Why don't more performance car enthusiasts ride motorbikes?
Discussion
Rawwr said:
Ultrafunkula said:
I said they all look too similar.
Well, they all have two wheels, I'll give you that. It's a bit unfair and contradictory, i'm finding. Treat people how you wanna be treated an all that.
I love cars.
Once I got on bikes, I loved them even more.
It's not about the power or getting wet. Its because you can use the power. Make progress, get past traffic. Make overtakes and generally get on with life.
You need to RIDE a bike, you cant simply plonk on it and go somewhere. It's more involving than an areal bottom, and as a petrol head, i like this.
Doing around 20k a year for many years on a bike was great, with the right kit its fine.
Then the missus got pregnant, with twins. Already have a toddler. Working a more senior role meant the bike was slightly less appropriate.
I will give up the bike in the spring, just before the twins arrive. I will be a bit too tired for the bike first thing in the morning anyway. I can keep it for sunny and enjoyable rides only. Be a fair weather rider.
Then just before Christmas I came off and broke my back.
Apparently, i'm now not allowed another one... something about responsibility. And I do concur, It is now no longer just about me and the balance of risk has gone in the other direction.
Once I got on bikes, I loved them even more.
It's not about the power or getting wet. Its because you can use the power. Make progress, get past traffic. Make overtakes and generally get on with life.
You need to RIDE a bike, you cant simply plonk on it and go somewhere. It's more involving than an areal bottom, and as a petrol head, i like this.
Doing around 20k a year for many years on a bike was great, with the right kit its fine.
Then the missus got pregnant, with twins. Already have a toddler. Working a more senior role meant the bike was slightly less appropriate.
I will give up the bike in the spring, just before the twins arrive. I will be a bit too tired for the bike first thing in the morning anyway. I can keep it for sunny and enjoyable rides only. Be a fair weather rider.
Then just before Christmas I came off and broke my back.
Apparently, i'm now not allowed another one... something about responsibility. And I do concur, It is now no longer just about me and the balance of risk has gone in the other direction.
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
Is it because you have to wear protective gear? But then I don't see many people refusing to ski because they have to wear ski boots and ski clothing.
That's because skiing is a leisure activity, where people learn new skills and push themselves to do cool and exciting things, so it's worth the effort to enjoy it. The same applies to surfing for example - you have to spend five minutes changing to do it and it's worth it. Test and track days at race tracks are the equivalent for bikes. Bumbling along a public road at 49.99mph in 2nd gear on a S1000RR extracting 0.1% of its performance, whilst at risk from sleepy drivers of 1000kg cars that can kill you is a very different thing, and most people wouldn't enjoy that enough to warrant the effort.2. I like skiing. But living in East Anglia I find it rather difficult to do it!
3. I suspect most S1000RR owners are not sat at 49.99 in second....or at least not for long.
4. Bike track days are much cheaper than car track days. I don't know whether they are more fun as its been 25 years since I did a car track day...
RizzoTheRat said:
ABS has been around longer than you think, on mine ABS was an option from 2005 and I think they stopped doing the non ABS version 4 or 5 years ago. Traction control has been relatively rare until the last few years though.
My first ABS motorcycle was back in 1998. BMW being 'Bosch for motorcycles' probably had ABS back in the 1980s.Never locked up a front on a non-ABS bike, rears yes but with good reason ;-)
Also all this is coming to electric bicycles ABS, traction control. Whether we'll get Wet / Race mode for bicycles is another matter!
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Firstly it's important to point out that everyone is into cars in a different way, even those people into performance cars and/or track driving. Some people get an adrenaline buzz for driving fast, but for example I never have, I just enjoy the process of driving, particularly (or perhaps exclusively...) cornering. Even that niche preference for cornering can be broken down further - I enjoy balancing a car on tip toes and controlling its balance, whereas others prefer a more secure feeling from driving a car with grippy tyres and 4WD just below this point. As you can see, there's a huge spectrum of interests when it comes to cars, and bikes only fit with some of these interests, and they'll fit in different ways. This means we can't assume cause someone owns a fast car that they'd enjoy a motorbike. Bikes really are a very different kind of performance. Even looking at the cold hard numbers, if you look at the data trace of a lap from a bike and a lap from a car, if the lap time is identical the speeds at all points on the track will be very different, and the things the rider or driver are doing will be different too.
Secondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Statistics don't seem to support your argument though. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Yet statistically driving cars is not that dangerous. I don't know about you but when I get into the car I don't worry about not reaching my destination alive. There is a risk I won't but it is not high enough to be on my mind every day. If that very small risk is 20 times higher it doesn't become a big risk. If my maths is correct, for every mile you spend in a car you have a 0.0000002% chance of dying. Bikes are higher at 0.00001%. However, your chance of winning the lottery is 0.00001% i.e. you are only 10 times as likely to die on a motorbike than win the lotterySecondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Edited by RobM77 on Thursday 15th March 12:12
RizzoTheRat said:
It's about 40x more dangerous per mile than a car, 1 micromort (1 in a million chance of death) gets you 400km in a car 10km on a bike, but as you say still relatively low
To put it in to perspective by comparative chance of death with other activities:
Skydiving = 80-90km on a motorbike
Running a marathon = 70km on a motorbike
Having a bath = 300m on a motorbike
Cycling 10km = 6km on motorbike
Giving birth = 1200km on a motorbike
WW2 bomber command mission=250,000km on a motorbike
Interesting, so I'm about rated at 1.60 WWII bomber missions.To put it in to perspective by comparative chance of death with other activities:
Skydiving = 80-90km on a motorbike
Running a marathon = 70km on a motorbike
Having a bath = 300m on a motorbike
Cycling 10km = 6km on motorbike
Giving birth = 1200km on a motorbike
WW2 bomber command mission=250,000km on a motorbike
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Firstly it's important to point out that everyone is into cars in a different way, even those people into performance cars and/or track driving. Some people get an adrenaline buzz for driving fast, but for example I never have, I just enjoy the process of driving, particularly (or perhaps exclusively...) cornering. Even that niche preference for cornering can be broken down further - I enjoy balancing a car on tip toes and controlling its balance, whereas others prefer a more secure feeling from driving a car with grippy tyres and 4WD just below this point. As you can see, there's a huge spectrum of interests when it comes to cars, and bikes only fit with some of these interests, and they'll fit in different ways. This means we can't assume cause someone owns a fast car that they'd enjoy a motorbike. Bikes really are a very different kind of performance. Even looking at the cold hard numbers, if you look at the data trace of a lap from a bike and a lap from a car, if the lap time is identical the speeds at all points on the track will be very different, and the things the rider or driver are doing will be different too.
Secondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Statistics don't seem to support your argument though. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Yet statistically driving cars is not that dangerous. I don't know about you but when I get into the car I don't worry about not reaching my destination alive. There is a risk I won't but it is not high enough to be on my mind every day. If that very small risk is 20 times higher it doesn't become a big risk. If my maths is correct, for every mile you spend in a car you have a 0.0000002% chance of dying. Bikes are higher at 0.00001%. However, your chance of winning the lottery is 0.00001% i.e. you are only 10 times as likely to die on a motorbike than win the lotterySecondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
RizzoTheRat said:
I've been riding bikes for 20 years and can't tell most modern sports bikes apart 
I struggle telling the difference between a Ford Focus from a Kia C'eed, and I drive a Focus! I don't struggle telling the difference between a Boxster and a Range Rover in the same way I don't struggle telling the difference between an RS250 and a GS 
kambites said:
For me the problem is the lack of weather windows where it's pleasant. I don't enjoy it if it's:
1) Too hot
2) Too cold
3) Wet
Which basically means 95% of days in the UK, I'd rather be in a car.
95% of UK days I would too, and indeed am.... But those other 5% are utterly fabulous on a bike. If you enjoy light / tactile cars (which I think you do?), you’d almost certainly find many bikes unbelievably challenging and fun.1) Too hot
2) Too cold
3) Wet
Which basically means 95% of days in the UK, I'd rather be in a car.
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Esceptico said:
RobM77 said:
Firstly it's important to point out that everyone is into cars in a different way, even those people into performance cars and/or track driving. Some people get an adrenaline buzz for driving fast, but for example I never have, I just enjoy the process of driving, particularly (or perhaps exclusively...) cornering. Even that niche preference for cornering can be broken down further - I enjoy balancing a car on tip toes and controlling its balance, whereas others prefer a more secure feeling from driving a car with grippy tyres and 4WD just below this point. As you can see, there's a huge spectrum of interests when it comes to cars, and bikes only fit with some of these interests, and they'll fit in different ways. This means we can't assume cause someone owns a fast car that they'd enjoy a motorbike. Bikes really are a very different kind of performance. Even looking at the cold hard numbers, if you look at the data trace of a lap from a bike and a lap from a car, if the lap time is identical the speeds at all points on the track will be very different, and the things the rider or driver are doing will be different too.
Secondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
Statistics don't seem to support your argument though. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Yet statistically driving cars is not that dangerous. I don't know about you but when I get into the car I don't worry about not reaching my destination alive. There is a risk I won't but it is not high enough to be on my mind every day. If that very small risk is 20 times higher it doesn't become a big risk. If my maths is correct, for every mile you spend in a car you have a 0.0000002% chance of dying. Bikes are higher at 0.00001%. However, your chance of winning the lottery is 0.00001% i.e. you are only 10 times as likely to die on a motorbike than win the lotterySecondly, we simply can't ignore the danger of motorbikes. Bikes are a vast amount more dangerous than a car. Firstly, you're more likely to crash: people don't see you as easily, you have a lack of stability, you often have much more performance easily accessible from brakes and throttle (two clumsy fingers on the brake can see you down due to a locked front wheel - that wouldn't happen in a car!). Secondly, if you do crash you're massively more likely to be injured. Those two points combine to make death and injury stats way ahead of cars, and it's just too much for most people. As roads get busier and cars get safer (but bikes don't), this is becoming more and more the case as the years go on.
sjg said:
Because their wives won't let them.
First post nails it. Well, that is for those fellas who had a bike prior to meeting their wife.For the rest, well.... I don't think I know a biker who hasn't had an 'off' at some point. You only have to go and watch the BSB to see the number of spectators walking round with missing limbs, crutches, fixed wrists etc to think, nah, I'll stick with cars thanks.
I've had multiple bikes, and enjoyed riding them, but :
1) I'm not as flexible as I used to be, and can't manage the "sportsbike crouch" for very long before I stiffen up.
2) My wife doesn't like pillioning much, but enjoys road trips in the "fun car" that's replaced motorbikes (but she doesn't come on race tracks)
3) If I stuff up a corner in the car, there's some leeway to scrub off speed and stay on the road. If not, I am likely to bend the car but walk away. On a bike, the margin for recovering from an error is much thinner.
Been there, done that, and have the scars. And no, that didn't stop me from riding.
4) Same as 3, but caused by oil / diesel / idiots on the road. In a car, I'm good enough to catch an inadvertent slide (so far - touch wood). On a bike, I was never that talented - once the front wheel starts to slide, it's down I go
So I have a comfy car for normal stuff / load carrying, and a 30 year old sports car for trips through the hills and occasional track days & hillclimbs, rather than a bike.
1) I'm not as flexible as I used to be, and can't manage the "sportsbike crouch" for very long before I stiffen up.
2) My wife doesn't like pillioning much, but enjoys road trips in the "fun car" that's replaced motorbikes (but she doesn't come on race tracks)
3) If I stuff up a corner in the car, there's some leeway to scrub off speed and stay on the road. If not, I am likely to bend the car but walk away. On a bike, the margin for recovering from an error is much thinner.
Been there, done that, and have the scars. And no, that didn't stop me from riding.
4) Same as 3, but caused by oil / diesel / idiots on the road. In a car, I'm good enough to catch an inadvertent slide (so far - touch wood). On a bike, I was never that talented - once the front wheel starts to slide, it's down I go
So I have a comfy car for normal stuff / load carrying, and a 30 year old sports car for trips through the hills and occasional track days & hillclimbs, rather than a bike.
Toyoda said:
First post nails it. Well, that is for those fellas who had a bike prior to meeting their wife.
For the rest, well.... I don't think I know a biker who hasn't had an 'off' at some point. You only have to go and watch the BSB to see the number of spectators walking round with missing limbs, crutches, fixed wrists etc to think, nah, I'll stick with cars thanks.
They could've all been wFor the rest, well.... I don't think I know a biker who hasn't had an 'off' at some point. You only have to go and watch the BSB to see the number of spectators walking round with missing limbs, crutches, fixed wrists etc to think, nah, I'll stick with cars thanks.
king accidents.PTF said:
It baffles me why more people don't ride bikes, even if just a scooter for commuting. Congestion would be eased greatly.
You've been to Vietnam, right?I've indulged in bike riding and had a moped when I was a much younger idiot. Totally get the appeal to some, but the mixture of being exposed to the elements, seeing how other drivers are on the road and seeing the road condition deteriorate so much, it'd be a risk I'd rather not take anymore.
I had a friend who worked his way up from a 125cc to a GSXR-1000, he'd taken me out before and while thrilling he was never what I'd call a dangerous or risky biker - due to the carelessness of another road user he ended up losing 1.5 arms. Seeing him suffering for myself is my reason - it may not be much more in practice, but a chassis I sit in is better than one I sit on.
Plus I'm big into sound systems so a bike would be lost on me.
My other half is very anti bike having lost an uncle to a motorbike crash a number of years ago. She is getting worried now as our 14 year old who is currently massively accident prone has declared that as soon as he is of legal age he wants to go for his licence.
And just to add the cherry on the cake we had a classic car/bike interface at the end of our road last week, you know the situation the car was turning right, did not see the bike, BANG!! The scene was carnage. When I came past the rider was on the floor being tended by policemen. Fingers crossed he/she was OK, but judging by the wreckage and the distance the rider ended up away the initial impact it was not a slow speed impact.
Personally I would love a low slung chopper styled Harley for sunny summer rides, but it’s never going to happen, I could not put up with the worry from the other half
And just to add the cherry on the cake we had a classic car/bike interface at the end of our road last week, you know the situation the car was turning right, did not see the bike, BANG!! The scene was carnage. When I came past the rider was on the floor being tended by policemen. Fingers crossed he/she was OK, but judging by the wreckage and the distance the rider ended up away the initial impact it was not a slow speed impact.
Personally I would love a low slung chopper styled Harley for sunny summer rides, but it’s never going to happen, I could not put up with the worry from the other half
RobM77 said:
I was trying to answer the OP's question. Everyone had a minimum level of absolute risk they're willing to take on, and bikes are too dangerous for them - simple as that.
Except statistically bikes are not that dangerous.I think there is huge difference between actual risk of motorbikes (as shown by statistics to be low) and the perceived risk, which judging by many comments on here is much higher than the actual risk. Not surprising as most people are pretty bad at assessing risk e.g. flying is much safer than driving yet more people are scared of flying than driving.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff