|
|
|
Is there any hope?
- Thread starter waqeezy
- Start date
to respond to the "more years and more experience = lower quotes"
I got my m2 3-4 years ago, got my bike last year and insured it last year. My broker said that my years being licensed DID lower my quote but then, this year, after getting my full M, no additional tickets (at least at the time of getting the quote), my inusrance went up $200 per year.
So xp + better licensing =/= lower quotes... which doesn't make sense if you ask me but hey, i'm not in charge.
Around the world, the motorcycle tends to be the first vehicle a kid will get as cars are more expensive (both initial cost and maintenance) but for some reason, in Ontario, we try to make it harder to get one by letting insurers dictate the costs of the "sport"
I'm still sure that better and more stringent graduated licensing (compulsory riding school + hp/weight ratio restrictions) would reduce accident/claims, make better riders and therefore lower insurance for all riders...
But i guess not. As people just see it as it being a "nanny state" when i see it as reducing costs for a whole demographic...and making it a more viable option that will help put some wind in the sails of this industry in ontario.
I got my m2 3-4 years ago, got my bike last year and insured it last year. My broker said that my years being licensed DID lower my quote but then, this year, after getting my full M, no additional tickets (at least at the time of getting the quote), my inusrance went up $200 per year.
So xp + better licensing =/= lower quotes... which doesn't make sense if you ask me but hey, i'm not in charge.
Around the world, the motorcycle tends to be the first vehicle a kid will get as cars are more expensive (both initial cost and maintenance) but for some reason, in Ontario, we try to make it harder to get one by letting insurers dictate the costs of the "sport"
I'm still sure that better and more stringent graduated licensing (compulsory riding school + hp/weight ratio restrictions) would reduce accident/claims, make better riders and therefore lower insurance for all riders...
But i guess not. As people just see it as it being a "nanny state" when i see it as reducing costs for a whole demographic...and making it a more viable option that will help put some wind in the sails of this industry in ontario.
conundrum
Well-known member
Keep in mind in areas of the world where people tend to get a bike due to the expense of a car, they are not riding around on 600-1000cc SS bikes, nor do they have $1 million or more coverage (if they have any coverage at all). I'm pretty sure if you did a poll on motorcycles in China, India, etc most would be more or less in the 50-500cc range, and more or less designed for utility than outright speed. If you want to compare to more developed countries, then places like the UK and Japan do have graduated licensing to keep people off bikes that weigh 400 lbs and make over 100hp.
As for comparing insurance year to year...it's a crap shoot since anything can raise or lower rates small amounts. I think anyone would be hard pressed to not see a reduction in insurance cost if they plotted out how much it was each year over 10 years, assuming they kept the same bike and never got in an accident or got a ticket, which would throw off the numbers. Also why there are so many people complaining about insane insurance quotes on high end bikes when they are under 25, yet quotes are a lot more reasonable for those 25-30 or older in comparison.
That all said, arguably the 'best' solution would be for Ontario to adopt graduated licensing, and somehow set stricter regulations on what insurance charges riders, depending on their history. I also wish we only had 'one policy', and you could attach various vehicles to it...seems dumb that you have to pay for complete coverage for each and every vehicle when you can only ride or drive one at a time. A saner solution would be to pay on the most expensive (due to repairs or replacement costs) and most dangerous (due to accident benefits) vehicle you own, then pay a pittance for anything else you also have in the garage.
Last edited:
You'd have to check with them, or someone who has done so recently can chime in. Supersports, definitely not and they've always been upfront about that.
Carlos Vincent
Well-known member
Ontario already has a graduating system in place for both auto and motorcycle, it was implemented in 1994, prior to that you only needed a 365 permit, pass a road test without any time frame and you got your G/M license.
Now you get your M1/G1 (old 365 permit) you have to wait a period before getting M2/G2 and another year before getting full M/G license.
It would be great if we could only pay for one vehicle and have 3 vehicles on a policy, as you said you can only drive one at a time, you can blame the families that have 3 drivers/riders driving all 3 vehicles full time and not disclosing them to the insurance company.
Rates are already based on each individual rider, if your paying $1000 year with a clean record, that similar person with a bad record is paying $2000/year
Hey Carlos,
i think that he was referring to the graduated licensing system i was referring to that is more akin to the one used in Europe with hp/weight ratio. Basically i think its something like, someone with an M2 would be able to ride up to say...a cb500 series
It encourages riders to start small to get better grasp of basic control and then after being tested again for their full M they would have no restriction... but you would have that time period where you need to adapt to the smaller bike.
I'm thinking that would
a) weed out the ones who just want a bike for hooliganism at high speeds right now, right away
b) train better riders by the time they get the M
c) reduce accidents by having better riders and create a much bigger market for the segment of smaller cc bikes (possibly get a few new models from overseas into North America too)
The fact that you can write a written test and ride a litre bike is ludicrous. I've had a friend do it, he dropped it while riding it about a month in and got scared and never rode again. Now that wouldn't have happened if such a system was in place.
conundrum
Well-known member
I meant a system like Europe or Japan (I think), where you are limited in terms of horsepower and/or displacement for x number of years, before you do another test and can move up. Like mentioned just above this post (and in one of my previous), it doesn't seem 'right' that a 16 year old can write a 10-20 question multiple choice test, and jump on a 1000cc Supersport bike. I think we don't see the same issue with cars since most ultra high performance vehicles are so expensive most learn on civics vs Ferraris or Veyrons...although the CSCC kiddies seem to be changing that as we speak.
As for rates, what I meant was if I have two bikes, and say my accident benefits are $800 of my policy, I have to pay it on bike 1 AND on bike 2...even though I can only ride (and potentially crash) one at a time. Also in terms of collision, comprehensive, and liability only one could be in an accident at a time, so it would make more logical sense if we only paid to insure the most expensive one (eg. If you owned a CBR1000RRA and a Ninja 250R, you pay on the CBR1000RRA), since that would be the 'most' the insurance company would ever have to pay out at one time. At least in my own case, about the only reasons why i parted way with my CBR250RA when I got the newer bike was due to storage/parking issues, and the fact I didn't want to have to pay for a complete policy on the CBR250RA as well as a complete policy on my newer CBR650FA. If I had more room and the 250 was only a few bucks extra a year on top of insuring the 650, I definitely would have kept both of them.
In regards to those who have more than 1 driver/rider, why not rate them differently, and/or require one 'full' policy per primary driver in a household? If it is ever found that someone is trying to cheat the system, then just invalidate insurance like what can already be done if someone lies about their postal code or insures themselves as secondary on a bike they actually own.
Last edited:
Carlos Vincent
Well-known member
I like that idea, limiting the CC's for new riders, I really like it.
In the UK:
(Source)
[h=1]3. Bike categories, ages and licence requirements[/h]
(Source)
[h=1]3. Bike categories, ages and licence requirements[/h]
| Licence category | Vehicles you can ride | Requirements for licence | Minimum age |
|---|---|---|---|
| AM | Mopeds with speed range of 25 km/h to 45 km/h | Compulsory basic training (CBT), theory test, practical test on all powered 2-wheeled moped | 16 |
| AM | Small 3-wheelers (up to 50 cc and below 4 kW) | CBT, theory test, practical test | 16 |
| AM | Light quadricycles (weighing under 350 kg, top speed 45 km/h) | CBT, theory test, practical test | 16 |
| Q | Same as AM plus 2 or 3-wheeled mopeds with top speed of 25 km/h | Granted with AM | 16 |
| A1 | Light motorcycle up to 11 kW (and a power-to-weight ratio not more than 0.1kW per kg) and 125 cc | CBT, theory test, practical test | 17 |
| A1 | Motor tricycles with a power output not more than 15 kW | CBT, theory test, practical test | 17 |
| A2 | Standard motorcycle up to 35 kW (and a power-to-weight ratio not more than 0.2 kW per kg), bike mustn’t be derived from vehicle more than twice its power | Direct access route - theory and practical Progressive access route - 2 years experience on A1 motorbike and a further practical test | 19 |
| A | Unrestricted motorcycles in size/power, with or without a sidecar, and motor tricycles with power output over 15 kW | Direct access route -CBT theory and practical (you must be at least 24) Progressive access route - held an A2 licence for a minimum of 2 years - practical test (21 or over) | 24 (direct) or 21 (progressive access) |
See the issue?
You're still not seeing the bigger picture. Yeah, you're not starting out in a Lamborghini (ie, a Busa or something in motorcycle terms), but a 600 (particularly an R/RR as some further want) is still the equivalent of a high performance sportscar in the motorcycle world, yet some still think it's somehow odd that insurance companies want an arm and a leg to insure an inexperienced high risk rider on one.
At the same age many of the young inexperienced riders around here are complaining about high insurance costs on SS's, they'd be getting the exact same high quotes on a sportscar as well, yet for some reason they seem to understand that more, yet still feel "wronged" by getting a similar quote on a bike.
Current day mentalities amongst many of the younger crowd is that they "deserve" things, or have the "right" to them. Credit cards and the willingness to do whatever it takes (legal or otherwise) to fulfill these "requirements" is the bigger issue.
Not long ago there was a thread where the OP loudly exclaimed he was going to ride without insurance because he simply couldn't fathom riding anything other than his chosen SS sport, despite being basically uninsurable on it. "Ride or die!".
Around the world as in where, though? Developed countries are as hard, or harder than ours to get a bike as a young rider - see Blackfin's post below for a good example.
Undeveloped nations, or places like China etc? Sure, many can afford a bike, but as someone else also mentioned, they're typically 250cc or below, often held together with bailing twine and duct tape, and insurance is unheard of, optional, or simply not even available. Sounds great until you have a wreck (and trust me, they're VERY common) and you're on your own - there is no safety net.
We travel to the Caribbean (for one example) quite a lot. Bikes are EVERYWHERE down there, I agree...but they're all tiny CC, most (except the tourist rentals) are decrepit, and good luck with long term aftercare when accidents happen, as they often do.
conundrum
Well-known member
Believe me I know...it's one of the few things that make me feel old when I'm only in my early 30s. I also laugh how so many seem so have an all or nothing approach...either they'll get what they want (feel they deserve), or they will cheat the system to do so...because no alternatives exist.
The funny part too is with bikes I fathom in a lot of cases once they are older and can easily afford it and insurance, they might no longer want a SS bike due to a number of reasons, or not seeing the point of one unless it is a track day toy. Originally i wanted one as well, but when it could become a reality, I had less and less reasons to want one for the streets (and only being able to afford & insure a single bike).
conundrum
Well-known member
Only thing I hate about that is the "bike mustn’t be derived from vehicle more than twice its power" clause. Had it not been for that, Honda likely would have given the CBR650FA a bit more power, as right now it falls too perfectly into the A2 category when restricted (any more and it would not). Not to mention the CBR600F we never got here also made more power, and couldn't be restricted as an A2 bike.
Don't get me wrong though, I still love my bike, but I just don't like it when spreadsheets seem to dictate design. Sort of like what Porsche did with the Cayman too...made it better than a Boxster/Boxster-S, but made sure to not step on the toes (and sales) of the Carrera, vs making it the best car it could be.
Last edited:
Carlos Vincent
Well-known member
You're still not seeing the bigger picture. Yeah, you're not starting out in a Lamborghini (ie, a Busa or something in motorcycle terms), but a 600 (particularly an R/RR as some further want) is still the equivalent of a high performance sportscar in the motorcycle world, yet some still think it's somehow odd that insurance companies want an arm and a leg to insure an inexperienced high risk rider on one.
At the same age many of the young inexperienced riders around here are complaining about high insurance costs on SS's, they'd be getting the exact same high quotes on a sportscar as well, yet for some reason they seem to understand that more, yet still feel "wronged" by getting a similar quote on a bike.
Originally Posted by conundrum
Rather than get the bike they can afford, they get the 600 and choose to forgo insurance, and enter their candidacy for the Darwin Awards for that year.
Current day mentalities amongst many of the younger crowd is that they "deserve" things, or have the "right" to them. Credit cards and the willingness to do whatever it takes (legal or otherwise) to fulfill these "requirements" is the bigger issue.
Not long ago there was a thread where the OP loudly exclaimed he was going to ride without insurance because he simply couldn't fathom riding anything other than his chosen SS sport, despite being basically uninsurable on it. "Ride or die!".
That was well said, I could have not said it any better.
@PrivatePilot
what i don't like in ontario is that it's private companies that basically regulates what bike you will get. Unless you are stinking rich.
So you're young male without experience, you want an SS, pay up, and if you get in an accident, the whole pool of SS payers will be affected by your statistics.
In europe, even if youre rich as fak, A2 permit still applies, limiting you to a vehicle that's more forgiving and curbs the chances of getting into an accident.
Therefore, the next person who wants an SS won't be considered an automatic danger but someone who has somewhat matured on a smaller bike and is wanting to move on.
@conundrum
those spreadsheet limitations definitely do affect what the manufacturers "can do vs will do", but at the same time, as an example, cb5 series is one if not the best selling category for Honda. Because it works well in so many markets, and REALISTICALLY, it's got tons of acceleration (as much if not more than a Lotus Elise hehe) and handles like a charm and is reliable... now that definitely is a winning recipe.
Could it put out more power? Most likely.
Would it be NEEDED? Not really, at this point it's more of a want than a need. Also doing a model that fits well throughout different markets allows to have a lower baseline cost. (that and manufacturing in thailand lol)
what i don't like in ontario is that it's private companies that basically regulates what bike you will get. Unless you are stinking rich.
So you're young male without experience, you want an SS, pay up, and if you get in an accident, the whole pool of SS payers will be affected by your statistics.
In europe, even if youre rich as fak, A2 permit still applies, limiting you to a vehicle that's more forgiving and curbs the chances of getting into an accident.
Therefore, the next person who wants an SS won't be considered an automatic danger but someone who has somewhat matured on a smaller bike and is wanting to move on.
@conundrum
those spreadsheet limitations definitely do affect what the manufacturers "can do vs will do", but at the same time, as an example, cb5 series is one if not the best selling category for Honda. Because it works well in so many markets, and REALISTICALLY, it's got tons of acceleration (as much if not more than a Lotus Elise hehe) and handles like a charm and is reliable... now that definitely is a winning recipe.
Could it put out more power? Most likely.
Would it be NEEDED? Not really, at this point it's more of a want than a need. Also doing a model that fits well throughout different markets allows to have a lower baseline cost. (that and manufacturing in thailand lol)
conundrum
Well-known member
I test rode one of the 500s when it first came out, and although it was a nice bike for sure, I didn't find it that much different than my CBR250RA, except somewhat more powerful at highway speeds, and a lot heavier. Like you said, realistically the bike is more than enough for the roads...but I feel, especially with the 500, they almost added weight to the bike to keep it at A2 specs, much like how they limited the power of the 650 series so it would still fit into A2 when restricted. I guess that's the difference compared to telling the designers 'build me the best 500/650/etc for the streets'...something that is rarely seen outside of some SS bikes (since they are essentially race bikes with mirrors, indicators, and headlights).
I get that they sell tons by doing this (and it is a smart business move), but I do think this might be a key fact in why so many do view Hondas as a little 'safe' and 'uninspired', compared to what other companies are attempting to do (with Kawi potentially pushing that envelope first with the new ZX6R, then H2/H2R, and now talk of a much smaller, yet supercharged, model). It's almost like when Honda does step out of their safe zone we get the NM4, DN1, vs something with more mass appeal.
Don't get me wrong, I like Honda (have owned 2 of their bikes and drive one of their cars), but its just something I've noticed over time, maybe because they don't need to take as many risks as the other manufacturers out there.
Last edited:
Same goes with their cars. Honda and Acura are very bland in general except some models on the Jap market and ...well...the NSX but that's a very specific niche segment
But they realized that this is how they get sales.
Keep it simple, boring, bland, reliable and you get sales.
Ducatis, triumphs, ktms, sexy sexy sexy all over but people stay away because they're considered riskier and costlier maintenance-wise.
And its definitely not a honda that made me want to get into motorcycles, its the one in my profile pic that did, the Hypermotard... but am i owning one? Nope. Do i want one. Yes. Am i scared of all the lemons that i've heard horror stories about? DEFINITELY lol.
Haven't heard that many horror stories about the 500s though so it can reliably my daily commuter. Maybe if/when i can afford more than one i'll be able to get my sexy bike, but in the meantime, i'll keep my work horse.
And in terms of comparing 250 and 500... well ive only ridden a 250 for 5 minutes so i cant really speak..but from RIDING with 250s... i find that its akin to the difference between when i ride maxxed out on my 500 vs my friend riding his 600ss in a relaxed manner lol, i keep up but...takes a bunch more effort
conundrum
Well-known member
Agreed...it just sort of sucks since I do like them (and the reliability), but if I had to replace the car I wouldn't be going with them, as front wheel drive doesn't really interest me much anymore. Hopefully if Toyota does bring back the Supra they'll do something to counter...I think there was rumor of a S2000 return a while back, but I'm not sure if it was true.
Bikes are interesting considering how much the rider factors in. I have a friend who raced for years (and just got back into it through the VRRA), and he used to own a CBR250RA. He couldn't outrun bigger bikes, but he could definitely keep up with them through anything twisty. Pretty sure if you put a novice on a 600 and an expert on a 250 around a short track, it could be a very interesting race to see.
As for 250 vs 500, from the little time I spent on the 500, it seemed more planted, but less nimble due to the added weight of the bigger bike. Also less rev-happy, given the redline is lower than the 250, but had a lot more torque. Above 80km/h it definitely was faster though, and didn't seem to start to run out to steam above 100 like the 250 did.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|