I mostly agree, but it is a little more complicated than this with some modern cars. Some cars only require 87 but to achieve the hp numbers quoted they need 91. They basically pull timing when run on 87 which cuts 5% or more of the horsepower.
If the car states 87 is "acceptable if no other option" (more or less) but "91 is recommended", chances are it actually does require high octane and as someone touched on a few replies above, the ECM is just programmed to detect detonation (that's why modern cars have knock sensors) and retard the timing to compensate.
Yes, this will trash performance, but so long as the manual specifies low octane is acceptable, it won't hurt anything in the long term.
That said, if the manual mentions nothing about low octane use then the engine is designed for high octane - not using it can
potentially lead to damage if used for extended periods, or under high performance situations. You will probably get away with using it for gentle daily driving however, but there's no guarantee either - detonation damage isn't exactly visible, and many don't know the symptoms.
I used to own a Grand Prix GTP (the one with the supercharger) and it specified 91. I had to run 87 in it once (was in the north and there was no other option for a tank full) and the performance difference was staggering - the ECM retarded the timing so far that it went from a ballsy car to a real slug.
For a motorcycle that states it requires 91, I wouldn't skimp either - non electronic bikes will have no idea they're detonating, and even more modern electronic bikes may not have a knock sensor and/or be able to retard timing sufficiently to avoid damage long term.
However, most will agree, running high octane in a vehicle that only requires low octane (and mentions nothing about anything higher) is a waste of money - it's just marketing that makes people think it's somehow beneficial, to the benefit of the oil companies bank accounts, that's it.