cheapest to run

chris1988uk

I know this a bit of a stupid thing to ask and someone might have asked before.

Which iw cheaper to buy, insurance and run. A Car or A Motorcycle?

Essentially I passed my driving test in 2010 but only work part-time so would struggle for a car.
Motorcycle I don't have CBT or full motorcycle on my licence so I would need to do them.

Orangezorki

Almost certainly a car.

I have a 500cc Piaggio MP3, a three-wheeled automatic scooter that you run on a car licence, but rides like a two wheeler. Crazy, but allows me the benefits of two wheels without all the cost of a MC licence. I would say a few things:

1. MC gear costs a lot of money. Don't skimp on safety. A decent helmet, gloves, jacket - the absolute minimum - Doubt that costs less than £500. Mine cost about £1000, and that is far from luxury high-end.

2. MC licences are expensive and time consuming to get. You need tuition, a theory test, two part exam etc.

3. Outside very small displacement, motorcycles are not that fuel efficient. They may be light, but don't have the space for extensive fuel saving technology. Anything over a 125? Don't expect more than 50mpg on a daily basis.

4. MCs usually need more frequent servicing.

5. The safety aspect - they offer quicker commuting times, and immense freedom, but you have to accept that there is a higher risk of injury if you do come off or crash.

6. Insurance is usually more, but not bad enough to discourage you.

7. You may be hard as nails, but do you really want to slide around in the freezing cold? If not, expect to use taxis or public transit for at least 2 months per year - neither is that cheap.

8. Operating a manual MC is not trivial - all four limbs are used and requires far more coordination compared to a car.

Having said all that, travelling on two wheels is fantastic. I would not want to dissuade you as long as you understand the whole picture. And I definitely recommend doing a CBT - treat it like a fun day out. Then you will know if two wheels is an option for you. It'll also allow you to ride a 125 for two years - fast enough for most.

Possibly a compromise would be a cheap car for longer trips and a low displacement scooter - possibly the best of both worlds.

David

forgotmyname

I had a scooter ro whizz through the traffic. It was good on fuel, But i could probably get better MPG with a small diesel.

The reason i got it was because of the traffic. A journey that i could do in under 8 minutes was taking anything upto 45 minutes minutes with the occasional upto an hour.

With the scooter and filtering it took 10 minutes no matter what the traffic was doing.

But my nephew has just paid £740 for a years 3rd party insurance on a 125 bike that cost £450.

What will you when it snows or you need to move something? A car maybe worth paying the extra for?

Richard53

Orangezorki wrote: »

3. Outside very small displacement, motorcycles are not that fuel efficient. They may be light, but don't have the space for extensive fuel saving technology. Anything over a 125? Don't expect more than 50mpg on a daily basis.

Depends on the type of bike the OP goes for. Mine is a 660cc single, and I average 63 mpg in mixed riding (yes, I keep records), keeps up well with traffic, and costs me under £100 a year to insure fully comp. For me, it's an incredibly cheap way of getting about. But then I already have the gear, the skill to do most of the servicing and repairs, and 40-odd years claim-free to help me.

But essentially you are right. The days when a bike was a cheap alternative to a car are long gone. I ride because I want to, not because I have to.

tykesi

Orangezorki wrote: »

Almost certainly a car.

1. MC gear costs a lot of money. Don't skimp on safety. A decent helmet, gloves, jacket - the absolute minimum - Doubt that costs less than £500. Mine cost about £1000, and that is far from luxury high-end. - Rubbish! You can easily get a full set of gear including waterproofs for £500. It's certainly not going to be the best gear but it will meet safety standards and will protect you in the event of an off.

3. Outside very small displacement, motorcycles are not that fuel efficient. They may be light, but don't have the space for extensive fuel saving technology. Anything over a 125? Don't expect more than 50mpg on a daily basis. - My 1300 with 175 bhp will average 52 with mixed riding.

6. Insurance is usually more, but not bad enough to discourage you. - Is it? My bike is over £100 cheaper to insure per year than my 1300 car despite the fact it's capable of 175mph (maybe not with me on it) and that it's worth about £3k more.

8. Operating a manual MC is not trivial - all four limbs are used and requires far more coordination compared to a car. - Because cars are notorious for only requiring two limbs for making them go

While it may not be a LOT cheaper I'd still argue that using a bike can save a significant amount of money over running a car if the owner is prepared to put up with being more exposed to the elements and vulnerable to injury if anything bad happens.

I'm fortunate enough to be able to run both but if I had to get rid of one for financial reasons it would definitely be the car.

sinbad182

Agree with the chap above. Motorcycles are fast, efficient vehicles that genuinely come into their own when commuting in urban environments.

There are plenty of compelling reasons not to get a bike too - however, orangezorkis list didn't contain any of these.

dannymccann

I missed my 600 the last 2 months. To be honest my diesel 1.5 Megane estate is better on fuel (will get up to 65mpg at 30mph), but you cant buy time. I start work at 830 in the middle of town. I arrive at 8 to eat my breakfast at my desk. I live 7 miles from work (roads, it's probably 4 miles as the crow flies). To achieve this on any normal day in the car I need to leave my house at 715. This allows me 45 minutes to park on site. Alternatively, I can drive for 20 minutes, park in some dodgy housing estate and walk for 10 minutes. Leaving at 5 means sitting in rush hour traffic for up to 1 hour.

I tried the bus; a) it made me want to walk out in front of one b) it was expensive c) it was even slower than the car, as Lincoln doesnt have any bus lanes, so you get stuck in the same traffic anyway + it goes round the houses + you still have the 10 minute walk from the bus station + I was getting in at 620pm due to the timetables not working with my hours. Totally unacceptable

On my motorbike, I can postpone leaving the house until 745 (on a warm dry day ) and still realistically get there in 12 -15 minutes. The real plus is on the way home. Even in exceptionally heavy traffic I can still pretty much guarantee being home in 20 minutes i/o an hour.

Means I get up to an extra hour a day with my newborn son.

silverwhistle

dannymccann wrote: »

I live 7 miles from work (roads, it's probably 4 miles as the crow flies).

Sounds bicycle distance!

I didn't drive or have a car until I was 28, but did have an MZ250 for all my transport needs. It had a full fairing but apart from that I always laugh when I hear how much people spend on clothing: mine was cheap from company engineering stores - stylish it was not - and I never owned leathers! Additional newspaper insulation in cold weather.. These days with cheaper skiwear and technology it'd be much easier to keep warm. The bike did almost 80mpg and was a comfortable cruiser, but it was easy not breaking the speed limit like the green-laners I saw last Sunday.. These days motorbikes seem very much boys (and girl's) toys: not transport of necessity.

dannymccann

silverwhistle wrote: »

Sounds bicycle distance!

I'm lazy :rotfl:

I use my pushbike to walk the dog in the morning