Plenty of people spend 50k plus on a car, or £500+ a month leasing one. Just sayin'
even a high end bike is rather cheaper to own and run than a high end car (or not even that high end a car)
They're not really comparable though are they, other than both being a means of transport. My car was not £50k to anyone, ever, and certainly not to me, but it has leather seats better than my sofa, it can maintain a constant interior temperature, it can maintain a constant speed, it can play music in at least four different formats, it can navigate to anywhere in Western Europe, it can carry five people and their luggage at over 100mph, it can safely carry and use a hugely volatile fuel, it can illuminate itself at a variety of different brightness levels and can turn the light on automatically in the dark, it can clean it's own windscreen, and wipes it automatically when it rains, it can charge it's own battery, it can lock itself without being touched, it can travel 12,000 miles without anyone having to do any maintenance and has so far covered approximately 5 times the circumference of the earth without any issues. Cars are amazing complicated pieces of engineering that consist of a range of devices that are complicated in their own different way - the electric windows in a car are many times more complicated than an entire bike, for example.
It seems rather odd to suggest that £11k is cheap for a bike by comparing it to the cost of a machine that is much, much more complicated, created using much, much more material (almost 60% of a cars cost of manufacture is the materials). It's like saying that a McClaren is cheap because the Space Shuttle cost about $200 billion.
Or, in other words, £11k for some carbon fibre and a few cogs is ridiculous.
When I win the lottery maybe...
