Buddy Crash Database

[jrsjr]

As promised, I have created a database from the crash reports in the Who's Crashed? thread. The data is in an XLS file which I have published here.

If you do not have software which reads the XLS spreadsheet format, you can download a free XLS file reader for Windows here.

One of the first things I need help with is figuring out how to publish this information so Apple computer users can access it. Can anybody help me with that problem?

EDIT #1: A Comma Separated Value (CSV) file is now online here.

EDIT #2: The Buddy Crash Database Comments file is now (1/7/09) online. This file contains all the very-useful discussion the respondents posted about their crashes. I think these comments are more useful than any statistical data. It is a plain-text file which should just open in your word processor.

PLEASE NOTE: there was one comment which did not make the cut because there was no associated database entry. This was from BlueMark's post. He chose not to post deets of his accident pending possible associated litigation. However, I feel that his comments are well worth reading. Therefore, I have published them in a separate file BuddyCrashBlueMark.txt

Small Print:
Pls be advised that this is a first pass at producing this database and it is pretty rough, despite much hard work. Please feel free to view this file and give me any and all constructive feedback you have, including corrections, suggestions, picky questions,etc. Just keep it constructive, please. Thanks!

[Kaos]

As promised, I have created a database from the crash reports in this thread. The data is in an XLS file which I have published here.

If you do not have software which reads the XLS spreadsheet format, you can download a free XLS file reader for Windows here.

One of the first things I need help with is figuring out how to publish this information so Apple computer users can access it. Can anybody help me with that problem?

Pls be advised that this is a first pass at producing this database and it is pretty rough, despite much hard work. Please feel free to view this file and give me any and all constructive feedback you have, including corrections, suggestions, picky questions,etc. Just keep it constructive, please.

Thanks!

If you publish it in CSV instead of XLS, then Macs (And us Linux guys!) can use it as well.

[jrsjr]

One of the first things I need help with is figuring out how to publish this information so Apple computer users can access it. Can anybody help me with that problem?

Pls be advised that this is a first pass at producing this database and it is pretty rough, despite much hard work. Please feel free to view this file and give me any and all constructive feedback you have, including corrections, suggestions, picky questions,etc. Just keep it constructive, please.

Thanks!

If you publish it in CSV instead of XLS, then Macs (And us Linux guys!) can use it as well.

That sounds simple, but requires that I remove every existing comma from the text first. What punctuation mark can I substitute for a comma that will preserve the original meaning of the text. A "Period," perhaps?

[Kaos]

One of the first things I need help with is figuring out how to publish this information so Apple computer users can access it. Can anybody help me with that problem?

Pls be advised that this is a first pass at producing this database and it is pretty rough, despite much hard work. Please feel free to view this file and give me any and all constructive feedback you have, including corrections, suggestions, picky questions,etc. Just keep it constructive, please.

Thanks!

If you publish it in CSV instead of XLS, then Macs (And us Linux guys!) can use it as well.

That souns simple, but requires that I remove every existing comma from the text first. What punctuation mark can I substitute for a comma that will preserve the original meaning of the text. A "Period," perhaps?

semi-colon (;) or a tab usually are fine.

[jrsjr]

Maybe I could just use the word, "comma" in parantheses??? That would work and would preserve the meaning of the text. How about that? Thanks for prodding me on this. I'll be happy to do what you all think will work best.

[Kaos]

Maybe I could just use the word, "comma" in parantheses??? That would work and would preserve the meaning of the text. How about that? Thanks for prodding me on this. I'll be happy to do what you all think will work best.

That sounds like it would work to me.

[jrsjr]

P.S. I'm being fussy about this for a reason which is that much of the "insight" from the posts lies in the text, not just the statistics.

P.P.S. I have stripped off a whole aspect of the data, which is the "Discussion" that I gleaned from the posts. I've preserved all this informationn in the "mother" file that I'm gleaning all this data from. Next, I want to figure out how how to hook all that information onto the "database" data.

Thanks.

[dsmith65]

You could change the delimiter that Excel uses when saving the file. Also text can have quotes around it so the already imbedded commas don't come into play. To do that simply select the column, and change it's format to text. When a person then opens the .csv file from within Excel it will keep the data correctly. Here is a link to changing the default delimiter in Excel http://astrochimp.com/2005/12/20/export ... delimiter/

Don

[jrsjr]

Okay, the Comma Separated Value (CSV) file as we discussed above is now online here. Thanks for the suggestion!

Next?

[jrsjr]

You could change the delimiter that Excel uses when saving the file. Also text can have quotes around it so the already imbedded commas don't come into play. To do that simply select the column, and change it's format to text. When a person then opens the .csv file from within Excel it will keep the data correctly. Here is a link to changing the default delimiter in Excel http://astrochimp.com/2005/12/20/export ... delimiter/

Don, thanks for the suggestion. I prefer not to do that unless it's positively necesssary, because CSV is so handy (otherwise) for moving data around. A CSV file can be directly imported into SAS for example, if we have any SAS geeks here, so that serious stats can be done, etc.

Thanks for the suggestion, though. Keep them coming!

-John

[dsmith65]

I guess I should have been more clear. I tested leaving it as comma delimited and formating the column as text. When I saved the excel file as a csv it put the " around the text. Then when I opened it up coulmn A had text with a comma, and column B had text with out. Quotes around text is pretty much the default way of identifying data that is text when creating delimited files used for import/export. Plan B could be to publish the report to a pdf.

[Kaos]

You could change the delimiter that Excel uses when saving the file. Also text can have quotes around it so the already imbedded commas don't come into play. To do that simply select the column, and change it's format to text. When a person then opens the .csv file from within Excel it will keep the data correctly. Here is a link to changing the default delimiter in Excel http://astrochimp.com/2005/12/20/export ... delimiter/

Don, thanks for the suggestion. I prefer not to do that unless it's positively necesssary, because CSV is so handy (otherwise) for moving data around. A CSV file can be directly imported into SAS for example, if we have any SAS geeks here, so that serious stats can be done, etc.

Thanks for the suggestion, though. Keep them coming!

-John

I'm busy importing them into MySQL right now if anyone wants to do some heavier statistics on the DB.

[jrsjr]

I'm busy importing them into MySQL right now if anyone wants to do some heavier statistics on the DB.

Coolio!

[jrsjr]

A word about my data file. *Every* record there pertains to a Genuine Buddy Scooter. I purposefully excluded crash reports from any other scooter, motorcycle, ATV, even other Genuine scooters such as the Blur.

Every record in my data file pertains to prospectively entered data. If someone reported, "A couple months/years ago...," then I purposefully excluded that report.

All crash reports are "self-reported." I took those reports at face value, making no atempt to editorialize or manipulate data. HOWEVER, in the case of distances and velocities, I chose the lower (more conservative) value of all reports.

Any field that involves time, distance, speed, needs to be normalized wrt units. I did not yet massage, for example, the field that describes how much riding experience the crash reporter has. Some are in units of hours, some in days, weeks, years, etc. Be careful.

The same applies to times. I did not establish a way to normalize time-of-crash reporting. Some folks said, 1600H, some said 2:00PM, some said noon-ish, and so on. In accordance with my stated methodology of taking the value at face value, I did begin changing "around noon" to simply, "noon." This was purely an attempt to simplify the data to produce something which could be analyzed. NOTE: The time, "Rush Hour" needs to be treated as a special class of time.

Whew. I have to go take a shower and go to the grocery store. See you all later. Don't work too hard.

-John

[Rob]

As promised, I have created a database from the crash reports in this thread. The data is in an XLS file which I have published here.

I downloaded the speadsheet and just did a quick once over. Very interesting info ... thanks!!

98 entries with some very familiar MB names involved along with a variety of experience levels. Just checking this out is enough to make you ride safer.

Rob

[ericalm]

As promised, I have created a database from the crash reports in this thread. The data is in an XLS file which I have published here.

I downloaded the speadsheet and just did a quick once over. Very interesting info ... thanks!!

98 entries with some very familiar MB names involved along with a variety of experience levels. Just checking this out is enough to make you ride safer.

Rob

There are other trends which may not be indicated here. After talking with people from Genuine and a number of dealers, I picked up a few tidbits that I think are interesting, even if anecdotal and difficult to back with real numbers. First, people crash Buddies more than other scooters. Second, a much higher percentage of Buddy owners crash in their first 6 months of ownership than other scooters. This is largely due to the Buddy's appeal to new riders and its popularity over the last year, when so many neophytes were buying scooters. (So it's not that the Buddy is inherently more likely to crash than another scooter due to mechanical or other reasons.) Still interesting. I'd very much like to see Genuine and the dealers push a safety and training awareness course. I've heard or read the phrase "it's like riding a bicycle" too many times from dealers and it just makes me cringe.

[jrsjr]

... I picked up a few tidbits that I think are interesting, even if anecdotal and difficult to back with real numbers. First, people crash Buddies more than other scooters. Second, a much higher percentage of Buddy owners crash in their first 6 months of ownership than other scooters. This is largely due to the Buddy's appeal to new riders and its popularity over the last year, when so many neophytes were buying scooters. (So it's not that the Buddy is inherently more likely to crash than another scooter due to mechanical or other reasons.)

Hey Eric, thanks for that info. That gets right to the heart of what someone else I showed the data to asked me, which was, "Is the Buddy inherently more likely to be crashed than other similar scooters? If so, why?" All along, I've thought the answer was that because the Buddy is so easy to learn to ride, that new Buddy riders were more likely to insinuate themselves into riding situation that they could not handle and, thus, get into trouble.

Before I worked on the crash database, I was beginning to wonder if there might be other contributing factors such as the the Buddy's low weight or some "Factor X" that we haven't considered previously. After looking so hard at the data, I formed the following hypothesis:

MY NEW HYPOTHESIS ABOUT WHY BUDDYS CRASH SO MUCH

People who buy Buddy scooters are a different breed from previous modern scooter owners. This new breed of scooter owners buy Buddys with the expectation of riding them as primary (or secondary) means of day-to-day transportation. Therefore, they encounter the same hazards that motorcyclists of all types have always encountered. They just encounter them earlier and more often than other scooterists because they generally ride their scooters more frequently and greater distances than other brands have.

That's my latest hypothesis. It's just a hypothesis. I'd be very interested to hear if anybody has any data on this matter one way or the other.

[Rob]

As promised, I have created a database from the crash reports in this thread. The data is in an XLS file which I have published here.

I downloaded the speadsheet and just did a quick once over. Very interesting info ... thanks!!

98 entries with some very familiar MB names involved along with a variety of experience levels. Just checking this out is enough to make you ride safer.

Rob

There are other trends which may not be indicated here. After talking with people from Genuine and a number of dealers, I picked up a few tidbits that I think are interesting, even if anecdotal and difficult to back with real numbers. First, people crash Buddies more than other scooters. Second, a much higher percentage of Buddy owners crash in their first 6 months of ownership than other scooters. This is largely due to the Buddy's appeal to new riders and its popularity over the last year, when so many neophytes were buying scooters. (So it's not that the Buddy is inherently more likely to crash than another scooter due to mechanical or other reasons.) Still interesting. I'd very much like to see Genuine and the dealers push a safety and training awareness course. I've heard or read the phrase "it's like riding a bicycle" too many times from dealers and it just makes me cringe.

Polaris sponsors a great safety/riding program for ATV's via the ATV Safety Institute. If you buy a new Polaris ATV, they will pay your way into the program, $125 fee. An added bonus is that after completion of the program they mail you a $100 gift certificate which you can use on any Polaris product.

The program itself is outstanding. I've been riding ATV's for years, but my wife was a beginner. I attended the program with her, but even with my experience, I learned much more than I'd anticipated. This was basically an 8 hour course, focusing on safety, basic riding skills and response/reaction to unexpected hazards you might encounter on the trail. I was highly impressed with both the program and with the Polaris commitment.

Rob

[jrsjr]

Polaris sponsors a great safety/riding program for ATV's via the ATV Safety Institute. If you buy a new Polaris ATV, they will pay your way into the program, $125 fee. An added bonus is that after completion of the program they mail you a $100 gift certificate which you can use on any Polaris product.

The program itself is outstanding. I've been riding ATV's for years, but my wife was a beginner. I attended the program with her, but even with my experience, I learned much more than I'd anticipated. This was basically an 8 hour course, focusing on safety, basic riding skills and response/reaction to unexpected hazards you might encounter on the trail. I was highly impressed with both the program and with the Polaris commitment.

That really sounds like a great program. Maybe Genuine should look into doing something like that. Also, your post reminded me of something else I forgot to mention earlier. You used the word, "beginner," which to me used to mean somebody who had never ridden a motorized two-wheeler. After reading many of the crash thread posts, it finally dawned on me that many of these folks had never learned to ride a bicycle and, as a result, did not realize that a two-wheeled vehicle turns by leaning. They were trying to steer the Buddy through turns by turning the handlebars. Therefore, I think we should always remember that new riders may be starting at a level of inexperience that is transparent to long-time riders like myself. This is just one of the many flashes of insight I got by digging in the data.

There are a million ways to crash. The best preventatives are a proper mix of diligence and riding skill. But that takes time to develop. What can we do to help? Maybe, to get back to the point Rob made, the best way is to encourage a progam which incents the rider to make the effort to take a comprehensive training course where they have a chance to develop those skills.

This is an extremely interesting thread so far. I'm looking forward to hearing from folks who've crashed about what they think might have helped.

[ericalm]

... I picked up a few tidbits that I think are interesting, even if anecdotal and difficult to back with real numbers. First, people crash Buddies more than other scooters. Second, a much higher percentage of Buddy owners crash in their first 6 months of ownership than other scooters. This is largely due to the Buddy's appeal to new riders and its popularity over the last year, when so many neophytes were buying scooters. (So it's not that the Buddy is inherently more likely to crash than another scooter due to mechanical or other reasons.)

Hey Eric, thanks for that info. That gets right to the heart of what someone else I showed the data to asked me, which was, "Is the Buddy inherently more likely to be crashed than other similar scooters? If so, why?" All along, I've thought the answer was that because the Buddy is so easy to learn to ride, that new Buddy riders were more likely to insinuate themselves into riding situation that they could not handle and, thus, get into trouble.

Before I worked on the crash database, I was beginning to wonder if there might be other contributing factors such as the the Buddy's low weight or some "Factor X" that we haven't considered previously. After looking so hard at the data, I formed the following hypothesis:

People who buy Buddy scooters are a different breed from previous modern scooter owners. This new breed of scooter owners buy Buddys with the expectation of riding them as primary (or secondary) means of day-to-day transportation. Therefore, they encounter the same hazards that motorcyclists of all types have always encountered. They just encounter them earlier and more often than other scooterists because they generally ride their scooters more frequently and greater distances than other brands have.

That's my latest hypothesis. It's just a hypothesis. I'd be very interested to hear if anybody has any data on this matter one way or the other.

