Cars or Bikes? Which are more dangerous on-track?
- emmalwilford
- Sep 19, 2021
- 3 min read
There is much debate amongst fans as to whether Formula 1 and other car sports like Formula E are more dangerous than bike races like MotoGP or the Isle of Man TT. There have been many technological advancements in the last 20 years which have allowed drivers to remain safe on the track, particularly in and on the cars themselves; not just the increase in stewards and safety run-offs.

In the earlier years Formula 1 was extremely dangerous; even in the 1960s-2000s we still had fatal crashes and even deaths in races which made the whole racing community question whether motorsport was worth the casualties it caused. Despite surviving, in 1976 Niki Lauda suffered a lethal crash when colliding with an embankment, as well as several other cars at the Nürburgring in his Ferrari. In 1994 Ayrton Senna died at his race in Imola after losing grip on the track and colliding with the safety wall at high speed; yet, despite this, the racing community has remained tightly knit in agreement that the increase in safety standards today keep the sport fun whilst also measured against the perils; some even saying that Michael Massey and race control in Formula One, are taking safety too far.

The physical differences between cars and bikes is self-explanatory, with bikers being more exposed to the elements and weather, as well as the imminent danger of crashing and injuring themselves. In regards to this, it is more obvious to see why motorsport enthusiasts rate biking more dangerous than cars, posing the undeniable fact that the cars seem safer because the drivers are more enclosed, especially with the newly introduced 'Halo' onto the cars for added protection.
However, this draws many people to Romain Grosjean's crash in 2020 at the Bahrain Grand Prix - if the cars are inexplicably safe, then why on earth did it split in half, leaving the shock-ridden driver to find his own way out of the blaze? Clearly there was an issue with the Haas car which could have ended in an even bigger tragedy. Having said that, this tragedy would also have been induced if the halos were not enforced, once again reiterating that cars are certainly more equipped than bikes to deal with high speed crashes.
Further debate on the subject of cars draws its attention to the lower divisions in the sport and whether it is morally right to put youngsters in what could be considered death traps, especially as the cars in Formula 3 are not equipped with halos. However, in contrast to what is most certainly a compelling argument is the fact that lower divisions do not race as hard as Formula 2 and especially not Formula 1 and therefore the safety is balanced out.

However, this is not the case with MotoGP and its lower divisions. The younger and less experienced racers are still just as exposed as the highest divisions, the only change being the power within the engine, which at the end of the day, is still a considerable amount. This once again restates how motorcycle racing has many more dangers than motorcar racing and this is further supported by the most recent crash of Italian racer Jason Dupasquier in May 2021, who was killed in a Moto3 crash after colliding with other drivers, Ayumu Sasaki and Jeremy Alcoba.

It is obvious that all styles of motor racing are dangerous; from the Dakar Rally which has its number of competitors increase the dangers, rather than the cars themselves, to the Isle of Man TT which has seen over 255 deaths since its inaugural race in 1907. However, it is clear and figures show that motorcycle racing is a lot more dangerous than car racing -that's not to say that cars are not dangerous, as Verstappen and Hamilton have shown over the last few weeks, with their rivalry ending in some severe consequences; though with motorcyclists more exposed to both weather and the surrounding tracks and bikes, it is very evident that bikes win the fight for the most perilous sport out of the 2 categories.




Comments