>be bong >cars don't have age restrictions but motorcycles

Because a Ferrari costs 200 grand and a used bike costs 2 grand, so it's far more accessible financially.

>>16491936
This also cars come with way more safty features as for bike u only get a helmet

>>16491915
because all the inbred bongs will die and you'll be left with bbc.

>>16491915
>be bong
DROPPED

>>16491936
>biking is cheap
Where did this meme even come from?
~2 grand for a bike
Helmet $300 - $400
Jacket $300 - $500
Pants $200 - $300
Gloves $100
Boots $200
Total on the cheap $2700 - $3500 assuming you dont get second hand shit
Then after that you have insurance, licenses, maintainence and wof and rego etc
in short its not a very cheap form of transport considering the lack of practicality

>>16492021
still pretty fucking cheap compared to a 200k Ferrari

>>16492021
>$3500
>not cheap for transportation

>>16492021
$80 jacket
$20 gloves
$100 boots
Only real expensive other than bike is boots and helmet... 100 bucks for gloves really? Lol

Still cheaper than a 200hp car

>>16492021
>He's so poor that $3500 isn't cheap as fuck

>>16491915
Because very, very few 17 year olds will have the possibility of getting near a 300k bucks Ferrari.
Proportionally, powerful bikes are much more affordable than powerful cars and leaving powerful machines in the hands of young drivers/riders will always be a bit more dangerous than leaving them to experienced folks.
>>16492021
>3.5k is expensive
That's the price of a shitbox that actually runs, without insurance and to this you also have to add fuel, a place to park it (which implies you either rent one, live in a flat that offers one or have a large enough property to park in it).
Biking is not "cheap" per say, but it sure is cheaper than cars.

>>16491936
>biking is cheap

please drop this stupid meme its just as costly.

>>16492036
Irrelevant. You can't compare a 2K bike to a Fucking Ferrari.

>>16492021

Are you really saying 3500 is not cheap for transportation?

Even then I spent double on every single thing you listed there and it's still a cheap alternative to a car.

>>16492195
did you even read the fucking op
jesus christ faggots these days

>>16491915
>ordinary car is far more dangerous
As a bong, you well know:
>some tragedy happens
>Government has a "response"
So a young person dies on a motorbike, and the A1 license is the "response". Doesn't matter that it does no good for anyone, it's a "response."

>>16492021
>assuming you dont get second hand shit
well there's your problem

also licensing and such are all costs that you have to pay with a car too

but I think, yes, the very cheapest usable car is probably cheaper than the very cheapest usable bike + gear

but what people are really talking about is the lower ceiling--you can get a lot of bike for $2k, just got a 2002 sv650s with clean title and an ohlins shock for 1900 in the most expensive part of the country, was looking at some newer salvage-titled ER6Ns for even less, etc., and these will be faster than anything short of a Vette.

File: DBT.jpg (48KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x400px

>>16492021
You're writing this as if you assume that everyone will get this - I think we could easily find a link between serious hurt/killed bikers under 24 and not wearing proper protective clothing

>>16492477
>but what people are really talking about is the lower ceiling--you can get a lot of bike for $2k

This. Here in the UK, bike insurance tends to be a lot cheaper than car insurance on the whole, and when you can pick up sport bikes that will do 0-60 in under 3 seconds for under £2500 (I mean shit, you can pick up a Hayabusa for £3500), this means that inexperienced riders can get their hands on a bike that can outpace most supercars for less money than a 5-year old economy hatchback.

>>16492021
Early 2000s sport bikes with 2.5s 0-60 and 5s 0-100 only cost around $2k-$3k, that's where it came from