reasons to buy a bike...continued,with a twist

[Guest]

Bike for me... I'm not a trademan, so i don't need to carry lots of tools/materials around, and i don't have kids...

And when i do have kids, the wife will have a car bought for her, and in return, she can do all the ferrying

Also, with the right luggage, you can still carry a hell of a lot on a bike... They're also cheaper (insurance, tax, fuel-only beaten by diesels), you can park 'em almost anywhere, the cool factor, the freedom factor...

<3

[Guest akey]

For me its the bike every time

But then I'm lucky because as a family my missus has a car.

 

Ah I see.

So the answer is yes, bike, provided we can keep a car in the household

That is cheating a bit.

Yes of course I would choose the bike every time, if we were allowed to have a car as well, but let's be honest, if we could only have one mode of transport for the whole household, would it really be the bike ?

 

Not really I am sure that there are a lot of riders who would still use a car for commuting or work and only use the bike when the weather is nice or just for fun at the weekend.

I had to make a choice when I moved job, do I get a cheap car for commuting and get a cheaper bike for fun, or get a more expensive bike for everything, my choice was the bike, hence the mileage I do and the bike I got.

[Guest]

Not really I am sure that there are a lot of riders who would still use a car for commuting or work and only use the bike when the weather is nice or just for fun at the weekend.

 

It is still cheating.

You seem to be saying you would choose the bike provided there is still a car in the household.

That being the case, I would've chosen the bike as well.

As I said, cheating.

Would you be able to depend on the bike as your only form of transport with no access to a car.

In other words, are bikes really a viable everyday alternative to the car.

[Guest]

They're also cheaper (insurance, tax, fuel-only beaten by diesels)

 

I beg to differ on the economy issue.

Most performance bikes will do between 35-50 to the gallon, which can be beaten quite easily by a modern car.

My car actually beats the bike at similar speeds on a long run, and it has 100 more bhp and a lot more weight.

Tax, well yeah, but a lot of cars now only cost £35 a year, and some nothing

Insurance Depends on the bike of course, but at the moment, my car insurance is cheaper than the bike, and the car has a lot more performance.

I'm afraid that unless you buy a cheap commuter, modern superbikes can cost as much if not a lot more than a decent car to run.

[Guest]

I think a lot comes down to what you are used to, and have licences for... up until I was 21 the bike was my only form of transport, but when i gained my car licence, then another option was available to me..

so up to getting my licence everything i did was on the bike, somehow I managed...

if i had to get rid of one, and didn't have the use of another vehicle, i'm afraid it would be the bike.. when the time came, I would get one again though.

luckily, i have space to keep the bike, so if needs be it would be Sorn'd for a dry period , and then taxed when finances allowed....

fingers crossed, I am able to run both at the moment...

[Guest]

Well devon, as a 19yr old, me on a nissan micra 1.0 litre that did about 40mpg, was 2k a year.

I'm now on a much younger kawasaki 500, that does 0-60 in 4ish seconds, compared to the 30 or so in the nissan, which does 50mpg (more if you're really nice to it) and only costs £230 to insure for the year. Yes, SOME cars are only £35, like my dad's Ford Fiesta 07 plate. Gets 60ish MPG, and is cheap for him to insure... BUT! Thats because hes over 50! I could never get insured on a diesel, the smallest diesel engine i've ever found is a 1.3, (dad's is a 1.6)...

Even so, for 10mpg less, and an extra tenner on tax, is much better than the 2k or so more i'd have to pay for insurance on a car!

EDIT: Plus, i get the joy and fun of a bike! xD

[Jimmi_929RR]

This situation actually came up for me a few years ago when i couldn't afford to run both a car and a bike. I picked the car for practical reasons (it can be used safely and comfortably all year round for me). Thankfully now I'm back to both again.

I think if i lived somewhere where it was summer all year round then it would be bike, but in the UK def a car.

[techno]

So basically if your young and especially if you have no family, then cheaper and better to have a bike, if not we would generally run a car!

However most of us would prefer both it seems, wether that be our own or a spouses.

Both have there upsides and there problems both cost various amounts to run depending on what we buy, however the big difference to me is a car is a workhorse I never decide to waste fuel on a jolly good car journey as they are boring but i wil waste fuel and head out for no real reason on the bike!

[wayneo]

car for me too because im a car nut and its got a decent boot but im becoming a bike nut.

[lingy3]

Van for work,

just passed test so bike for pleasure.

To me its a daft ?, in the 1st place, then again I'm still exited gettingt on a big bike.

This is a forum of bikers,

just me or anyone else noticed a pattern to a previous member .

[archiec]

I have to use a car for work and is supplied from the company but cost me on income tax even though I never use it at the weekend as the boot and back seat is full of work stuff so we use the wifes car at the weekend for shopping ETC. so the bike is purely for fun for me to use when the weather permits I just wish I could use it more often.

[Guest]

Bike for me!

1..no car parking where i work.

2..Only 1 and a half miles to work.

3..Daughter has a car..pinch hers for shopping.

So i dont realy need a car.

[rennie]

I've had to vote car!

I love my bike but it's only a toy!

I commute 70 miles a day, would be much more expensive on the bike!

Don't think my knees would let me do it either to be honest!

I also still have to transport my kids occasionally.

[hYpYz]

im commuting whole year on my bike for practical reasons:

from home to uni from uni to work

if i would be in a car i would never get on time anywhere...apart from carrying loads of stuff(like shopping) or having to drive around kids car is not that practical at all. its just more comfortable when you cant stand the bad weather.

might change my mind later on maybe when ill get tired or something i dont know

for now bike seems like a better option

[Ingah]

im commuting whole year on my bike for practical reasons:

from home to uni from uni to work

if i would be in a car i would never get on time anywhere...apart from carrying loads of stuff(like shopping) or having to drive around kids car is not that practical at all. its just more comfortable when you cant stand the bad weather.

might change my mind later on maybe when ill get tired or something i dont know

for now bike seems like a better option

 

+1.

I've never had a car, don't want / probably can't really afford (to pay for) one. I suspect that eventually you have to get (access to) one otherwise you'll end up having to use the bus or freight company or something once and a while (serious cringe, i hate the buses!) I figure that if i get my car license done too i could just rent a car/van on the 1/2 days a year that i'd find a need for one, and save all the headaches associated with owning one!

Haven't voted though because i don't think it's an entirely fair question; needs and wants can and almost certainly will change over a lifetime (e.g. having kids and/or living in the middle of nowhere will hugely affect things), so deciding right now what will suit me for the rest of my life seems a little bit premature. And besides which, what if something happens health-wise so you can't ride day-to-day anymore! And what if i move to London or something? Or become a trademan / other person who must carry LOTS? I think that either one chosen would cause me pain at a later date (not biking again would probably make me feel pain every day as i'm really really into it, whilst not having a car may make me feel pain once a year or something as i've never owned (although have driven) a car - so i'd probably go for bike if forced).

One thing i do think is that cars aren't all that "practical" (or maybe my definition of "practical" is different to all yours). They've got more luggage space, that's pretty much about all there is going for it. There's few things (and certainly nothing you should need to carry regularly) that won't fit on a big bike, and i don't see waiting in queues for hours and generally having city journies take a frustrating long time (making you late), and struggling to find somewhere near to where you want to be to park as "practical" at all! Nor does paying through the nose for that pants multi-story car parking appeal.

How about 2in1?

http://www.worldcarfans.com/10803231750/not-sure-between-motorbikes-or-cars-buy-a-cirbin-v13r

[RiffmasterII]

All people who have voted for a car should be abnned from this forum, or at least hang your heads in shame

[fazerboy]

tell you what

theres some really good arguments for and against each mode of transport,and those who have voted car(me included)have in reality been really honest,and amongst a biker forum that takes some guts

for those who only travel by bike,good on you,your balls must be made of steel

[Guest]

Well devon, as a 19yr old, me on a nissan micra 1.0 litre that did about 40mpg, was 2k a year.

I'm now on a much younger kawasaki 500, that does 0-60 in 4ish seconds, compared to the 30 or so in the nissan, which does 50mpg (more if you're really nice to it) and only costs £230 to insure for the year. Yes, SOME cars are only £35, like my dad's Ford Fiesta 07 plate. Gets 60ish MPG, and is cheap for him to insure... BUT! Thats because hes over 50! I could never get insured on a diesel, the smallest diesel engine i've ever found is a 1.3, (dad's is a 1.6)...

Even so, for 10mpg less, and an extra tenner on tax, is much better than the 2k or so more i'd have to pay for insurance on a car!

EDIT: Plus, i get the joy and fun of a bike! xD

 

It's because of your age.

I am amazed your saying 2k a year for a 1.0 Micra.

My 18 year old neice has just passed her test and bought one of those.

She pay's about £500 for insurance.

The bottom line though, is that cars are cheaper to run on the whole.

I'll use mine as an example.

I have a Honda Civic.

It costs about the same as my 2003 BMWR1150RT to insure.

The BMW however costs about £300 everytime it goes to a BMW workshop for a service.

Even small independants charge nearly £200.

I bought a five year service package with my Civic that cost me £500, so no contest there.

It's cheaper to tax.

What else.

Oh yes, the Civic on a run gives me 45mpg.

The Beemer on the same run at similar speeds, struggles to get 40mpg.

Don't even get me started on tyres.

[fazerboy]

and plus a bike can only carry 2,a car can do five.

but lets face it the bike is more fun,but it does come at a cost,quite a substantial one

[Guest]

but lets face it the bike is more fun,

 

Yes, but only on nice warm day's, and how many of those do we get in this country.

[fazerboy]

man.....its a bummer having a bike in this country isnt it

[Guest]

man.....its a bummer having a bike in this country isnt it

 

In this country yes.

I have no axe to grind.

I've been riding nearly 30yrs and still do at least 12,000 miles a year, all year round.

Britain is crap for riding, which might go some way to explaining why the average superbike in this country only covers a couple of thousand miles a year.

[Ingah]

It's because of your age.

I am amazed your saying 2k a year for a 1.0 Micra.

My 18 year old neice has just passed her test and bought one of those.

She pay's about £500 for insurance.

The bottom line though, is that cars are cheaper to run on the whole.

I'll use mine as an example.

I have a Honda Civic.

It costs about the same as my 2003 BMWR1150RT to insure.

The BMW however costs about £300 everytime it goes to a BMW workshop for a service.

Even small independants charge nearly £200.

I bought a five year service package with my Civic that cost me £500, so no contest there.

It's cheaper to tax.

What else.

Oh yes, the Civic on a run gives me 45mpg.

The Beemer on the same run at similar speeds, struggles to get 40mpg.

Don't even get me started on tyres.

 

£2K for a male 17 year old first car is not too much "out there". I would've expected more £1.5K but hey-ho. Women pay far less.

Anyway, i don't think a Honda Civic and a 1150cc (or thereabouts, as i'm aware the actual size is quite probably a little smaller than that) BMW bike is a fair comparison, the Civic being a "normal"/average car and the BMW being a large engined tourer (different classes of vehicle entirely!) I can see it being cheaper for the car in your circumstance as you have such a meaty bike, but i believe you're wildly wrong with saying "cars on the whole are cheaper to run". Not like-for-like they aren't!

Taking your example... Honda Civic's 0-60 times seem to largely be in the range from 10-13 seconds (depending on model of course). As your BMW produces around 100BHP i'd expect it to have at the most under 5 seconds 0-60 (because if a 57bhp CB500 does it in sub 5 seconds, an extra 40 odd horses should help keep the time down even lower). Even a measly 4-stroke 250 - the CB250RS (27bhp, 65mpg) does it in just over 7! (still faster, so therefore should cost more)

You pay for power, after all! (in tyres, petrol, vehicle price and servicing at the very least, as can be seen from the figures you're coming out with for that bike). As i've said, it's only fair to compare like-for-like performance. You can't expect a stock superbike or that large tourer to return 45mpg + fuel economy and be cheaper than a car with such amazing (comparitive) performance.

Also, i'd put money on it that your Civic is almost certainly new (or at least was bought new) for you to have secured a 5 year service deal (alternatively you must know somebody ) for £500. It is entirely possible (even probable) that this is in part subsidised by the price you paid for the car. It could be a sweetner to encourage new car sales even (or even selling workshop time at a loss in the recession because they're currently paying staff to sit around idle most of the day). Your BMW bike is clearly not new (or maybe it is, but they didn't have a deal on) and so you are paying "full whack" and it is again not a like-for-like comparison. What would main dealer servicing cost on the Aston Martin / Ferrari that is able to keep up with your BMW i wonder

Tax-wise, smaller bikes are again cheaper, at least than the bike you are using because of your large engine size (unless we're talking about vs a new low carbon car, which again probably doesn't shift very well and is in a different league).

Regarding tyres i will happily admit i have no idea of running costs (only to say that your bike will eat through the money far more than a smaller and/or less powerful bike will).

And don't forget parking charges, which are non-existant on bikes.

Any performance / big engine car will eat the money. As will any performance / big engine bike. The point though, is that on a like for like basis, i'd expect more bang for your buck out of a bike than a car.

[techno]

man.....its a bummer having a bike in this country isnt it

 

In this country yes.

I have no axe to grind.

I've been riding nearly 30yrs and still do at least 12,000 miles a year, all year round.

Britain is crap for riding, which might go some way to explaining why the average superbike in this country only covers a couple of thousand miles a year.

 

Since when????

I love riding in this country theres some spectacular places to ride!

especially on my superbike!!!!

[techno]

but lets face it the bike is more fun,

 

Yes, but only on nice warm day's, and how many of those do we get in this country.

 

Thats not true either imo, theres plenty of fun to be had, after all some may say sometimes its just too warm when you have alll the gear on!