|
|
"Big government, we're gonna be your new mommy and daddy!"
This is pathetic. If the insurance and motorcycle industry want this so bad they should hike rates for under-25 riders who hop on big supersports.
Oh wait, they already do that.
nonsense
Just remember, when you agree to this kind of BS, it's only one extra step before they consider banning ALL supersports "for the greater good". It's a slippery slope people, think about it before you go praising their retarded efforts.
I'll counter with the fact that many if not most European countries have policies of CC restrictions and their bike industry is healthier on a bad day then ours ever was or will be.Originally Posted by thebutler
Restrictions do not mean bans. Now horrible stats of deaths due to stupid young riders on overpowered bikes... that right there gives politicians fodder to ban all SS bikes.
+1,000,000.00 The single accident riders NEVER pay their deserved increase in rate. But the rest of us do.
And because of these restrictions, there are amazing bikes in their markets: Check out some of the crazy Euro and Jap spec bikes like CBR250, GSX-R 400, VFR400. The only decent one that ever came to North America was the FZR400. And those are well sought after -- and by riders well over 25, with much more than 5 years riding experience.
Are you implying that their bike industry is healthy because of their under-25 restrictions? Not sure how or why you'd make that assumption.
Europe is Europe, we'll never have the kind of motorcycle industry that they have. The people here are different, the climate is different, and most importantly the roads are different.
They also don't drive big SUVs and pickup trucks over there.. its got nothing to do with law.
Okay to you older folks how would you feel if big brother said you can't have a 600cc sport bike on your 18th birthday? that's after 5years dirt experience plus 2 years street... Little off topic but doesn't everyone pay a flat rate in Quebec?
I don't know that it's a "flat" rate, but in Quebec the liability portion of your insurance is provided by the government and you have the option of buying additional insurance from private companies.
That's the reason for the government wanting to implement these laws. It's not about safety, it's about saving a buck.
I brought up Europe (you could add Japan in there also) as a place where restrictions have been in place for years and there is no banning of all motorcycles.
Not sure how you could make the assumption that restrictions to those under 25 or with little experience would lead to a ban of all motorcycles. Can you give an example of a place where this has happened? All I see are places where this has been put in place and it has lead to nothing bad. Not to mention that Europe is far more 'nanny state' then North America.
Road tolls and Gas prices and small streets. Not exactly 'laws' but it was legislation that made that happen combined with smaller spaces and overcrowding.
Im just saying that the restrictions have nothing to do with their "healthy motorcycle industry". I say it has nothing to do with it at all.
They want to restrict people under 25 years of age from buying supersport motorcycles because they are costing the insurance bureau too much money. Who is to say that 10 years from now when liter bikes are putting down 200rwhp they decide that enough is enough and nobody should be allowed to ride such a bike because again too many people are crashing and its costing insurance too much money?
Instead of creating more endless legislation they should simply raise their rates. What is the big deal?? It's so much easier and it doesn't cost taxpayers any more money.
How does being 25 magically flip a light switch that makes you more responsible. I've met many 40-50 yr olds with the mentality of a 10 yr old.
Like similar laws, its awfully arbitrary, as even riders with more than 5 yrs riding experience on a SS crash periodically. Bikes will always crash more often period by the pure factor of having 2 fewer wheels & not being as inherently stable as cars.
It's statistics and accountants, that's all.
The big deal is that most of those people who are inexperienced and crash their new SS bikes also stop riding and thus can never pay the increase which gets transfered to the rest of us. If we trim the pool of stupidity we all win on our insurance rates.
I personally am downgrading my bike because of insurance and the fact that I find I don't hit the highways often enough... so on a selfish note I wish we have a healthy group of 400cc bikes offered here which we don't and a 125/250 is just too small for me.
Have we met?
There. Fixed that for you.
When people fail to exercise good common sense, legislation usually steps in it's place. This is the result.
Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the term 'shared risk assessment'.. when some tool goes down and takes himself out rather expensively on a machine he had no business to be on in the first place... it isn't the insurance co. that picks up the tab.. it's the rest of us that pick up the tab in increased insurance rates.
Some of us are being rate increased right out of the market through no fault of our own. I applaud such legislative moves, frankly.
'99 Suzuki Bandit 1200 - '88 Hannigan Comet chair
some of the best riders i know are under 25...
also alot of 40 year olds like to have a nice little midlife crisis and go buy a gsxr 1000 and squid it up.
How about a skill level test instead of age discrimination?
I think this isn't age specific.. it's experience specific. The title is somewhat misleading with spotlighting the ageism.
Besides which, you've got the rest of your life ahead of you if you are under 25... why potentially spoil the best to come, or conversely bring it to a premature end by diving into water over your head and with little treading-water experience? This i never understood, but i guess it comes with the "I want it NOW" generations. What are you going to be riding, to challenge yourself, in 10+ years time?Quebec's automobile insurance board is hoping strict rules on motorcycle ownership will cut road accident rates in the province.
The Société de l'assurance automobile du Quebec, or the SAAQ, will restrict access to high-powered sport bikes to riders over 25 years old or with more than five years experience.
Last edited by Bandit Bill; 11-17-2009 at 08:51 PM.
'99 Suzuki Bandit 1200 - '88 Hannigan Comet chair
Re: Quebec to ban powerful sport motorcycles for riders under 25
I say we also ban all people over 50 from riding bikes because their attention/alertness/concentration degrades with age. Only people between 30 and 35 should be allowed to own bikes.
If anything needs to be banned or legislated out of existence, it's QUEBEC.
Slippery slope here, today it's 25 and under, tomorrow it's limited displacement and horsepower for ALL, what comes after that? Anyone care to guess? Maybe all race replica supersports get banned all together.
Didn't some of this already happen in certain European countries? limits are placed on all bikes as far as horsepower goes, regardless of riders age or ability.
Whoever said this is slippery slope was dead on, it is a slippery slope and today you might not care because you don't belong in the discriminated age group, but maybe the next day your kind goes on the chopping block? Don't expect anyone to stand up for you neither.
Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Punish those who do something wrong, don't punish EVERYONE.
[QUOTE=The Road Warrior;1115982
Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Punish those who do something wrong, don't punish EVERYONE.[/QUOTE]
That went out of style with spanking
Rossi, what class' did he race in? 125cc..... 250cc. They really messed him up when he moved to 1000cc. (sarcastic)
**** even the CBR125R is plenty sporty for the road. It's unfortunate that kids will be limited but how do you distinguish the idiots who'll blast down highways at 200+ and the responsible ones?
Having a lower cc bike IMO improves your riding skill without the possibility of stupid speeds. Shifting, braking and turning are overlooked when twisting the throttle could compensate for incompetence.
I would love to do a real world test. After one season of riding my 250R, i'd like to go against a 1 year rider who started on a 600 or 1000. Do a comparison in traffic and a comparison in the twisties (closed course). Then you'd be able to judge properly.
Personally I don't give a **** when others rag on me for having a 250R. I'm laughing to the bank with savings in between the giant smile I get from riding it. I shrug it off as your loss not mine.
I'll agree it's nice to crack open the throttle and feel the acceleration once in a while but to me a 600 or 1000 for the road is like killing a fly with a bazooka. When you can get you bike impounded in one of the first 3 gears, what's the point of all that wasted excess.
Food for thought.
Last edited by Rob MacLennan; 11-18-2009 at 08:10 AM. Reason: Insults
This is going to make into someone's signature
I was discriminated against 20+ years ago, also, thanks. The same old insurance issue. I bought what i could afford at the time. Certainly not that fancy-*** Katana with the Pop-up headlight, that i lusted after. Even if i coulda afford it, i woulda killed myself on it - i recognized that even back then through my own personal Superman Syndrome. Even if i didn't die by my own hand, the back-up plan would have been at the hands of my old man for wasting my money on insurance for it..
The same place common sense went. It just ain't so common anymore.
It's kind of hard to punish someone financially, when they crash out, leaving the sport, and out of reach of justifiable insurance increases, while they go for the next 'fad' they want to participate in.
I can see the reason for this legislation - yes the insurance companys would support it because they don't want to see the pool of riders to spread the cost of the shared risk shrink down due to increasing unaffordability. Then it becomes a slippery slope of fewer riders overall, bearing the shared costs of claims. That could become a spiralling slippery slope of higher cost insurance premiums.
They are trying to inject some moderation into todays high-performance motorcycles, that the Mark I human being hasn't kept up with.
Last edited by Bandit Bill; 11-17-2009 at 11:04 PM.
'99 Suzuki Bandit 1200 - '88 Hannigan Comet chair
The fact of the matter is mentality. The 25 issue is based on the fact that they deem it the age that we mature. We have a partner, maybe kids, a job, rent.
At 18 you live with you parents and there's nothing shackling you from doing the stupid stuff, so the government wants to step in and close the door.
Are there worse drivers 25+ ?, definitely, and will there be 25+ year olds still doing dumb stuff ?, sure, but the stats suggest the majority conforms.
This is going to make into someone's signature
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks