Why don't more performance car enthusiasts ride motorbikes?
Discussion
Rawwr said:
TameRacingDriver said:
This thread is hilarious. Bikers claiming that people are pathetic, or lesser humans, or are missing out because they aren't interested. Why does it matter to you? Are you people doing 'add extreme sport/activity here'??, if not, why not, you are missing out. Sorry, you're just coming across as massive helmets.
Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
Is that what all of the bikers on here have said or are you generalising?Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
The stig has a dirty mind though.
TameRacingDriver said:
This thread is hilarious. Bikers claiming that people are pathetic, or lesser humans, or are missing out because they aren't interested.
Who is claiming these things out of interest? The thread is vaguely humorous in places with some of the ridiculous excuses people are using to cover perfectly rational reasons that they are embarrassed to admit, but you'd have to be very easily amused to find it hilarious.I can guarantee that some are missing out, just as I am missing out from many potentially exciting pastimes because I either don't have the time, interest or ability to finance.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Thursday 22 March 11:44
TameRacingDriver said:
This thread is hilarious. Bikers claiming that people are pathetic, or lesser humans, or are missing out because they aren't interested. Why does it matter to you? Are you people doing 'add extreme sport/activity here'??, if not, why not, you are missing out. Sorry, you're just coming across as massive helmets.
Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
Whenever you listen to conversation between bikers outside a burger van, they all sound like moronic apes Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
Mr2Mike said:
Who is claiming these things out of interest? The thread is vaguely humorous in places with some of the ridiculous excuses people are using to cover perfectly rational reasons that they are embarrassed to admit, but you'd have to be very easily amused to find it hilarious.
If you look back, some of the comments to drivers who aren't interested in bikes are quite condescending.Edited by Mr2Mike on Thursday 22 March 11:44
TameRacingDriver said:
This thread is hilarious. Bikers claiming that people are pathetic, or lesser humans, or are missing out because they aren't interested. Why does it matter to you? Are you people doing 'add extreme sport/activity here'??, if not, why not, you are missing out. Sorry, you're just coming across as massive helmets.
Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
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?Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
Ultrafunkula said:
If you look back, some of the comments to drivers who aren't interested in bikes are quite condescending.
But perhaps not as condescending as the organ donor/gay leather cat suit/power ranger comments...Seems to me that those who don't ride bikes should show a little respect, while motorcyclists should refrain from stuffing their superior manhood down the throats of those who aren't up to riding a bike.
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 
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 can’t believe that we’re still going in circles with this.
Everybody knows bikes are more dangerous than cars. However quoting stats that include the everyday dawdlers is a waste of time.
The only stats that would matter are the comparison between performance car drivers accidents and outcomes vs performance bikes accidents and outcomes. They are likely to be closer, although the car will still be safer.
Where this thread has gone is all over the place. We’ve had people who can’t see that you can own bikes as well as cars. We’ve had people posting about 125cc commutes. We’ve had people posting about their dull diesel cars. All of those are not relevant to the original question.
Then we drifted into the boring Clarkson cliches, the general insults from both sides and the rest of it.
To repeat. I drive an M4 and have had performance cars for decades of various marques. I ride 1000cc sports bikes on road, track and race them too.
For that reason I can safely say that anyone too scared to ride a bike is a pussy whipped gayer, anyone claiming they’d kill themselves on a bike should find a way to do it anyway, as they’re totes mentalists. Anyone who wants to insult either side needs to get some of their own material.
None of the last paragraph is serious btw.
Everybody knows bikes are more dangerous than cars. However quoting stats that include the everyday dawdlers is a waste of time.
The only stats that would matter are the comparison between performance car drivers accidents and outcomes vs performance bikes accidents and outcomes. They are likely to be closer, although the car will still be safer.
Where this thread has gone is all over the place. We’ve had people who can’t see that you can own bikes as well as cars. We’ve had people posting about 125cc commutes. We’ve had people posting about their dull diesel cars. All of those are not relevant to the original question.
Then we drifted into the boring Clarkson cliches, the general insults from both sides and the rest of it.
