If you are putting the same number of miles on a motorcycle as a car, you either don't have to drive much, or are in some other very fringe situation. Pretty much period. Yes, it can and does happen. It is in a minority of cases though. Happy to be shown data that this is not the case, of course.
Edit: I got mixed on some other posts, I didn't say this one "sounds like it." Apologies for the odd rephrasing in this post. I stand by everyone that has every pushed this idea forward to me does so in what feels like a post-hoc justification.
What are you doing so much driving for that requires a car?
But getting at a "how much do you personally drive" is silly. My point wasn't that some folks don't exist. It was that the norm is very very different. A google search claims: "The average annual mileage of a motorcycle is about 3,000 miles." Compared to: "The FHWA states that the average person drives around 13,500 miles per year. It equates to well over 1,000 miles every month."
Not quite an order of magnitude, but still highly skewed. Even in "commuting" miles driven, you lose the utility of merging your commute with a grocery run. Or dropping kids off at school. Very real limits for many.
Which brings it back into the realm of hobby. Note that if you are taking "hobby" as some sort of derogatory claim against it, that is not my intent. My point is pretty strictly on the fact that it is largely maintained for the pleasure of the activity. The utility of the alternatives is typically undeniable.