Why don't more performance car enthusiasts ride motorbikes?

[Esceptico]

I can understand that your average Joe/Jane, who are not interested in speed and acceleration, would also not be interested in motorbikes. What puzzles me slightly are people that are really into performance cars, yet don't also ride motorbikes. Why not?

Yes bikes are a bit more dangerous than cars. Adjusting for the fact that bikes are ridden much less than cars I think you are about 20 times more likely to die on a bike than in a car. However, the risk of dying in a car is not that high. I know people that have died in car accidents. I know people that have been killed in bike accidents. Yet the vast majority of motorists and the vast majority of motorcyclists don't die.

I have heard comments like "I wouldn't trust myself on a bike". Yet, the most dangerous period to drive a car is when you are eighteen. I never hear car enthusiasts say "I didn't start driving until I was 25 because I didn't trust myself". Similarly I don't know many car nuts who would walk into a garage to buy a Nissan GTR but come out with a Micra "because they didn't trust themselves"!

I wonder whether it is because almost all parents drive, but relatively few ride motorbikes and that if your parents (or your friends) don't ride then that lack of exposure means people don't consider it.

Is class/snobbery an issue? In the past motorbikes were often the only form of transport available and perhaps there was a stigma against them for being "for people that couldn't afford a car".

Or is it that you have to go through training to be able to ride them and as you don't need to ride bikes (if you have a car) then people don't bother?

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.

[Esceptico]

Integroo said:

For most, motorbikes are toys, cars are tools. If you are a performance car enthusiast, you are typically driving a quicker car instead of a slower car - you would have a car regardless, however. You would have got your licence anyway. It is more difficult to justify the time and cost to get a motorbike licence, motorbike equipment and a motorbike as well as your car.

Also, it is less safe and less pleasant (in that you can't just jump in and drive shielded from the elements). I suppose it's the same reason that many car enthusiasts would rather a BMW 335i than a Caterham.

But bikes are dirt cheap. A second hand litre bike can be bought for £4k and won't depreciate much after that. Running costs are low. Yes you have to spend a bit to get the gear but you don't have to do that each year. A lot of performance car enthusiasts spend more modifying their car than it costs to buy and run a bike. If the choice is between a slightly older car plus a bike and just a car, then seems an easy decision to me.

[Esceptico]

C.A.R. 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.

I don't think anyone would begrudge having to wear protective gear. It's more that -
- You're exposed to the elements
- You need to allow extra time at the start / end of your journey to get dressed / undressed
- Need to pick up milk on your way home? You're screwed.
- Need to pick someone up in an emergency / run an errand to collect a friend / relative? Not happening.

I can understand bikes / bikers, but as a mode of transport they're massively impractical for any task you can use a car for. Even a Micra has a thousand more uses than a sports bike.

Also; I can't fall off of my car.

All very sensible arguments if comparing a bike and car as modes of transport. Which I why I understand the average person is not interested. However, if you bring logic into the mix then performance cars make no sense. The maximum you are legally allowed to drive is 70 (only 60 on interesting roads) and you are usually paying much more for them, to maintain them and to insure them but at the same time most are much less practical than a Micra. If you have the mind set that says it is worth making all those sacrifices for a performance car...why not also for bikes?

[Esceptico]

otolith said:

It also depends what it is that you like about driving. If it's acceleration, yes, a bike is going to give you that in spades. If it's playing in the corners, a car has a lot more margin for error correction and lower stakes if you mess up.

Yes but you obviously take that into account on a bike (or should take that into account). Once you can ride the most fun on bikes is to be had in the corners.

[Esceptico]

Shiv_P said:

You get cold, you can't hear anything, it's uncomfortable, no radio, no seat, no heated seat
Etc

Is that from experience?

I don't ride much in the winter and I am more often too hot on the bike, not too cold.

What are you trying to hear in the car? When I am going out for a drive (just for fun) in the car it is not to listen to the radio.

I find bikes more comfortable than cars. Some roads near me are pretty st and in the car you get bounced around. The bike seems to handle the bumps better.

If your focus is on comfort and the radio I am not sure you are a performance car enthusiast.

[Esceptico]

henrycrun said:

Too many endbells looking at phones and not looking out for anyone else

When I go out for a ride I don't generally choose to cruise around town, looking to be knocked off! Riding in town = not much fun. Riding on country roads offers different dangers but far fewer idiots on their phones.

[Esceptico]

Conscript said:

I have no shame in saying, it's because I'm scared. Not of myself, not because "I wouldn't trust myself", because I agree, that's a bit of a cop out. I'm scared of the risks associated with riding a motorbike. You are inherently more vulnerable even if you ride like a saint, and I've heard far too many anecdotes of riders being seriously hurt due to the actions of other road users. That's not to say being in a car precludes you from being in a serious accident, but you are generally better protected if you are.

The thing is, I love the idea of owning a motorbike. 10 years ago, I really wanted to get one, and none of the above really bothered me...but I couldn't afford one. Now, where I am in a more comfortable position where I could probably afford one, I have a nagging sense of doubt, and the above is all I can put it down to - I worry about what would happen if I was seriously injured on one.

It's completely irrational I know, especially as I cycle on the roads anyway (albeit much slower), but it's stopping me from getting one. And yes, my girlfriend doesn't want me to have one, but that's not what's stopping me. Besides, she rides a horse and has had a serious accident falling from one, so she has no grounds to lecture me on safety

I also cycle and ride horses. Feel much safer on the motorbike as you are passing cars, not the other way around. Many car drivers seem a bit nervous of big bikes and give you room. Hardly any give cyclists space.

As to horses - well I suppose it is even a I have broken my leg and hand on bikes but my arm and wrist falling off horses. But at least bikes don't consciously try to kill you!

[Esceptico]

XMT said:

I love bikes, I always have, when I was younger I just never got round to doing my test and buying a bike. a few years ago I toyed with the idea and decided to do my CBT test.

However I never bothered to go further even though I still think about it almost once a week.
The reason is simple. It is more dangerous.

You mentioned when your 18 you go in a car however no one can deny regardless of if you make an error or someone else makes a mistake you have a significantly better chance of walking away without a scratch. You have so much around you to protect you, airbags and all sorts of other safety equipment to protect you.

In a bike that is just not the case! You are near on naked, one mistake from you or someone else and you'll either only fall off and have a sore body part and some heavy scratches (if your lucky). Worst case you will get road burns with leather melted into your skin, break your legs, become paralyzed or die.

All of the above can happen even at low speeds, it depends how you fall and where.
I have 3 kids and a wife and yes it might sound like I am a scardy cat however its not a risk I am willing to take.

Only within the last two years have motorbikes become more mainstream with having ABS on them. Before this it was maybr 2 or 3 bikes as far as I know that you could even add on as an option.

Edited by XMT on Thursday 15th March 10:36

Bikes are more dangerous but 20 times a low risk...is still a low risk.

Yes you can get taken out by car drivers. However, you can also do a lot to minimise that risk through your own riding style/skills.

[Esceptico]

Sebastian Tombs said:

I've got a motorcycle licence and a nice 900cc Triumph.
I've driven it across Normandy and Brittany, I've commuted on it, I've belted it round b-roads.

And yet as soon as I got a car I kind of went off motorcycling. If I was in London I would invariably be faster on a bicycle, and without the kit and parking hassle. If I was out of London I would invariably be more comfortable in a car.

The only thing that the car couldn't deliver was that immediate performance. I solved that by buying an Aston Martin which can.

I'll be selling the bike this year.

The one thing that a bike gives that no car can match is ease of overtaking. However powerful the car it is much bigger than a bike and the opportunities to overtake safely are far fewer. Makes a big difference if you are out for a weekend drive/ride. Not to mention that other road users - particularly car drivers - get much more upset being overtaken by another car than being overtaken by a bike (on a good overtake most don't even realise they have been overtaken until you are well into the distance).

[Esceptico]

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 lottery

[Esceptico]

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.

1. Riding bikes is a leisure activity for me. I have a car for going to work or the shops.
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...

[Esceptico]

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 lottery

How does that not support my argument?

Something that is slightly more dangerous than something that is not very dangerous, is not dangerous. Clear? The impression given by non-bikers is that if you even sit on a bike you have hours to live. Yet millions of bikers seem to get through the year without having killed themselves.

[Esceptico]

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 lottery

How does that not support my argument?

Something that is slightly more dangerous than something that is not very dangerous, is not dangerous. Clear? The impression given by non-bikers is that if you even sit on a bike you have hours to live. Yet millions of bikers seem to get through the year without having killed themselves.

