Why don't more performance car enthusiasts ride motorbikes?

[Esceptico]

Not sure on what basis non bikers are telling us how uncomfortable bikes are. If you don’t ride how do you know?

In my experience I don’t find bikes uncomfortable compared to performance cars. Both generally have compromises. Certainly I found my bike more comfortable than a Caterham. But that didn’t put me off the Caterham!

[Esceptico]

Ultrafunkula said:

Esceptico said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

I like egg and chips.

So do I. But I have no interest in ham, egg and chips. Nope. None at all.

And because I like egg, chips and ham I'm going to try to force people who only like egg and chips to agree with me by deriding their opinions.

If people have tried biking (got a licence and owned a bike) and didn’t like it, fair enough.

If they think it is too dangerous or family members against it - fair enough.

The ones that insist they don’t like it (whilst liking performance cars) but have never tried it? That is the question mark.

Just like someone who likes egg and chips but claims they don’t like ham eggs and chips...but has never eaten ham egg and chips.

[Esceptico]

RobM77 said:

I knew I'd get resistance suggesting that bikes were too dangerous for most people to consider,

my Dad rode on and off from the age of 16 to 40 without an accident,

but viewed in probabilistic terms they're extremely dangerous. That's just how it is.

So riding a big is extremely dangerous...yet your father rode for 24 years without an accident..

Your use the term "extremely dangerous" is simply hyperbole.

The annual risk of death in a car accident is roughly 0.01%. Bikes are not as safe as cars. Your risk of dying on a bike are 0.03%. Yes that is 30 times as high. But your probability of not dying is still 99.97%. To put things into perspective, the death rate for aircrew in bomber command during WWII was 46%. Now that is extremely dangerous.

[Esceptico]

Checking death rates it seems that my annual risk of death is now nearly 0.4% compared to a risk of being killed on a bike of 0.03%. So I might as well ride my bike as it is safer!!

[Esceptico]

swerni said:

Esceptico said:

RobM77 said:

I knew I'd get resistance suggesting that bikes were too dangerous for most people to consider,

my Dad rode on and off from the age of 16 to 40 without an accident,

but viewed in probabilistic terms they're extremely dangerous. That's just how it is.

So riding a big is extremely dangerous...yet your father rode for 24 years without an accident..

Your use the term "extremely dangerous" is simply hyperbole.

The annual risk of death in a car accident is roughly 0.01%. Bikes are not as safe as cars. Your risk of dying on a bike are 0.03%. Yes that is 30 times as high. But your probability of not dying is still 99.97%. To put things into perspective, the death rate for aircrew in bomber command during WWII was 46%. Now that is extremely dangerous.

I'm not a rocket scientist and I may regret this, but isn't "0.03" three times as high than "0.01"?

My bad! I rounded the figures and accidently lost a zero. It should have been 0.03% and 0.001%. Does that affect the overall conclusion? For cars you have a 99.999% chance of not dying and on a bike 99.97% chance of not dying. So in both cases a very high chance of not dying, just slightly lower on a bike. That is why when you go to a MotoGP event you will find tens of thousands of non-dead bikers. Also - if you ask bikers whether they know people that have been killed on a bike, you will likely get a positive response. However, if you then ask them to list all the people they know or have know that ride or have ridden that list will be very much longer.

[Esceptico]

Killboy said:

RobM77 said:

I must admit I have been perplexed at this for the last few days. I race a single seater, which is more dangerous than a sports or saloon car, and many of my tin top racing friends often say "you wouldn't catch me in that thing", which is fair enough. I don't then try to convince them it's not dangerous, or somehow better etc etc. I'd love to race a 911 and a BMW and a Sports 2000 and a single seater, but I don't have the money and time to do everything in life so I've just chosen what I've chosen; nothing wrong with that is there?

Having driven some single seaters.... they dont know what they missing either

Think you have missed the point of the thread. It wasn't supposed to be a "bike v car" thread, although it seems to have degenerated into that. I just wondered why people that love performance cars don't also ride bikes (which give massive performance per pound).

I would love to drive a single seater. I would also love to race. I definitely do have the desire. It just can't make it fit in with my lifestyle. My wife, daughter and dog (not necessarily in that order) demand a lot of my time and I chose to spend more of my free time with them rather than most or all of the weekend off racing. I struggle to fit in more than one track day per year! Having a road bike is not as good as racing but I can make my biking fit around my life, not the other way around.

[Esceptico]

RobM77 said:

Rawwr said:

RobM77 said:

I don't then try to convince them it's not dangerous

I don't think any bikers have said it's 'not dangerous', I think they've said it's not quite as dangerous as your sometimes hysterical use of language makes it out to be.

I'm not sure I've said anything 'hysterical' have I? As far as I know all I've said is that it's "extremely dangerous". According to that link I found earlier, your 75 times more likely to be killed or injured on a bike than in a car. I wouldn't describe that as 'hysterical'. I would state that as a very valid reason more people interested in fast cars don't ride fast bikes. If it was 'twice as likely' I'd use the same language.

To be fair you just don't seem to understand statistics and risk. You must be the sort of person that buys a 100 lottery tickets because you think that will make you win! Actually, taking that as an analogy:

I buy one ticket my chance of winning is 0.000007% i.e. near as dammit to zero

I buy one hundred tickets - chance of winning now climbs to a heady 0.0007%. Buy the bubbly now because using your language we now have an "extremely high risk of winning".

The "risk" of winning is 100 times higher...but still effectively nothing. Same as with a bike. Your risk of dying is (say) 100 times higher than dying in a car but the absolute risk of dying is still very low. Why are you not able to comprehend that? Or is it that you just don't want to understand it?

[Esceptico]

RobM77 said:

I can assure you I'm fairly well qualified and experienced in that area You seem to understand the difference between relative and absolute risk, but you appear to be making a mistake in how you interpret that. Yes, the absolute risk remains low, despite the difference in relative risk, you're right about that bit, but if the absolute risk crosses into a threshold where someone deems it 'too dangerous' for them, then it does and no amount of your 'man maths' can change that. I can assure you that people do not 'misunderstand the risk'. I don't have time to look up the figures, but let's liken getting a motorbike to driving around from this point forwards in your car without your seatbelt on. I'm not sure I've ever actually 'used' a seatbelt, but I wouldn't do it because it would be too risky.

If we ignore wars and 1960s GP racing etc, then with most accident statistics we're talking about small risks, but that doesn't mean they're insignificant. If I drunk 50 units of alcohol a week or smoked a pack of cigarettes a week, it's probably more likely than not that I'd be fine and die in old age like I would have done anyway, but I still wouldn't do it, because I understand the risks and don't feel the risk of complications is acceptable.

I think we finally agree.

The absolute risk is low (i.e. objectively not extremely dangerous). However, the risk is higher than driving a car and for some people the additional risk crosses their personal threshold of what they are prepared to accept.

I am still unconvinced that people are good at evaluating risk and there are many cases where perceived risk and actual risk diverge quite substantially, with people often underestimating more mundane risks and overestimating the dramatic. A good example is the "stranger danger" brainwashing we had as children (at least if you brought up in the 70s and 80s - anyone remember Charlie and his cat?) where it was drummed into us that strangers wanted to do bad things to us, whereas in fact almost all child abuse is perpetuated by family and friends (or former TV/radio stars!)

[Esceptico]

Charlie says no!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85UlWqk-YKI

[Esceptico]

Biker's Nemesis said:

DRCAGE said:

I doubt any bikers did say that, but I'll happily say it as a non biker.

With a bit of an extension, if you're the type of person who can ride super fast and aggressive, Isle of Man TT style, then IMO you are a different type of human. I know there is much more to life but fk, I feel like such a bh for knowing I don't have the balls for all that stuff.

You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

Or eggs and chips...

[Esceptico]

swerni said:

stuttgartmetal said:

swerni said:

RemyMartin81D said:

stuttgartmetal said:

Car. 993 C4S
Bike 2013 1200GS Adventure

The bike is a lot more fun

I'm a die hard biker, always have been always will be, prefer them to cars but seriously a fking GS more fun than a 993? it pains me to call any bike hateful but GSs are hateful.

The 993 is very pretty and competent, but the C4s is not exactly a thrilling thing to drive.

I’d like to see you catch me in a 993.
It’s pretty well sorted

As I said, they are gorgeous but 285bhp and 1520KG, "Porker" being the operative word.
I had a C4 Targa years ago and wish i'd gone for a RWD

I’ve had 3 993s. In my experience the C2 with narrow body and small wheels is the most fun to drive. Not quick by modern standards (especially compared to bikes) but certainly can be thrilling to drive as they can be thrown around. Small, good steering, great sound track. Not the best looking 911 but great all round package.

[Esceptico]

ChilliWhizz said:

How the feck did we get into porkers? Bunch of bloody gay boys. It’s why God made TVR’s.

Unbelievable

I know God did some shoddy work when he created women but I think he would draw the line at TVR build quality!

[Esceptico]

Gavia said:

liner33 said:

Gavia said:

There’s little skill in launching a bike in a straight line, other than getting it off the line without a mega wheelie, or shutting the throttle. After that it’s a case of pinning the throttle, so hardly skilful.

A car takes even less skill IMO, as long as you don’t just spin the wheels, then you’ll be fine.

Rubbish !

Yes you can potter off the line and ride a 1/4 mile to get anything like a respectable time takes a lot of skill

Did you read what I’ve written? I said the only skill is getting it off the line.

I think there is quite a bit of skill involved in getting a decent 1/4 mile time on a bike. Same for a car as you need just the right amount of wheel spin. However, that is for cars and bikes without launch control. Nowadays for bikes and cars I think you just need to follow the launch control instructions. Your times will then be determined by other factors such as how much grip the surface has, tyre choice and temperature, etc.

[Esceptico]

Pothole said:

Per BILLION miles? I'll take those odds!

I think it was said (certainly by me) many times that the risk of dying on a bike is 30 times the risk of dying in a car. Your chart just confirms that again so nothing new.

Again the point is that 30 times a very small number - is still a very small number. If I buy one lottery ticket I am not likely to become rich. If I buy thirty tickets my chance of winning is 30
Times higher but I wouldn’t be ordering a new Ferrari and the expectation of scooping the prize.

[Esceptico]

MattM135i said:

There are countless reasons I would never ride a bike.

A) Everyone I know that rides has a story of where they have fallen off and injured themselves (scalped themselves, metal plates, crashed into a bus)
B) I've seen three dead bikers laid out in the road when I lived next to the Snake Pass and a school friend's brother died on one
C) Oil spills will knock you off
D) Other drivers
E) Not being sheltered from the elements
F) Having to dress like a power ranger
G) Easier to steal

There is a big difference between injury and death. On bikes you are more likely to get injured. A small off on a bike is almost always going to hurt more than a similar crash in a car.

Biking is a hobby and an extreme sport - like horse riding and skiing (which I also enjoy). I’ve injured myself doing all three and most people I know that do either seriously have also hurt themselves. I think three day eventing has a similar or worse death rate to motorsport.

If you like extreme sports then there is almost always an element of risk.

Driving performance cars probably falls into be same category but then there are probably more posers driving fast cars slowly than bikers riding fast bikes slowly.