To repeat. I drive an M4 and have had performance cars for decades of various marques. I ride 1000cc sports bikes on road, track and race them too.
For that reason I can safely say that anyone too scared to ride a bike is a pussy whipped gayer, anyone claiming they’d kill themselves on a bike should find a way to do it anyway, as they’re totes mentalists. Anyone who wants to insult either side needs to get some of their own material.
None of the last paragraph is serious btw.
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 I think it depends what you're interested in. The spectrum of interest in cars is so broad, and owning and driving a single seater is a very small part of that. For starters it's quite physical, very cramped and obviously very loud; so consequently it's a very different experience to even a track day in a Caterham or 2-Eleven, both of which I used to own. To go to extremes though, my Dad for example is arguably more of a petrolhead than me, but he's interested in restoring, running and owning classic cars (formerly motorbikes) and taking them on road rallies.
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..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.
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.
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 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.
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 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?
TameRacingDriver said:
This thread is hilarious. Bikers claiming that people are pathetic, or lesser humans, or are missing out because they aren't interested. Why does it matter to you? Are you people doing 'add extreme sport/activity here'??, if not, why not, you are missing out. Sorry, you're just coming across as massive helmets.
Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
I raced a Husqvarna 600cc single in the ATRC rally class, I have competed in a Freeride World Tour qualifying round (granted I came dead last), and frequently ski off-piste in areas which may be prone to avalanche if the conditions are conducive to such an event. I also used to do a lot of rock climbing (competed in bouldering events and could comfortably climb 7B sport routes) and a bit of winter mountaineering that also included ice-climbing.Is there not a bike forum you can join where you can suck each other off and congratulate yourselves on how superior you all are?
I also ride motorcycles on the road (although less so in recent years)
I'm also incredibly risk-averse and while I enjoy what I do, I don't do it for any adrenalin, I do it for the clarity of mind and focus that they offer. It's almost a form of meditation.
A few pertinent factors from this document from 2013:
- The average distance ridden by male motorcyclists in that year was 406 miles. For females it was only 67 miles. Scale those casualty statistics up to the typical distances covered by car drivers in a year and the picture would be even less rosy.
- The serious injury rate per billion miles for motorcyclists was 1789. That equates to 558,971 miles per serious injury. I drive around 12k a year, If I drive for 50 years I will do over that mileage, meaning if I rode a bike instead then at some point statistically I probably would get seriously injured. The figure for cars is 21, equating to 47.6 million miles per serious injury, so I should have about a 1 in 79 chance of being seriously injured over a 50yr driving career at 12k per year.
TurboHatchback said:
A few pertinent factors from this document from 2013:
And again, distorted stats. We’re not discussing every driver we’re talking about performance car drivers. Their stats may be a bit closer to the bike stats. - The average distance ridden by male motorcyclists in that year was 406 miles. For females it was only 67 miles. Scale those casualty statistics up to the typical distances covered by car drivers in a year and the picture would be even less rosy.
- The serious injury rate per billion miles for motorcyclists was 1789. That equates to 558,971 miles per serious injury. I drive around 12k a year, If I drive for 50 years I will do over that mileage, meaning if I rode a bike instead then at some point statistically I probably would get seriously injured. The figure for cars is 21, equating to 47.6 million miles per serious injury, so I should have about a 1 in 79 chance of being seriously injured over a 50yr driving career at 12k per year.
Esceptico said:
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 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?
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.
Pat H said:
But perhaps not as condescending as the organ donor/gay leather cat suit/power ranger comments...
Seems to me that those who don't ride bikes should show a little respect, while motorcyclists should refrain from stuffing their superior manhood down the throats of those who aren't up to riding a bike.
That's open to interpretation, plus I think the general distribution of instances is slewed in one particular direction. But yes, the bickering should stop now. Seems to me that those who don't ride bikes should show a little respect, while motorcyclists should refrain from stuffing their superior manhood down the throats of those who aren't up to riding a bike.
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. 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.
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!)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff