Bike or Car at 17?

Slamdog · 16 Jan 2006 at 19:42

scuzi rules....

i have both car and bike licences... (and an hgv1). the bike was the best thing because I learnt so much more about driving/riding. you do appreciate road surfaces more, you do tend to have much better awareness and you can outrun the police better

if you need to give a mate a lift then you can as long as he wears a helmet.

Chronicle · 16 Jan 2006 at 20:49

NathanE said:
Don't get a bike - you can't give your mates lifts. And at that age, it's what cars is all about.

All (well most of) my mates drive/will be by the time i am 17 anyway...

And they can always get on the back of a bike probably.

How much approx would lessons cost for learning to drive a bike? Is it similar to car costs?

andi · 16 Jan 2006 at 20:55

I wouldn't recommend a bike to anyone. A bike is a decision you make yourself. They're impractical, dangerous, and will probably work out more expensive in the long run.

The only real reason to get one is because you really want one, and it sounds like you don't.

Get a car.

Gojira · 16 Jan 2006 at 21:38

andi said:
I wouldn't recommend a bike to anyone. A bike is a decision you make yourself. They're impractical, dangerous, and will probably work out more expensive in the long run.

The only real reason to get one is because you really want one, and it sounds like you don't.

Get a car.

I'd tend to agree. A bike can be some of the best fun you'll have with your clothes on, but get it wrong and it will bite much harder than a car will, much faster - the sort of clip that will cost you a door mirror in a car can easily put you in hospital, or a box.

How many other bikers and ex-bikers here know someone with the nickname "brain damage", or less than the usual number of limbs?

If you want a bike, and are happy to face the risks, then great, go for it!

If you aren't sure, you are almost certainly better off with a car.

(for what it's worth, I had a bike licence for five or six years before I took my car test, and ran bikes alongside the cars for a few more years)

Alan Woodford

Chronicle · 16 Jan 2006 at 21:38

andi said:
I wouldn't recommend a bike to anyone. A bike is a decision you make yourself. They're impractical, dangerous, and will probably work out more expensive in the long run.

The only real reason to get one is because you really want one, and it sounds like you don't.

Get a car.

How are they more expensive? I would have thought a car would be more expensive...???

burns · 16 Jan 2006 at 21:53

One thing I don't get about bikes is the lack of a proper banger market. Cars can be had all the way down too and below £100, even with MOTs if you look hard. Bikes, there just doesnt seem to be any thing in the price range, or do you just have to know where to look?

Freefaller · 16 Jan 2006 at 22:06

Personally I'd like to see everyone ride a bike for a year before driving a car. But not many people agree with me. I think a car would be more practical and you'd probably enjoy it more - it's obvious you're not that much "into" cars/bikes so it's pretty irrelevant what you get.

When I was your age I had a fiat uno, it was in top condition, wasn't very cool, but it got me from a to b to c, I could knock the seats down and carry loads of stuff, and other people.

Insurance is always going to be high for young new driver. You have to think about driving lessons too. Also if you do go down the bike route you need to buy the equipment that goes with it.

I wouldn't worry about being "cool" - I'd worry about getting some transport and being able to get from A to B and do it safely and not worry about if you can do 100mph or if it's quick. Wait until you're ready and have the skill for it.

A bike is going to be tough and maybe more frightening and less convenient, but you'll learn so much about observation and lane discipline, general comportment towards driving/riding with other people, that come car time you'll be leaps ahead of others. However the easy and safe option is to go and do your car test. Don't think you're colin mcrae, just get yourself a neat safe car that will help you learn, and move onto something "cooler" when you're ready.

Learn to walk before you try to run.

james.miller · 16 Jan 2006 at 22:12

i'd agree with that freefaller.

The reason so many airhead boyracers crash their cars is because they are too cocky for their own boots and try to impress their friends. If they were on bikes instead, they wouldnt be inclined to show off to their mates wen they couldn't fit on the back.

Not only that, but if/wehn they do crash, they are less likely to involve somebody else.

andi · 17 Jan 2006 at 00:11

Chronicle said:
How are they more expensive? I would have thought a car would be more expensive...???

Lots of unseen costs. You can get a cheap car for a few hundred quid. Most cheap bikes are more than that, plus you then have the additional costs of clothing and equipment. It quickly adds up.

DRZ · 17 Jan 2006 at 04:59

It is much, much easier for other people to kill you when you are on your bike, and as a learner who doesnt know the road and how they work etc, you should get experience in a car first...

Basically, learn to drive in a car and see how many idiots there are on the road. If the fact that only 5mm of leather is between you and them scares the crap out of you, get a car. If it doesnt, get a bike.

I have a bike and have use of a car

thesaint · 17 Jan 2006 at 07:28

it is true that getting a bike is a personal thing but it will teach you the roads a lot better but tbh if i had to choose between my bikes and my car the car would go first as i find cars do not giver me the fredom that my bike does. yes the car i can transport things in but hecki can hire a van for that. but if all you want is a cheap run aroaund then a bike is the best thing because when you weigh up tax and insurance prices against a car you find 125 bikes a lot cheaper

Chronicle · 17 Jan 2006 at 09:45

Hrmm ok. How much cheaper would bike insurance (remember... ill be 17) than car insurance?

And also how much would the clothing be... not really after leather either, something man made (don't umm "agree" with leather... won't wear it).

Desmo · 17 Jan 2006 at 10:19

TBH, if it was me at 17, I'd get a car.

NathanE · 17 Jan 2006 at 10:33

Chronicle said:
Hrmm ok. How much cheaper would bike insurance (remember... ill be 17) than car insurance?

And also how much would the clothing be... not really after leather either, something man made (don't umm "agree" with leather... won't wear it).

As far as I know they only make biker clothing in leather though? I wouldn't want anything else if I was a biker - because what happens if you fell off? Skin grafts

It sounds as though you really should get a car. If you get a bike and rip around with your regular clothing you're just asking for trouble. Isn't it illegal too or something? I'm not sure.

moss · 17 Jan 2006 at 10:53

NathanE said:
As far as I know they only make biker clothing in leather though? I wouldn't want anything else if I was a biker - because what happens if you fell off? Skin grafts

It sounds as though you really should get a car. If you get a bike and rip around with your regular clothing you're just asking for trouble. Isn't it illegal too or something? I'm not sure.

As far as im aware, theres no law on saftey gear except helmets. You can also get various other material protective clothing.

Freefaller · 17 Jan 2006 at 11:16

NathanE said:
As far as I know they only make biker clothing in leather though? I wouldn't want anything else if I was a biker - because what happens if you fell off? Skin grafts

It sounds as though you really should get a car. If you get a bike and rip around with your regular clothing you're just asking for trouble. Isn't it illegal too or something? I'm not sure.

There's loads of gear you can get for bikes. I have my wet weather gear which is man made - but I have my regular gear which is leather - which I prefer. Falling off a bike you'll need more than skin grafts... you'll probably need blood, several weeks of immobility, nerve damage, tendon damage - some of which may be unrepairable.

You legally need to wear a helmet unless you are a Sikh in which case you're exempt, or a medical condition. However in that case I'd never ride a bike! Other than that you don't have to wear anything else protective. It really bugs me seeing all the kids and "cool" bikers going around in shorts and t-shirts without gloves :eek:

I wouldn't skimp on protective clothing. Leather is still better than man made material, though man made stuff now is pretty good and has good stitching and is pretty good at low burn/friction.

Desmo · 17 Jan 2006 at 11:17

NathanE said:
As far as I know they only make biker clothing in leather though?

Isn't it illegal too or something? I'm not sure.

Nope, only need you lid on. Other than that, you could go out in a pair of pants if you really wanted to, although I'd expect you'd get pulled over and given a good talking too. Nothing illegal in it though, except maybe some indecent exposure

There's also plenty of other man made materials for your bike gear too but leather is still the best IMO.

burns · 17 Jan 2006 at 12:09

I'd love to try a bike, but I think my mum would disown me if I got one. Someone pulled out on one of her work mates, he could do nothing about it. He can barely use his right arm now and has over 6 feet of scaring on his body despite being about 5'6. To be fair he did spend the compensation on a house and a '69 mustang

.

GSXRMovistar · 17 Jan 2006 at 15:37

andi said:
I wouldn't recommend a bike to anyone. A bike is a decision you make yourself. They're impractical, dangerous, and will probably work out more expensive in the long run.

The only real reason to get one is because you really want one, and it sounds like you don't.

Get a car.

Sorry but that's a very incorrect sweeping statement, I'll give you the dangerous point, yes they can be but good training and good observation should help avoid the majority of tricky situations.

Impractical? for what? Carrying several suitcases and a load of passengers maybe but if some wants to travel on busy roads with lots of congested traffic then a bike will get you there in a fraction of the time. My journey to work takes 30 mins where in a car it could take up to 2 hours, so being (im)practical purely depends on the requirements.

More expensive? again I'd be interested to know what you have based that on. A newish high end bike (sports etc) may well be more expensive (running costs & accessories included for both) than a cheap car. But is you compare like for like expensive car/expensive bike, cheap car/cheap bike I think you will find a bike much cheaper to run.

At 17 I found a car more practical for my situation but would have loved to have been able to have had both. Again as others have already commented it's a same that learning on a bike is not a compulsory part to obtaining any type of license, as I do believe this would increase general road safety as a whole.

andi · 17 Jan 2006 at 15:57

Just because you can get through traffic doesn't make them more practical. Maybe for you at that time, but most people need/want more than that. You still can't do much shopping on them, you still can't give lifts to your mates, you'll still get wet in the rain, and you can't just nip out in a car, you've got to spend time putting your gear on and warming the bike up. A car is much more practical.

There's lots of people on here who've bought cars in the past for <£500. I'm not talking old bangers, I'm talking good solid cars. You'll struggle to find a good solid bike for that, and then you'll end up spending money on helmets, jackets, trousers, boots, gloves.

Personally, I don't care about all the bad points, I can see past it, and would love a bike. But that's because I have a love for them. This guy obviously doesn't. If you have to recommend them, they're not right for him. If he just wants to get from A to B, then 99.9% of the time, the cars going to be better for him.