heres the USA stats

Motorcycle Crash Facts
Motorcyclist Fatalities Increase
Motorcycles are the most dangerous type of motor vehicle to drive.  These vehicles are involved in fatal crashes at a rate of 35.0 per 100 million miles of travel, compared with a rate of 1.7 per 100 million miles of travel for passenger cars.
Motorcyclists were 35 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash in 2006, per vehicle mile traveled, and 8 times more likely to be injured.
Although motorcycles account for only 2% of vehicles on the road, they make up more than 10% of all crashes.
Motorcycles accounted for nearly 3% of all registered motor vehicles and 0.4% of vehicle miles traveled in 2006.
Motorcycle fatalities have more than doubled in 10 years to 4,810 in 2006. Helmets saved the lives of 1,658 motorcyclists in 2006

How about a bicycle?

so you re goingto loose .4 years...
but you ll prolly will have made up for that by skipping the traffic jams.. ;-p

lol nemeara

Mister Spock, my figurative balls are in good working order (I think o_0!) .. a scooter is just a small motorcycle with floor boards .. still beats most things at the lights. Alcoholism is an addicition to alcohol. You're going to be drinking less alcohol on a day to day basis when your only mode of transport is 2-wheels and public transport. Less exposure = less risk.

I've never wanted a car - very boring things to me. Strange considering I'm an engineer. Parents offered to pay for lessons when I was younger, I was totally uninterested. But it's come to the time for the need of a mode of transport that can take me on longer hauls than around the city. I simply cannot justify in my mind owning 2 tonnes of metal to carry my lazy 80kgs around, and it's 2 tonnes. The financial burden a car has on you seems ridiculously unappealing to me as the cheaper alternative is a bike (something I'd enjoy spending money on as apposed to begrudging). Sure, when I have a wife and 2.2 kids my tune will change about the need for a 2 tonne chunk of metal and plastic - but I'm not there yet .

I meant cars are convenient for practical purposes. If you're just some guy who can't get things done, well, that's your problem. Whether you think it's a problem or not.

Regarding alcoholism, I just meant that riding doesn't inherently make you less prone to drink. You might not drink some times if you know you have to ride, but an alcoholic will make time to drink. Your presumption that owning a bike somehow saves the health of would-be alcoholics is not logical.

I'm saying cars are convenient, and there's a million things you can't carry on a bike.

Your conjecture regarding alcoholism is completely erroneous. It's hilarious that you said your logic was sound. Oh, sweet irony.

I'm sorry, that's retarded. It's not even worth an explanation. Yeah, get a bike. I'll reduce your chances of alcoholism! lol

When Europes economy collapses you could live in a car, be protected from common abuse and most weather issues... your scooter will become a property item for some hoodlums to play a crash derby with.

Pixies, you demonstrate absolutely no knowledge of addiction or alcoholism. If you put as much thought and research into your academic studies as you did your massive flawed presumptions regarding alcoholism/addiction, you'd be lucky if they let you manufacture bottle rockets. If what you claim regarding ratings of your intellectual capacity is true, it's downright bizarre that you even have to ask.

And this, after completely missing my jab about your scooter. I know that's not just a local thing. You even bragged about how it can do 1-10 awfully quickly!

If you want to pretend that alcoholism will be impacted in the slightest by concern for one's means of transportation, you keep smoking that crack pipe and believing anything you want. It's not me deriding you; you're taking care of that yourself.

Whatever you want to tell yourself. Maybe alcoholics would quit drinking if we offered them free popsicles! Nevermind that, like with your presumption, the tiny motivation not to drink is absolutely nothing compared to the addiction and would never, in a million years, be taken seriously as a consideration having any bearing on an alcoholic's behavior.

Some alcoholics drink and ride. Some alcoholics try to be done riding for the day so they can drink. Some alcoholics try not to drink too much before they're done riding for the day. Some alcoholics drink and crash. Some alcoholics drink and die.

They're alcoholics. Consideration of their means of transport won't thwart their alcoholism any more than the knowledge that they're surely destroying their liver, giving themselves cancer, and killing themselves. This is the crux of why your theory is so ignorant and silly. If your IQ is that high, please tell us how you managed to forget that you have absolutely no knowledge of alcoholism or addiction.

Hell, I can drink a 6-pack and ride off-road on unfamiliar terrain and enjoy doing it. Sure I might drink a little less for a time if I know I'm going to ride. But it certainly has 0 impact on my net alcohol consumption. *lol* And I don't even drink that often. The notion that it impacts the drinking habits of anyone remotely approaching the term "alcoholic" is priceless.

That you brought up alcoholism in reference to a decision to own/ride a motorcycle was already hilarious. This self-righteous defense you're keeping up, as if it wasn't laughable from the start, is priceless. Do you often theorize about things you know absolutely nothing about and then demand that others take the time to source arguments against your absolutely ridiculous theories?

I didn't mean any disrespect in laughing you off and not seriously arguing against your ridiculous theory. By not explaining, as if to a child, that addiction doesn't work that way and we can safely presume without a study that you're 100% wrong, I was offering you the opportunity to save face. I suggested that it was THAT obvious that you should look into it and not continue to make an ass of yourself here. This was obviously as lost on you.

Why don't you go ask your question on a forum for recovering alcoholics. If they don't laugh you all the way off the board it'll be because they're offended: They'd likely presume you're trolling because your suggestion is just that ignorant and ridiculous.

The typical motorcyclist is not alright having one or two before riding? As opposed to what? Most drivers are? You're just making random assumptions with no basis. Your theory is filled with completely unfounded assumptions. That you're afraid of your scooter after one or two beers is not indicative of a trend for riders to drink less.

Motorcycle riders are not magically exposed to less opportunities/chances to drink than anybody else. You have absolutely no basis for your assumption that riders have less exposure to alcohol. That's not logic; it's an assumption. And it has no basis.

Alcoholism is addiction. It's not about exposure. It's not a cold. You don't up your chances for it by being exposed to a few more drops of alcohol. Again, that's not logic; it's an assumption. And it has no basis.

I didn't miss your point: Your hypothesis is laughable. You know absolutely nothing about addiction or alcoholism. I've pointed this out already, but your IQ doesn't seem to be adequate to register this important fact.

It's also a very flawed measure of intelligence for multiple reasons. But saying that would require a lengthy explanation in this thread.