You're talking about the difference between relative and absolute risk. What makes you think I don't understand that? You're missing the point I'm making.

Sorry but I don't understand your point. If you understand the difference between relative and absolute risk then what are you trying to say? Riding bikes is not dangerous. It is more dangerous than driving (which is pretty safe). Of course, not as safe as not driving or not riding.

[Esceptico]

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.

[Esceptico]

RobM77]avia said:

It wasn’t clear that your post was about getting changed to ride a bike, as it talked about the surreal scenario of sitting in a line of traffic at the speed limit. [\quote]

Sorry if it wasn't clearer, but I had quoted and replied directly to a point that the OP raised on page 1 about why people mind changing to ride a bike, but not to go skiing. What I was talking about was just effort vs reward. Having to follow old ladies in Micras and obey draconian speed limit is what makes the reward less on the road than on a race track or an empty mountain pass. That is why it's different from skiing and why I believe the OP was wrong to make that statement. Unless you live near empty roads of course, but the OP was talking about most people, not the lucky few.

Have you been skiing?

My experience last year:

Expensive
Full day to get to resort. Another day coming home
Hassle putting on gear and boots
Hassle walking from hotel to lifts (especially in ski boots)
90% of the day waiting to get onto lift or being on the lift
First hour or so: too icy
Then a few hours of good skiing
Then too warm and snow was too soft
Repeat for 6 days

Compared to that hassle, spending ten minutes getting myself and the bike ready and then riding for half an hour to find decent roads is nothing!

[Esceptico]

[redacted]

[Esceptico]

Cotty said:

I would imaging riding a bike in the rain a pain in the ass what with being wet and cold. Plus the risk of skidding and falling off. I would imagine karting in the wet very similar in regards to comfort/dampness levels.

Bikes have bugger all storage, often no passenger seat, no boot. I have done a weekly shop at Sainsbury's on the way back from a show/run in my old Elise including a few crates of beer.

This isn’t a bike v car thread, It is car v car + bike thread

[Esceptico]

[redacted]

[Esceptico]

toon10 said:

I know a true petrolhead who is a shadow of his former self after a serious off on a bike. Nearly lost his arm. My best mate who isn't a petrolhead has just passed his bike test at 45. I really worry for his safety. I find it hard enough to do a swift overtake in my M135i without tools pulling out on me not judging my speed or even bothering to look so god knows how unsafe something as small and rapid a proper bike would be. It's more worrying about other motorists than your own riding.

I've never been into bikes personally, they just don't float my boat. Tried a few on private land and never felt safe.

Sounds like you are trying to overtake when it isn't safe to do so, if you are relying on other people to see you or second guess your actions.

Big bonus of riding bikes is that overtaking is much easier and because you can always filter (slowly) pass a line of stopped cars you can much progress much more easily. Therefore (as long as you have the right mind set) there is less pressure to overtake, unlike with cars where you get tempted to overtake when you know it isn't 100% safe because there are far fewer opportunities.

[Esceptico]

Risotto said:

Esceptico said:

I can understand that your average Joe/Jane, who are not interested in speed and acceleration, would also not be interested in motorbikes. What puzzles me slightly are people that are really into performance cars, yet don't also ride motorbikes. Why not?

From a personal perspective I'd say there are two main factors:



2. Fundamental similarities. As you say, driving and riding aren't poles apart and the speed and acceleration are common to the appeal of both. Yes, there are all manner of nuanced differences but fundamentally you're travelling at similar speeds, on wheels, along roads. It's like comparing skiing & snowboarding; not golfing & skydiving. A fair percentage of drivers don't have the spare time to jump through the necessary hoops and get on a bike simply to experience something that isn't vastly dissimilar to driving a no-frills sportscar. Of those drivers who do have the spare time to take up a new hobby, I expect many would rather go for something that offers a wholly different experience - diving or sailing or whatever.

Edited by Risotto on Thursday 15th March 17:24

I sort of get that but the experience of riding is not the same as driving. Plus the skiing/boarding analogy is also not quite the same because of the difference in performance per pound. Yes if you compare a Porsche 918/McClaren P1 with a superbike they offer similar performance. Problem is a used superbike is £5k whereas a used 918 is £1.5 million. And even with a 918 you can't so easily make progress on our crowded roads (not to mention that I would feel more comfortable at the thought of trashing a £5k bike than a £1.5 million car on a track day!)