I think it's a combination of all of these factors. Early in the forum, there was a lot of discussion of "deceptively high confidence" leading to crashes. Pretty much what you allude to: the Buddy is so easy to learn some basics on that it tempts people into riding situations they're not prepared for. I also believe that the Buddy is harder to learn to control precisely and well than many other scooters. It's less balanced and more likely to overcorrect on.

So if there's anything inherent in the Buddy itself, it's that it has a low center of gravity and weight distribution than both make it easy to learn on but also make it harder to control with precision. This means new riders will often master forward, stop, basic turns but when they need to make a hard stop or swerve they got into trouble.

[Kaos]

... I picked up a few tidbits that I think are interesting, even if anecdotal and difficult to back with real numbers. First, people crash Buddies more than other scooters. Second, a much higher percentage of Buddy owners crash in their first 6 months of ownership than other scooters. This is largely due to the Buddy's appeal to new riders and its popularity over the last year, when so many neophytes were buying scooters. (So it's not that the Buddy is inherently more likely to crash than another scooter due to mechanical or other reasons.)

Hey Eric, thanks for that info. That get right to the heart of what someone else I showed the data to asked me, which was, "Is the Buddy inherently more likely to be crashed than other similar scooters? If so, why?" All along, I've thought the answer was that because the Buddy is so easy to learn to ride, that new Buddy riders were more likely to insinuate themselves into riding situation that they could not handle and, thus, get into trouble.

Before I worked on the crash database, I was beginning to wonder if there might be other contributing factors such as the the Buddy's low weight or some "Factor X" that we haven't considered previously. After looking so hard at the data, I formed the following hypothesis:

People who buy Buddy scooters are a different breed from previous modern scooter owners. This new breed of scooter owners buy Buddys with the expectation of riding them as primary (or secondary) means of day-to-day transportation. Therefore, they encounter the same hazards that motorcyclists of all types have always encountered. They just encounter them earlier and more often than other scooterists because they generally ride their scooters more frequently and greater distances than other brands have.

That's my latest hypothesis. It's just a hypothesis. I'd be very interested to hear if anybody has any data on this matter one way or the other.

I think it's a combination of all of these factors. Early in the forum, there was a lot of discussion of "deceptively high confidence" leading to crashes. Pretty much what you allude to: the Buddy is so easy to learn some basics on that it tempts people into riding situations they're not prepared for. I also believe that the Buddy is harder to learn to control precisely and well than many other scooters. It's less balanced and more likely to overcorrect on.

So if there's anything inherent in the Buddy itself, it's that it has a low center of gravity and weight distribution than both make it easy to learn on but also make it harder to control with precision. This means new riders will often master forward, stop, basic turns but when they need to make a hard stop or swerve they got into trouble.

It also likely doesn't help that the Buddy is much more nimble than comparable scooters, so new riders may be unprepaired for how quickly it accelerates and corners.

[lobsterman]

I can tell you why I crashed - I was following a far more experienced rider (ScooterDave) on a road I had never ridden before. A left turn came up and I went in too fast for my skill and experience. I do not doubt that ScooterDave or Seth from MetroScooter could easily do that same turn on the Buddy a lot faster than I tried it. I think today I could do it no problem.

I had my endorsement and the MSF class and a couple thousand miles under my belt at the time, but there is no substitute for experience and good judgement. Good judgement would have told me to ride my own ride, not ScooterDave's, more experience would have enabled me to negotiate the turn successfully.

I expect many of us in the database are in the same boat with this. I don't think it's the Buddy's fault at all from a technical perspective. I think it's just because the Buddy happened to make scooters accessible and fun and afordable to a new market segment, and we like to ride. Get a plethora of new riders on any one scooter model, and have them ride a lot. You'll see a lot of crashes I bet.

I think there is something about what has been said about what kind of riding we do too. Seems we Buddy owners like to ride to work and do errands on our scooters too, not just joy ride in nice weather, so we're out in more varied traffic levels and different road conditions frequently. Until we get to be better more experienced riders, we'll have more of the "mea culpa" accidents that can be avoided.

One note, having gone back and read my crash report from July 2007. When I wrote it I said no damage to the Buddy. I found out later that I had bent the rim on the back wheel, so there was damage and expense that didn't make it into the database.

I wonder if others experienced that too? Assessing the damage immediately afterwards doesn't always tell you everything that happened.

[Howardr]

...

MY NEW HYPOTHESIS ABOUT WHY BUDDYS CRASH SO MUCH

People who buy Buddy scooters are a different breed from previous modern scooter owners. This new breed of scooter owners buy Buddys with the expectation of riding them as primary (or secondary) means of day-to-day transportation. Therefore, they encounter the same hazards that motorcyclists of all types have always encountered. They just encounter them earlier and more often than other scooterists because they generally ride their scooters more frequently and greater distances than other brands have.

That's my latest hypothesis. It's just a hypothesis. I'd be very interested to hear if anybody has any data on this matter one way or the other.

I think you may be onto something there. Could you start asking the question of those who crash "Do you use your scooter as an everyday mode of transport of just recreational use?"

Howard

[LisaLisa]

My hypothesis is that a lot of non-buddy scooters on the road are roketas, motofinos, Qlinks etc and they never make it to their first crash! Or if they do, the cost of fixing the damage comparable to the cost of the bike. If you can find someone who will work on them...

Other brands:
Modern vespas: often appeal to the well heeled crowd and are not used as daily commuters.
Vintage vespas/modern stellas/bajaj etc: The shifting puts off novice riders. That and dealers don't always see the bikes after a crash. and like
Kymcos: Minor tumbles don't damage some bikes as much

[jrsjr]

My hypothesis is that a lot of non-buddy scooters on the road are roketas, motofinos, Qlinks etc and they never make it to their first crash! Or if they do, the cost of fixing the damage comparable to the cost of the bike. If you can find someone who will work on them...

Other brands:
Modern vespas: often appeal to the well heeled crowd and are not used as daily commuters.
Vintage vespas/modern stellas/bajaj etc: The shifting puts off novice riders. That and dealers don't always see the bikes after a crash. and like
Kymcos: Minor tumbles don't damage some bikes as much

A whole bunch of very perceptive observations. There is that one piece on the Buddy that always seems to bust in even the most minor tip-over. I wonder if we could persaude Randall or somebody to do a run of those in metal so that wouldn't happen...

Thanks!

[Lostmycage]

It might be more trouble than it's worth with permissions and the like, but you could upload this to Google documents, which does a pretty good job of being universally readable, since it's handled by the browser. Just an idea.

[jrsjr]

It might be more trouble than it's worth with permissions and the like, but you could upload this to Google documents, which does a pretty good job of being universally readable, since it's handled by the browser. Just an idea.

I'll take a look at that. The only time I've used GoogleDocs before was to collaborate on a document, but it's an interesting idea. Thanks.

[rabbitgod]

Hey Eric, thanks for that info. That get right to the heart of what someone else I showed the data to asked me, which was, "Is the Buddy inherently more likely to be crashed than other similar scooters? If so, why?" All along, I've thought the answer was that because the Buddy is so easy to learn to ride, that new Buddy riders were more likely to insinuate themselves into riding situation that they could not handle and, thus, get into trouble.

Before I worked on the crash database, I was beginning to wonder if there might be other contributing factors such as the the Buddy's low weight or some "Factor X" that we haven't considered previously. After looking so hard at the data, I formed the following hypothesis:

People who buy Buddy scooters are a different breed from previous modern scooter owners. This new breed of scooter owners buy Buddys with the expectation of riding them as primary (or secondary) means of day-to-day transportation. Therefore, they encounter the same hazards that motorcyclists of all types have always encountered. They just encounter them earlier and more often than other scooterists because they generally ride their scooters more frequently and greater distances than other brands have.

That's my latest hypothesis. It's just a hypothesis. I'd be very interested to hear if anybody has any data on this matter one way or the other.

I think it's a combination of all of these factors. Early in the forum, there was a lot of discussion of "deceptively high confidence" leading to crashes. Pretty much what you allude to: the Buddy is so easy to learn some basics on that it tempts people into riding situations they're not prepared for. I also believe that the Buddy is harder to learn to control precisely and well than many other scooters. It's less balanced and more likely to overcorrect on.

So if there's anything inherent in the Buddy itself, it's that it has a low center of gravity and weight distribution than both make it easy to learn on but also make it harder to control with precision. This means new riders will often master forward, stop, basic turns but when they need to make a hard stop or swerve they got into trouble.

It also likely doesn't help that the Buddy is much more nimble than comparable scooters, so new riders may be unprepaired for how quickly it accelerates and corners.

I agree with this as well. Even with taking the MSF class it was/is still an adjustment period for for me on the Buddy. Their gift is that they are easy to ride, their curse is that they are easy to ride. I still sometimes lean into corners a little too tight, luckily I'm aware of it and combined with said nimbleness I'm able to adjust.

My wife was recently at a party and she was talking to a 'hardcore standard rider' (that's the polite way I describe him). He said he would never ride a scooter because they aren't safe as he sees them crashing all the time (clearly an exageration. Tucson may have a happening scooter crowd, but we don't have that many scooters). Now her other coworker who rides (crotchrockets) whispered in her ear that the other guy was being hyperbolic and shouldn't worry.

The first guy and his wife seem to do this a lot though. They had a party about 2 years ago and I was in Mexico diving. They asked where I was and she explained it all and that she was worried because I was out of telephone range and hadn't been in contact yet. The wife says, "I would never dive, have you ever seen Open Water?"

[thehypercube]

It might be more trouble than it's worth with permissions and the like, but you could upload this to Google documents, which does a pretty good job of being universally readable, since it's handled by the browser. Just an idea.

I'll take a look at that. The only time I've used GoogleDocs before was to collaborate on a document, but it's an interesting idea. Thanks.

Openoffice should handle these files just fine too... (XLS, CSV, etc)

[armacham]

The wife says, "I would never dive, have you ever seen Open Water?"

Does she think it was a documentary?

[jrsjr]

The wife says, "I would never dive, have you ever seen Open Water?"

Does she think it was a documentary?

Um, I think it was based on a true story, wasn't it?

[iMoses]

"MY NEW HYPOTHESIS ABOUT WHY BUDDYS CRASH SO MUCH"

You are not thinking this through ... the post IS on the Modern Buddy site. So you will have a large amount of people who ride Buddy's telling you their crash stories. This might lead you to think that Vespa owners never crash?

My guess is if you posted the same question on a Vespa site you will hear predominately from Vespa owners. Which if you follow the same logic it will lead you to think that ONLY Vespa owners crash!

[rabbitgod]

The wife says, "I would never dive, have you ever seen Open Water?"

Does she think it was a documentary?

Um, I think it was based on a true story, wasn't it?

It's a dramatisation of a true story. Although, whenever that kind of thing happens it's always the same, so it might as well say 'based on events that can totally happen.'

Doesn't change the fact that they based their entire perception of a hobby on a movie and not on the facts. I guess I'm a little crazy that way.

[jrsjr]

"MY NEW HYPOTHESIS ABOUT WHY BUDDYS CRASH SO MUCH"

You are not thinking this through ... the post IS on the Modern Buddy site. So you will have a large amount of people who ride Buddy's telling you their crash stories. This might lead you to think that Vespa owners never crash?

My guess is if you posted the same question on a Vespa site you will hear predominately from Vespa owners. Which if you follow the same logic it will lead you to think that ONLY Vespa owners crash!

I'm sorry, I think you've completely misunderstood something, but your post is so confusing that I can't figure out where to begin explaining. If you're wondering why we think Buddy scooters crash at a higher rate than other scooters, it's because we've been told so authoritatively by someone who is privvy to an overview of the numbers. The rate of Buddy crashes is higher than other scooters. Really.

If Modern Vespa were to track crashes, their gross numbers would be higher, because there are many more Vespas out there, and they have 5 times as many members to report, but that would not address or affect the fact that their rate of crashing is lower. That's what we're puzzling over. It appears to be the result of a multiplicity of factors. No one factor stands out above the others; not riding in rush hour traffic, not riding more miles, not the percentage of new riders, not the fact that riders expect the Buddy to be "as easy to learn to ride as a bicycle." This even though we've identified *each* of those as contributing factors in individual instances. This is not what I expected, hence my hypothesis about "expectations" of Buddy riders, which I think points to a combination all the factors I've mentioned above and more.

Whether you agree with me or not, I hope this helps clarify why I don't agree with your comment that we're "not thinking this through."

Thanks.

-John

[charlie55]

Have you considered making the rider's age one of the criteria reportable in the "who's crashed" thread? Since insurance companies consider it a factor in rate determination, it seems that it would be relevant.

[Lostmycage]

Just don't get it to the insurance company. That's all they need is more data to raise the rates.... that is unless I can convince the other 30ish people to never crash, lol.

[ericalm]

"MY NEW HYPOTHESIS ABOUT WHY BUDDYS CRASH SO MUCH"

You are not thinking this through ... the post IS on the Modern Buddy site. So you will have a large amount of people who ride Buddy's telling you their crash stories. This might lead you to think that Vespa owners never crash?

My guess is if you posted the same question on a Vespa site you will hear predominately from Vespa owners. Which if you follow the same logic it will lead you to think that ONLY Vespa owners crash!

Not at all. My info, which is purely anecdotal, comes from dealers—many of which carry both Genuine and Vespa or Genuine and other lines—and is based on what many of them have reported to me about the percentage of their new customers who crash and their orders for replacement parts. A higher incidence of Buddy crashes is perfectly logical, if you consider that the Buddy appeals to younger and less experienced riders, many buying their first scooter. And that over the summer "boom" a lot more "casual" riders bought Buddys. Many of those crashes are not reported here because they're the kind of riders who aren't active enough to join a forum like this or post about their crash.

Yes, there are built-in biases in accumulating info solely from crashes reported by members here. But there's still a lot we can learn from that information—both the individual reports and in the aggregate.

Any study of scooter crashes in the US would have to be largely based on self-reporting as most state (and federal) agencies which track such info don't differentiate between motorcycles and scooters or don't make the distinction when gathering stats. I think a larger study would be very interesting and would certainly advocate for such a thing.

[jrsjr]

I think a larger study would be very interesting and would certainly advocate for such a thing.

Maybe if we had a stats guru we could put together a meta-study from what's out there...

[n00b4life]

The trend I see is that 70% of the crashes were people who had not taken the MSF course and 70% of those did not have their licenses, either.

Also, in response to an earlier poster, two-wheelers do *not* turn by leaning. There is a bike school out there where they actually have a bike with fused handlebars, for anyone who wants to try to turn by leaning alone. Two wheelers lean when they turn, but the lean does not cause the turn (other than perhaps by causing the bars to turn). Turning the bars causes the turn. Which direction the bars need to turn is another matter for another thread, or the MSF course.

[ericalm]

The trend I see is that 70% of the crashes were people who had not taken the MSF course and 70% of those did not have their licenses, either.

Also, in response to an earlier poster, two-wheelers do *not* turn by leaning. There is a bike school out there where they actually have a bike with fused handlebars, for anyone who wants to try to turn by leaning alone. Two wheelers lean when they turn, but the lean does not cause the turn (other than perhaps by causing the bars to turn). Turning the bars causes the turn. Which direction the bars need to turn is another matter for another thread, or the MSF course.

There's definitely a complex interaction when it comes to turning a two-wheeler and there's a lot of information online (from very casual to intensely academic) on how this works. But if you had a scooter with freely-turning handlebars but which could not lean, you'd be as bad off as if the handlebars were welded. It's a combination of forces, but turning the handlebars initiates the turn, while leaning allows the scooter to move through the arc at various velocities. Can't have one without the other.

Is it more accurate (or more confusing) to say that you steer with the handlebars, but turn using a combination of methods?

[pocphil]

I am one of those dealers who said "There are more Buddy crashes than other crashes".

We just did our inventory and numbers for 2008.

We sold 400 scooters.

Guess what we sold more of than anything else?

You crash most of what you sell most. It doesn't necessarily mean there's anything unsafe about that bike.

I've been in a crash on a Buddy scooter, I got hit by a car making an illegal turn in front of me. I'm aware of at least 20 crashes that didn't make it to the buddy crash database. Let's not go citing statistics based on wholly incomplete data.

"Statistically speaking" our most crashed scooter was the Piaggio X9 500cc - A full 80% of those sold were crashed within the first year. Sounds pretty awful, but we only sold 5.

The reason we had soooo many people crashing Buddy's is simple...inexperience. The Buddy is THE entry level scooter, when people are learning to do something they've never done before, they're gonna make mistakes. How many times did you fall down when learning to ride your bike? It's just more life changing when it happens on a scooter.

I do believe riding an automatic scooter IS much easier than riding a bicycle (if you already know how to ride a bicycle). Maintaining balance and control while pedalling is hugely difficult and taken for granted by anyone who's been riding since they were four.

[n00b4life]

There's definitely a complex interaction when it comes to turning a two-wheeler and there's a lot of information online (from very casual to intensely academic) on how this works. But if you had a scooter with freely-turning handlebars but which could not lean, you'd be as bad off as if the handlebars were welded. It's a combination of forces, but turning the handlebars initiates the turn, while leaning allows the scooter to move through the arc at various velocities. Can't have one without the other.

Is it more accurate (or more confusing) to say that you steer with the handlebars, but turn using a combination of methods?

I'd say that your statement is more accurate. More accurate still is that a scooter/motorcycle handles substantially differently than a bicycle, or an automobile and these differences are far-reaching and probably a significant factor in the stats I pulled from the sheet.

[ericalm]

I'm aware of at least 20 crashes that didn't make it to the buddy crash database. Let's not go citing statistics based on wholly incomplete data.

I don't think the statistics themselves will be accurate; there's a built-in reporting bias because all of our data comes solely from self-reporting on this forum. But I do think there are trends that are worth noting (MSF class completion, licensing) that will be generally true, if not statistically precise. In fact, I'd guess that those trends in particular are probably underreported given that forum members are probably better informed about safety and education than the Buddyverse as a whole.

I still have a lot of trouble saying riding an automatic is "as easy as riding a bike," which may be true in the most literal sense, but is still misleading IMHO. While, if you break it down, the act of riding a bicycle may ultimately be more difficult or complex than riding an auto scooter, that's not how it's usually explained to buyers. How long does it take to learn to ride a two-wheel bicycle? Start with your little 4-wheeled wooden push scoot when you're a toddler, graduate to a Big Wheel, then a bike with training wheels, then a two-wheeled bicycle. So, about 4 years, maybe? I think that for a lot of people, the inference is, "if you can ride a bike you can do this now," not "if you can ride a bike, you can eventually learn to do this."

[Scooter Hoot]

While these results give pretty good anecdotal evidence, you'd have some enormous margin of errors if you tried to generate general statistics off of a self selected web survey like this.

My suspicion is that any peak in accidents by Buddy owners will be mostly explained by other well known factors of risk - namely how long has the person been riding, and have they had training. To say that the Buddy owners have more wrecks than other people of similar experiences would probably be false. I would guess the accident rates (incidents / mile driven) for other <200cc, <4000$ scooters would line up pretty well with the Buddy's stats.

[pocphil]

There are too many shops that sell scooters that don't stress safety and training. In our state you can't ride even a 49cc scooter without an M/C endorsement. We donated 8 new scooters to our local Motorcycle training center for a program called "scooter school". We also train people who opt to have their scooter delivered to their homes. None of these things make up for experience on the road. The real problem as I see it is lack of respect for how potentially dangerous riding ANY two wheeler can be. Our lives have been "sealed for your protection" by driving cars that protect us so well 50mph collisions are now events you can walk away from.

I see guys come into my shop daily (weather permitting) in flip-flops, no helmet, or worse yet, unstrapped helmet because they just don't want to be bothered when they're on the "little bike". After a few customer fatalities, you start looking at things a little differently. These things are dangerous, I don't need a Hurt Report or DOT data to know that unskilled, under-equipped, uninsured drivers are going to be the lions share of the victims out there.

