percentage amount around 1-2% of the collateral’s worth at the time of filing. See, e.g., Hill, 2007 WL 499622, at *4 (using a 1% of the collateral’s value as a fixed rate that may be rebutted by an objecting creditor); In re Beaver, 337 B.R. 281, 285 (Bankr.E.D.N.C.2006) (recognizing 1% of value of collateral as agreed by parties sufficient for adequate protection); DeSardi, 340 B.R. at 797 (employing 1.5% of value of collateral as provided by the district’s local rule). Other districts, as well as this one, recognize adequate protection payments as equaling the amount by which the collateral is depreciating. Thompson, 2008 WL 2157163, at *2 (citing First Fed. Bank of Calif. v. Weinstein (In re Weinstein), 227 B.R. 284, 296 (9th Cir. BAP 1998)); see also Robson, 369 B.R. 377, 380 (<HOLDING>). There are many different methods to calculate
holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling holding a motor vehicle can be a deadly weapon by the manner of its use holding that motor vehicle lender must be compensated for depreciation of collateral in order to be adequately protected holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle