Scooters are depressing

**bogan** · 3rd December 2014, 20:56

Originally Posted by Mike.Gayner

Holy fuck this is a gay thread.

It is now you're here.

**HenryDorsetCase** · 3rd December 2014, 21:07

Originally Posted by corsaro128

HmmmmmMMMM

By yesterday I had gotten up to $510, a bag of chips and a swappa crate of double brown. Unless you are a stripper in which case it is $510, the chips and a couple of bottles of Lindauer Special Reserve. Are you a stripper? Or, like, could you be?

**buggerit** · 3rd December 2014, 21:08

Originally Posted by cassina

Firstly those that disagree with my argument are always the same 3 or 4 people out of maybe several hundred or even thousand guys who are members of this site. So on that basis there is no certainty whatsoever that they are wrong and I am right otherwise there would be at least 30 or 40 guys opposing my views at the very minimum. When you think about it you are correct in comparing riding to Russian roulette and the same goes for cycling. When I first started riding there was a saying that motorcyclists were temporary NZers if you have ever heard that but not you guys eh!!

You take "thick as pig shit" to a whole new level, don't you

**skippa1** · 3rd December 2014, 21:22

Originally Posted by cassina

Firstly those that disagree with my argument are always the same 3 or 4 people out of maybe several hundred or even thousand guys who are members of this site. So on that basis there is no certainty whatsoever that they are wrong and I am right otherwise there would be at least 30 or 40 guys opposing my views at the very minimum!

I wasn't going to post in this thread but there is no way I am going to indicate any support for your fucked up theories by remaing silent

cunt

**Taxythingy** · 3rd December 2014, 21:53

Cassina, I disagree with your argument.

I have found my experiences on the road, including two crashes, most of my other riding and driving, observations of several avoided crashes and driving in multiple countries, fits well with JD's approach.

I find your arguments to be very black or white, with little or no acceptance of the other position as having any merit.

I see little that I can reference back to serious study of safety, both on and off the road, particularly around how people actually do things and why compared to older, systems based approaches to safety.

Your counter arguments appear to target edge cases and then use these as a reason to refute an opposing argument completely. When this happens, it makes it look as though you haven't understood the other position.

None of this means I think your ideas are wrong, I just find them difficult to accept. Flip side, I find some other people to have made very good counter arguments and in these I place significantly more value.

Ride the way you want and believe what you will, but I think you would do well to reread some of these longer threads and consider why others have taken the positions they have.

Except Akzle's. There's no point trying to attain that level of artistry.

Edit: Should have written what Skippa did.

**Madness** · 3rd December 2014, 21:58

Are we doing a partition? I completely disagree with everything Cassina has ever posted on this site.

**Big Dog** · 3rd December 2014, 22:08

Originally Posted by cassina

Firstly those that disagree with my argument are always the same 3 or 4 people out of maybe several hundred or even thousand guys who are members of this site. So on that basis there is no certainty whatsoever that they are wrong and I am right otherwise there would be at least 30 or 40 guys opposing my views at the very minimum. When you think about it you are correct in comparing riding to Russian roulette and the same goes for cycling. When I first started riding there was a saying that motorcyclists were temporary NZers if you have ever heard that but not you guys eh!!

Ironically I have outlived everyone who has ever called me that to my face.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Big Dog** · 3rd December 2014, 22:16

Originally Posted by Taxythingy

Cassina, I disagree with your argument.

I have found my experiences on the road, including two crashes, most of my other riding and driving, observations of several avoided crashes and driving in multiple countries, fits well with JD's approach.

I find your arguments to be very black or white, with little or no acceptance of the other position as having any merit.

I see little that I can reference back to serious study of safety, both on and off the road, particularly around how people actually do things and why compared to older, systems based approaches to safety.

Your counter arguments appear to target edge cases and then use these as a reason to refute an opposing argument completely. When this happens, it makes it look as though you haven't understood the other position.

None of this means I think your ideas are wrong, I just find them difficult to accept. Flip side, I find some other people to have made very good counter arguments and in these I place significantly more value.

Ride the way you want and believe what you will, but I think you would do well to reread some of these longer threads and consider why others have taken the positions they have.

Except Akzle's. There's no point trying to attain that level of artistry.

Edit: Should have written what Skippa did.

I agree. Closed minded, flippant, modify the data to fit your argument statements don't really compare to reasoned debate and rebuttal crafted to fit the evidence / data.
I would also like to add we have invited him to rebut any of our arguments. To which we only ever get a restatement of the original statement. Not even a fresh argument.

This leads me to believe I have been lured in by a lurid troll.

Lured into giving long an reasoned arguments.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Big Dog** · 3rd December 2014, 22:20

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Ironically I have outlived everyone who has ever called me that to my face.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Now that I think about it my doctor used to refer to me as an organ donor.
He'll keep.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Big Dog** · 3rd December 2014, 22:29

Originally Posted by cassina

The argument is simply this and that is the others think there is always time when another motorist screws up to take evasive action and I am saying that this is not always the case and I have found this out from experience. The others have just got very lucky in always having time to take evasive action in my opinion. If it was possible for all riders to take evasive action when other motorists screw up no one would die as a result of the screw up now would they?

A falsehood wrapped up in an enigma.

Asked and answered. Yes.
Because as humans we evolve. As we find new ways to survive ever more perilous pursuits we find better ways to die or maim ourselves.

Very few persons have all the tools in their tool box to deal with every possible scenario but if we take responsibility for ourselves and those around us we can limit the likely hood that we have a hammer in our hand when we need a saw.

Failure to plan becomes a plan to fail.

The big difference between me and many more skilled riders I have had the pleasure of knowing through this site who are no longer with us is I take the time to develop and practice my survival skills and hold this in higher regard than popping wheelies or going super fast.

You feel free to accept a fatalist approach and live on the luck portion of the equation if you like, me, I'll continue to modify the things I can change, improve the things I can improve and hope for the best with the rest.

Any survival equals:
Resources x planning x luck x will = survival.

I am not about to put a zero into any of those variables.

I will also offer support, advice and encouragement to any person of any background who also wants to live.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

**Taxythingy** · 3rd December 2014, 22:59

Originally Posted by cassina

The argument is simply this and that is the others think there is always time when another motorist screws up to take evasive action and I am saying that this is not always the case

Wrong, and that supports what I said when I suggested a lack of understanding of the other position.

Your argument is that there isn't always time to take action when another motorist screws up.
The other side of the argument is that there isn't always time to take action when another motorist screws up, but that good observation and planning will reduce the number of those situations.

It's the same fundamental position, but showing a plan of attack to deal with some of the lack of certainties, increasing the chances that when something does go wrong they will have the time to deal with it.

**bogan** · 4th December 2014, 07:53

Originally Posted by cassina

The argument is simply this and that is the others think there is always time when another motorist screws up to take evasive action

Wrong, we think that you should ride so as to ensure there is (within reason), so as to minimise the risk of accident.

You seem to advocate the opposite approach, that there isn't always going to be time to react, so why bother trying to ensure there is at all. No wonder you have enough accidents under your belt to subcategorise em!