Why don't more of you ride bikes?

i got into bikes when i was 16. bought my first two stroke 125. Honda NSR 125RR in black and yellow. :D de-restricted with a full arrow exhaust system, sounded the nuts, just like a GP bike. to be honest, even this was fast enough for me without going into the bigger bikes. cutting a long story short. unfortunately, i went over the bonnet of a jeep, got my leg caught in the bullbars, my body weight threw me over the bonnet and basically tore all my ligaments in my knee.

took me 6 months + to recover from that, but stupidly went out and bought another motorbike. still nothing big (cagiva mito in matte black), but plenty fast enough for what i wanted. later sold that to get into driving. i dont think i'll ever get back into bikes again, its not really that im scared to, its family and commitments more than anything now.
 
Scania said:
Because I've seen far too many dead during my years on the road, usually in a horrific manner, some that I still have nightmares about.

Watching somebody die in front of you - as I have, more than once, is more than enough to put you off his passion, in my case anyway! :(
Click to expand...

I've seen more people dead and seriously injured in classic cars than I have motorbikes.

One decapatation, one guy with a crushed leg, another one where all I couldn't even see what was left of the guy- two involving HGVs, the other a piece of slightly damp road.

Only fatal bike accident I have seen is a guy who was riding like a ***** and smashed into the side of a fiesta, his body went through the cabin killing the driver, his head, didn't.
 
atpbx said:
I've seen more people dead and seriously injured in classic cars than I have motorbikes.

One decapatation, one guy with a crushed leg, another one where all I couldn't even see what was left of the guy- two involving HGVs, the other a piece of slightly damp road.

Only fatal bike accident I have seen is a guy who was riding like a ***** and smashed into the side of a fiesta, his body went through the cabin killing the driver, his head, didn't.
Click to expand...

As part of your job I assume? Are you five-O?

Out of interest, how do you cope with witnessing these types of images? What do you do to switch off after a particularly harrowing day at the office?
 
atpbx said:
I've seen more people dead and seriously injured in classic cars than I have motorbikes.
Click to expand...

You must obviously realise your experience is not at all representative of the actual situation though, as the statistics quite clearly demonstrate far more people are killed on bikes than in classic cars.
 
Clarkey said:
Why not ride? Death, simple.
Click to expand...

Whilst I don't ride at the moment, I rode daily for about 5 years and never had a problem.

It's about the attitude of the person riding the bike. Of course there are tools that could wipe you out - but the more observant you are the less chance of it happening. Being smaller and faster can also help get you out of trouble too. :)
 
[TW]Fox;26539811 said:
You must obviously realise your experience is not at all representative of the actual situation though, as the statistics quite clearly demonstrate far more people are killed on bikes than in classic cars.
Click to expand...

Of course.

I've also seen more dead and injured car drivers than bike riders, but it's simply down to being more of them to get killed.

In the past 6 months of commuting backwards and forwards to cambridge, I've seen no accidents involving motorcycles, 4 or 5 involving cars and the same amount involving lorries, but again, simply down to numbers.

331 motorcyclists killed in 2013
398 pedestrians.
785 car occupants.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...22643/rrcgb-main-results-2013-infographic.pdf
 
Last edited:
loltim said:
They're just a bit gay aren't they?
Click to expand...

Of course, you've posted this for comedic effect, but in all seriousness, what's gay about them?

It's something that Clarkson says, and a couple of other people, but I've never seen the connection.

Unless you mean Harley riders, in which case yes, it's extremely homosexual.
 
I passed my car test in 1970 and the first vehicle I bought was a 250cc Suzuki super six. I could not afford a car and the bike was rapid (~90mph), cheap and a real buzz to ride.

For several years afterwards, I had both four wheels and two. You could not beat a bike for long runs to the coast in company with a few others, or a night out with the lads but a car offers a greater chance with the fairer sex on most occasions.

I still hanker after a bike but I don't expect to buy another.
 
Last edited:
pioneer2000 said:
Because:

A) you have to spend 10mins zipping yourself up in a leather suit every time you go out.

Granted it does take longer to get ready, however, you save 10minutes easily by not being stuck in traffic. :)

B) you're exposed to the elements. So you're either sweaty and gross or wet and freezing.

If you buy the right kit you'll be fine. Again I accept in extreme conditions you'll never be 100% comfortable, but you'd be surprised how well you can keep the elements out

C) you're at risk of being squashed by cars, tumbling into fences, slipping over on manhole covers, potholes etc.

True, but there are risks in cars, they are just different. If you are observant and practice good roadcraft you can anticipate better, and miss potholes and so on, yes it is less forgiving on a bike, but at the same time you have as much chance as it not happening anyway if you're careful.

D) you have to be concentrating at all times to maintain your balance.

I take it you don't ride a bicycle? You don't need to concentrate on balance - concentrate on the road though, absolutely, as you should be doing in a car anyway.

E) no stereo.

You can get ear pieces to listen to music.

F) no storage space, you can't buy anything while you're out.

You can improvise, or buy a box - granted large items you cannot collect - but then you don't use a bike for those things. I can honestly say that I've never gone out in a car and suddenly bought myself some flat packed furniture on a whim....

G) even having one passenger is a complete pain.

Well you can have 1 pillion, and it's not a pain, but it is different. Besides I've generally had 2 seater cars - so it doesn't bother me ;)

H) ruins your hair by the time you get to your destination.

I'm not vain so I don't care. But I also have little hair.

I) most sports cars are plenty fast enough for most roads. Unsure why anyone needs such straight line acceleration that a bike has.

Because they're dirt cheap and will be faster than most supercars. But it's not just about all out acceleration, you form part of the bike, in my case, I am at leat 50% of the weight of the bike, so my interaction with how the bike behaves is down to me. You are almost "at one" with the bike - it's a far more involved ride/drive. There's nothing like nailing a corner on a bike and getting it "right".

You either "get it" or you don't, but a bike ride is a far more symbiotic relationship and experience.

J) they all sound like hair driers compared to any larger engined car.

Scooters yes - bikes? Errr no.
Click to expand...

Bikes are different to cars, and behave and perform differently. There is obviously a skill difference and behavioural difference - but until you "get it" there's nothing quite like a nice winding road on a bike on a lovely summer's day. :)
 
Off-road on a nice muddy dirt-track, sure.

On the road (particularly round here, where it feels like 50% of other people on the road are actively trying to hit me) not a ****ing chance!

Yes, as a responsible/sensible rider you can mitigate the chances of being hit, but you can't account for every single instance of another road user's blindness, stupidity or impatience.
 
Do all these people that have no self control and believe they will kill themselves actually drive so badly that they use the safety features of a car on a daily basis?

geekman said:
If I was doing 140MPH in my car on a motorway, I'd not be very likely to stack it. If there was a sudden gust of wind or a bump in the road surface, I'd probably be able to control it. On a bike, I'd probably come off which would = instant death at those speeds.
Click to expand...

No. You can do 140mph (and a lot more), go over bumps and ride in the wind without dying even a little bit.
 
Dogbreath said:
Do all these people that have no self control and believe they will kill themselves actually drive so badly that they use the safety features of a car on a daily basis?
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with the skill of the person driving. If someone pulls out in front of you when you're doing 30 in a car, you have 1m+ crumple zone and airbags in front of you. You might end up with a few bruises and if you're unlucky a broken nose.

Same thing happens on a bike (more likely since you're less visible) then it's probably hospital time with a few broken bones...
 
Dogbreath said:
No. You can do 140mph (and a lot more), go over bumps and ride in the wind without dying even a little bit.
Click to expand...

Surely you must agree that it's far easier to unsettle a bike at high speed than a car though? And on a bike I'd be much more likely to be doing high speeds as they get to such speeds so easily.
 
I see quite a lot of RTA claims with my work, car accidents are whippy compo and a right PITA to justify the legal fees but motorbike accidents are great because even the slightest collision usually ends up with broken bones, torn ligaments, concussions/brain injuries which tend to make the claim value much higher :p

Virtually all of the motorbike claims are exactly the same too, car pulls out from a side road, doesn't see the bike and the motorbike ploughs straight into the bonnet of the emerging car.

*edit*

It's tempting if I had to drive into L.A. due to the traffic but I'd rather not gamble with various giant SUVs which apparently can barely see regular cars let alone bikes :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom