 months ago. We investigated the possibility of selling it as it wasn't going to be used for a bit, and do you know what? Well, it seems it depreciated! How about that..? We were offered $3,500 for it from the same dealer we bought it from. Granted they would then mark the price up, but I don't think it would be on sale tomorrow at six grand.

So whilst they don't depreciate MUCH in the open market, I'm afraid that like just about every other form of transport under 10-15 years old, they depreciate.

I suspect one or more of the following to be true here
a) you initialy bought the scooter new (Im talking used scooters here)
b) you have a scooter bigger than 50cc - requiring a bike liscence (part of the reason 50ccs dont depreciate is there is a bigger market due to no lisc reqirement)
c) you or your wife dropped it, or just completeley rooted it mechanicaly, or did not keep it in the same condition or look after it at all.
d) you just got completeley ripped off when you bought it, and then went back to the same dealer to let them rip you off again when you sold it amplifying the difference even further.
e) your lying

Why??? because first of all theres not allot of 50cc's around with a $6000 pricetag from new, ledalone anyone that would fork that out for a used 50cc to begin with. Its also not all that common for any already used vehicle (ledalone a scooter) to loose an additional 50% of its value in 18 months if its kept in the same condition. even 2nd hand falcons and commodores (2 of the fastest depreciating vehicles) are capable of reaching 50% of thier NEW value after 18months from dealers - and your suggesting you lost a further 50% of its USED value??? (somethings up here....)

I suspect you know (as you so elegantly put it) SFA about what is actualy being discussed here yourself, and probably didnt actualy spend much time reading through the ins and outs of the 'discussion' to know what your actualy commenting on before throwing in your input.

[kremmen]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

You are more likeley to die in a car, than be eaten by a crockodile

You are more likeley to die in a car, than die bungie jumping

.

Bungie jumping into a river with crocodiles in it would be very dangerous then! :

[Neeek]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

I suspect one or more of the following to be true here
a) you initialy bought the scooter new (Im talking used scooters here)

Nope, secondhand with about 8,000km on the clock. Serviced on the button every 1,500km, one owner, 2004 model.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

b) you have a scooter bigger than 50cc - requiring a bike liscence (part of the reason 50ccs dont depreciate is there is a bigger market due to no lisc reqirement)

It's a 150, yes. And everything new depreciates to some degree.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

c) you or your wife dropped it, or just completeley rooted it mechanicaly, or did not keep it in the same condition or look after it at all.

Nope - it's immaculate, just like when we bought it. Not dropped, scratched, rooted or otherwise.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

d) you just got completeley ripped off when you bought it, and then went back to the same dealer to let them rip you off again when you sold it amplifying the difference even further.

We certainly could've got one cheaper, but the problem was finding one. They were all sold by the time they were advertised, so we popped down to the dealer and foudn one there in silver that was what we wanted. They'd taken it as a trade-in and hadn't even prepared it. And they'd already had 2 people interested in it. I took out the card and left a deposit so it was ours/my wifes.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

e) your lying

I'm tempted to post up oodles of pictures and documents to support my "claims", but it's really not worth it. I'm not lying, and I'm disappointed you think so.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

Why??? because first of all theres not allot of 50cc's around with a $6000 pricetag from new, ledalone anyone that would fork that out for a used 50cc to begin with. Its also not all that common for any already used vehicle (ledalone a scooter) to loose an additional 50% of its value in 18 months if its kept in the same condition. even 2nd hand falcons and commodores (2 of the fastest depreciating vehicles) are capable of reaching 50% of thier NEW value after 18months from dealers - and your suggesting you lost a further 50% of its USED value??? (somethings up here....)

As I've said before, the scooter is a Vespa ET4 150. A proper scooter rather than a lawnmower with no blades, two less wheels and a seat. As for depreciation, I suspect we could sell it in the Trading Post for about $4,500 to $5,000 in the current market. And seeing as it's still immaculate, that's what I call depreciation. There's no way we could possibly sell it for six grand now - not a chance.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

I suspect you know (as you so elegantly put it) SFA about what is actualy being discussed here yourself, and probably didnt actualy spend much time reading through the ins and outs of the 'discussion' to know what your actualy commenting on before throwing in your input.

You might have me there, but as far as I read, you said:

- second-hand scooters won't depreciate (WRONG)
- scooters/motorcycles are safer than cars because fewer people die from accidents involving them (WRONG)

The first point we could argue until we both collapse and we'll get nowhere.

The second point, however, is that no matter which way you look at it, you're far more likely to die if you have an accident on a motorcycle than you would if you had the same accident and were inside a car. You have no protection from the outside world on a motorobike - no mass of metal, no safety cell, no airbags, no seatbelts... drive a motorcycle head on into a brick wall and watch, because it ain't pretty. Doing the same in a car will be no more pretty, but at least you've got a chance of walking away and saying "that really hurt".

And speaking as someone who's properly binned a motorcycle (a KR1-S, if you care), it does bloody hurt, and if I did the same thing in a car I would've got a headache and some light bruising rather than a trip to the local A&E in an ambulance.