We can often predict if a person will be in a crash and sometimes how soon. I'm sure people who work in gun shops develop the same skill. We've flatly refused to sell certain folks a scooter.

[jrsjr]

You crash most of what you sell most. It doesn't necessarily mean there's anything unsafe about that bike.

Makes sense so far, but then you said...

Let's not go citing statistics based on wholly incomplete data.

...and that's complete nonsense, Phil, because statistics is, by definition, the practice of attempting to draw inferences from incomplete data. That's the whole point to statistics! If we had every example, that wouldn't be statistics, that would be making statements of fact about known quantities. No offense, but your argument is nonsense.

"Statistically speaking" our most crashed scooter was the Piaggio X9 500cc - A full 80% of those sold were crashed within the first year. Sounds pretty awful, but we only sold 5.

I'm really glad that you brought that up, Phil, because I specifically abstained from collecting and publishing the database until we had 100 records. Again, your argument about our database does not hold water. You are comparing X9 crash "database" with a cohort of 5 to our Buddy Crash database which has a cohort >100, and that is more statistical nonsense.

I am sorry, but if you want to help, you'd be better served by sending your 20 crashers our way to add their information to the database. Thanks!

-John

[ericalm]

You crash most of what you sell most. It doesn't necessarily mean there's anything unsafe about that bike.

Makes sense so far, but then you said...

Let's not go citing statistics based on wholly incomplete data.

...and that's complete nonsense, Phil, because statistics is, by definition, the practice of attempting to draw inferences from incomplete data. That's the whole point to statistics! If we had every example, that wouldn't be statistics, that would be making statements of fact about known quantities. No offense, but your argument is nonsense.

"Statistically speaking" our most crashed scooter was the Piaggio X9 500cc - A full 80% of those sold were crashed within the first year. Sounds pretty awful, but we only sold 5.

I'm really glad that you brought that up, Phil, because I specifically abstained from collecting and publishing the database until we had 100 records. Again, your argument about our database does not hold water. You are comparing X9 crash "database" with a cohort of 5 to our Buddy Crash database which has a cohort >100, and that is more statistical nonsense.

I am sorry, but if you want to help, you'd be better served by sending your 20 crashers our way to add their information to the database. Thanks!

-John

I don't think the problem is the size of the sample, it's the sampling method. That said, there's no one else that I'm aware of making any kind of effort to collect this kind of information in any systematic way so our sample is currently the best and only one out there.

When I started the thread, the idea was to share experiences and anecdotes. I'd no idea we'd collect this many reports and that it would be used in this way. If so, I'd have put a lot more thought into the design of the questionnaire. I have some experience with this, but know a few full-time social scientists and stat geeks who'd probably help out.

I've actually been daydreaming (for a year or so) about a more thorough and legit all-scooter study with a new questionnaire, conducted through all of the scooter forums, dealers, clubs, blogs, magazines, etc. I think it would still have to be based on self-reporting because most accident reports don't differentiate between scooter and motorcycle, but some of the bias could be designed out of the questionnaire with more discreet, objective questions. I think it would also be good if respondents could update their information (cost of repairs, medical expenses) after their initial report.

[Syd]

...I've actually been daydreaming (for a year or so) about a more thorough and legit all-scooter study with a new questionnaire, conducted through all of the scooter forums, dealers, clubs, blogs, magazines, etc...

According to NetworkSolutions, whoscrashed.com is available!

[siobhan]

jrsjr, thanks for putting this information together without images. I've always been curious about the thread but never looked because of the paperclip. I really don't need to see the crashes, but want to learn from the info.

Kaos, are you putting the MySQL database up with a front-end? Can you link to it?

[pocphil]

I used to work as a traffic crash specialist after leaving my job as a police officer. Statistics always put me over a barrel. Everything depends on who's doing the reporting. Most of our crashes were initially blamed on "road conditions" where the investigation usually attributed the crash to "excessive speed" or "Driver inexperience".

In my personal experience dealing with those who buy (and later crash) scooters, very rarely is the description of the incident similar to what actually happened. Your Buddy Crash Report seems to be unusually self aware. Folks seem really willing to admit their errors which is super cool.

As long as there's anyone saying "I laid the bike down to avoid hitting the _______" you know you've got suspect data and perception based reporting.

If you've never heard it before, I'll say it now...you don't lay a bike down "Before" a crash...it happens after, and only after. "laying it down is the only way to ever garuntee you'll be in a crash". You should fight every situation all the way to the pavement...then go fetal. It's better to hang on, use the brakes, use your exit line and attempt to ride it out. Your brakes will always stop you faster than you can slide to a stop on your butt.

Until you get a professional evaluation of what happened in each collision you'll have a hard time maintaining any factual basis of the results. I know you guys have put a bunch of effort into this thing, statistics are exactly that, and you'll have to be prepared to have every kind of hole punched in this thing.

I think the only reason there haven't been more crashed pink buddies is they didn't actually produce that many of them. We've kept track of them informally and about 90% of the Pink ones have crashed...some multiple times. Odd thing, they're often crashed by people who don't own them.