[XR8Master]

Scooter - $1000

Registration/transferer costs - $500

Reconstructive surgury after idiot cuts you off - $10 000

Knowing that a few extra tanks of petrol a year would have been cheaper

Priceless

[irlewy86]

If you read into statistics than you would realise that statistically speaking your more likely to choke to death on a ballpoint pen then get killed by a shark. But how many people use ballpoint pens and refuse to go swimming in shark infested waters. The point is being a road user is a calculated risk, the amount of risk is influced on a whole range of factors, sometimes you cant control those risks.

Oxygen is the most corrosive element in the world. It will kill you, you cant live without it, catch 22. If you don't want to die, do me a favour and stop breathing.

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by Neeek

Nope, secondhand with about 8,000km on the clock. Serviced on the button every 1,500km, one owner, 2004 model
It's a 150, yes. And everything new depreciates to some degree.
Nope - it's immaculate, just like when we bought it. Not dropped, scratched, rooted or otherwise.
We certainly could've got one cheaper, but the problem was finding one. They were all sold by the time they were advertised, so we popped down to the dealer and foudn one there in silver that was what we wanted. They'd taken it as a trade-in and hadn't even prepared it. And they'd already had 2 people interested in it. I took out the card and left a deposit so it was ours/my wifes.
I'm tempted to post up oodles of pictures and documents to support my "claims", but it's really not worth it. I'm not lying, and I'm disappointed you think so.
As I've said before, the scooter is a Vespa ET4 150. A proper scooter rather than a lawnmower with no blades, two less wheels and a seat. As for depreciation, I suspect we could sell it in the Trading Post for about $4,500 to $5,000 in the current market. And seeing as it's still immaculate, that's what I call depreciation. There's no way we could possibly sell it for six grand now - not a chance.
You might have me there, but as far as I read, you said:

- second-hand scooters won't depreciate (WRONG)
- scooters/motorcycles are safer than cars because fewer people die from accidents involving them (WRONG)

The first point we could argue until we both collapse and we'll get nowhere.

The second point, however, is that no matter which way you look at it, you're far more likely to die if you have an accident on a motorcycle than you would if you had the same accident and were inside a car. You have no protection from the outside world on a motorobike - no mass of metal, no safety cell, no airbags, no seatbelts... drive a motorcycle head on into a brick wall and watch, because it ain't pretty. Doing the same in a car will be no more pretty, but at least you've got a chance of walking away and saying "that really hurt".

And speaking as someone who's properly binned a motorcycle (a KR1-S, if you care), it does bloody hurt, and if I did the same thing in a car I would've got a headache and some light bruising rather than a trip to the local A&E in an ambulance.

aha.... Theres your problem, your scoot is a 150, part of my first post included no liscence requirement (as well as no depreciation) for scooters. your scooter being 150 puts it in the bikers category depreciation wise.
for no liscence you need a 50cc or less, and thats what Im on about.
Additionaly, I dare say the dealer was screwing you on both ends aswell, maybee a $1500 makup on the sale, $1500 markdown on the purchase, thats a $3000 swing!

As for the saftey aspect, no, I actualy agree that scooters/bikes are far more dangerous, and for that matter agree that your less likeley to survive a bike crash than a car crash. where your reading me wrong however is that I am saying you are more likeley to, "die in a car crash", than "die on a bike", which is a very different statement that you seem to be reading as one.

Like the bloke says above, more people choke on ballpoints each year than have shark attacks, doesnt mean sharks are safer, or that your more likeley to survive a shark attack, just that death by shark attack is less likeley than death by ballpoint

but yeay, bugiejumping into a river full of crocodials, would be pretty risky. maybe throw in a few sharks.....which one would get you???

[Neeek]

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

Additionaly, I dare say the dealer was screwing you on both ends aswell, maybee a $1500 makup on the sale, $1500 markdown on the purchase, thats a $3000 swing!

Who cares? On the open market, ANYTHING new will depreciate. And the older it gets, the less it will be worth. If item A built in 2005 is worth the same as item B that is the same product but made in 2003, which would you buy? Of course, the red one, but with two identical items, the newer one will always be worth more. The market dictates the value, so Mr Average would buy the younger model, thus forcing down the value of the older (but identical) model.

That is, to my mind at least, what depreciation is.

Originally Posted by robbo_yobbo

As for the saftey aspect, no, I actualy agree that scooters/bikes are far more dangerous, and for that matter agree that your less likeley to survive a bike crash than a car crash. where your reading me wrong however is that I am saying you are more likeley to, "die in a car crash", than "die on a bike", which is a very different statement that you seem to be reading as one.

You're only more likely to die in a car crash because that's what you find yourself in most of the time. If you were to spend your time on the road 50/50 split between a car and a bike, I think you'll find that not only will you come off worse on a bike (I don't think this is in debate) but the chances of you having an accident on the bike will be increased.

Bikes are more dangerous than cars, but statisically, I'm more likely to stab myself in the eye with a spoon and die from the resulting injuries. This is because I don't ride a motorcycle but I do eat a bowl of cereal every morning. This does not make bikes safe, it doesn't make bikes more inherantly dangerous than spoons and the whole point is academic anyway.

Anyway, I'm over this thing. Statistics are only that - they are a series of calculations that SOMETIMES have a bearing on real life. 119 motorocycle deaths means nothing, and it's not even a statistic - it's a figure.

[XR8Master]

Go speak to people who actually have a bike and ride it, personally I don't know one bike rider who HASN'T had an accident, though I know many who have NOT had a Car accident

[kremmen]

Originally Posted by XR8Master

Go speak to people who actually have a bike and ride it, personally I don't know one bike rider who HASN'T had an accident, though I know many who have NOT had a Car accident

U haven't ridden until you've dropped your bike. I have, it hurt, lucky I had full leathers boots gloves etc - although the most pain was looking at my bike the next day :(

Scary the amount of scooter riders riding to work in their suits etc. :togo:

[robbo_yobbo]

Originally Posted by Neeek

Who cares? On the open market, ANYTHING new will depreciate. And the older it gets, the less it will be worth. If item A built in 2005 is worth the same as item B that is the same product but made in 2003, which would you buy? Of course, the red one, but with two identical items, the newer one will always be worth more. The market dictates the value, so Mr Average would buy the younger model, thus forcing down the value of the older (but identical) model.

That is, to my mind at least, what depreciation is.

Yes, that is what depreciation is, but not all things depreciate alike, and some things only depreciate to a point. (ie, you'll pay the same money for an XB as you will for an XF 10 years newer, condition permitting, theyve already hit thier baseline)
Ive been through this with the other bloke, this is one of the points he accepted he was wrong on, Ill explain it very simply for you.

Almost anything new is worth less once its used (not everything), and with any automobile car/bike/scooter, you loose value when you ride it off the lot, no argument from me here.
Now generaly, all vehicles now continue to depreciate untill they hit thier "Baseline" which is what that povo guy down the road who cant afford to feed himself is willing to pay for a cruddy car to get to work.
Now most cars you will find this to be somewhere around the $500 mark... doesnt matter how old, or crusty it is, the car is still worth $500 to someone because it can be registered.

The thing with 50cc scooters, is that thier already the cheapest form of transport available from new. Buyer "A" buys a scooter (leets use a $2000 new pricetag as an example), drives this scooter off the lot, and now its worth say 25% less ($1500) to sell to buyer "B". Now because 50cc scooters only require a car liscence, thier cheap, and fuel prices are rising, the market for used scooters is increasing and maintaining the "Baseline" price at around 75% of thier new value (as opposed to a 1% baseline on a car). Now buyer B can sell this scooter in a years time for $1500 still, or he can hang onto it for 5 years and still sell it for $1500. there are people in the trading post today selling scooters theyve had for 5+ years for the same money they paid for them when they bought them used.

Buy a secondhand scooter (car liscence legal), look after it, and you wont loose money (unless you let yourself get ripped off to begin with - DONT SHOP AT DEALERS -EVER!).

Originally Posted by Neeek

You're only more likely to die in a car crash because that's what you find yourself in most of the time. If you were to spend your time on the road 50/50 split between a car and a bike, I think you'll find that not only will you come off worse on a bike (I don't think this is in debate) but the chances of you having an accident on the bike will be increased.

Bikes are more dangerous than cars, but statisically, I'm more likely to stab myself in the eye with a spoon and die from the resulting injuries. This is because I don't ride a motorcycle but I do eat a bowl of cereal every morning. This does not make bikes safe, it doesn't make bikes more inherantly dangerous than spoons and the whole point is academic anyway.

Anyway, I'm over this thing. Statistics are only that - they are a series of calculations that SOMETIMES have a bearing on real life. 119 motorocycle deaths means nothing, and it's not even a statistic - it's a figure.

Yes your exactly right!!!! And this is not a point that I am arguing, but rather embracing!!! you are only more likeley to die in a car crash because thats where you are most of the time!!!
But that still makes me right nonetheless, regardless of the reasons (which I am aware of), Im glad you saw the way in only 2 posts, instead of 2 pages of posts like mr coupsta is still having trouble getting his head around

[TUF_302]

If i lived in the middle of the city i may consider getting one, but other wise keep to a harley lol!

[EL8TED]

ive recently just bought a 50cc scooter, partially for the fact when my car comes off the road, we have no room for a run around car, so a scooter seemed logical. And at 300kms to a 6L tank, i dont really care..Seeing as it costs about ten thousand dollars to get a bike liscense these days, i hardly see it being worth it right now, they are fun to buzz around on, and for me a good investment, part the problem for so many accidents is in attentive driving from car drivers too dont forget.. i had a guy who used to work for me, and he rode a scooter everywhere, and i saw the results of being cut off etc and hitting the tarmac, but its risk ill take. Cant spend you life worrying about when and where you might die.. youd never leave the house otherwise..