Do Quebec`s rules for new riders make sense?

G

Glenn/RZ500

Well-known member
Forum Sponsor
On the front page at www.advrider.com Some of it makes some sense, some of it is like the Liberals definition of an "assault rifle". The comments at the bottom are interesting. Kudos if it saves some riders but the driving public also needs a severe wake up with crushing fines, like tens of thousands of dollars or real jail time mandatory for distracted or impaired driving.
 
I think the “looks fast” to class it as too risky for new riders isn’t productive. You can ban certain makes and models for new riders and bake in some power to weight ratios and even max weight class to avoid large touring machines that can be troublesome for newer riders.

I find it a little surprising for Ontario and other places to obtain a motorcycle course certificate and within a few months get your M2. The course does help with knowledge but, seat of the pants riding experience should be considered before moving from entry level machines to something more advanced.

Even Dads (or moms) of a certain age with adult kids think now is the time to get that toy and they have the means to purchase a nice ride, insure it, do the course, get all the gear and still manage to bugger themselves up on the way to Timmie’s.

I wish the government would consult with the industry a bit more and work together. Sweeping moves like this simply shrink the market place, discourage new riders from joining and the losses get amplified due to a smaller group of riders. It’s a zero sum game.

As for the zero BAC, it’s not a big deal. Alcohol use is on the decline anyways. I ride for ice cream and burgers now anyways. 😂
 
Some of the rules (like 0 BAC or graduated hp) make sense. Trying to define a sport bike based on the look of the fairings or angle of the muffler is idiotic. Power to weight isn't a terrible metric but it can get expensive to enforce. By their definitions, a 390 could go either way as it looks like a sports bike but is well under the power limit. Having some knob in an office trying to classify whether a motorcycle is high-risk based on those criteria is a disaster.

I agree with nakkers. Max weight is another good metric for new riders. If people want to whine that they'd rather not ride if they can't start on their dream bike, that's perfect as they were going to suck anyway with that attitude and drive up rates.
 
Street765 said:
If you look at the actual list of "high risk" bikes it's pretty much exclusively full on sportbikes 600cc and above. Bikes you probably would have a difficult time riding legally around here too if you had 2 years of experience or less. They aren't officially banned, but good luck getting insurance.

Click to expand...
Qc isn't banned either officially, it's saaq so you can't get insurance. Similar to here but it's a hard line there vs a soft line here (you can insure them it just costs a fortune).
 
Street765 said:
If you look at the actual list of "high risk" bikes it's pretty much exclusively full on sportbikes 600cc and above. Bikes you probably would have a difficult time riding legally around here too if you had 2 years of experience or less. They aren't officially banned, but good luck getting insurance.

Click to expand...
WTF does 'unsafe' mean?

Apparently my M1000R is safe as it is not on the list.

It's basically a list of bikes with fairings above some other threshold.

The Tuono not being on it shows just how silly the list is, it is tough to get insured on that bike.


According to SAAQ data, motorcyclists with less than 3 years of experience were overrepresented among motorcyclists involved in accidents resulting in personal injury.
Click to expand...

SAAQ claims that certain features and models, including motorcycles with aerodynamic fairings, low handlebars, forward-leaning seating, and high power-to-weight ratios, put inexperienced riders at risk.
Click to expand...

These are the quote from the article. Of course new riders are overrepresented, they are new riders.

There is no information to link the first and second statements. The SAAQ just states it as fact.

How does government always get it wrong? Won't someone think of the children? FFS
 
Last edited:
It's the Canadian way; reinvent the wheel wherever possible, preferably to ensure that you gain the MAXIMUM APPEARANCE of effectiveness without actually accomplishing anything that might take effort or effective use of resources.

License restrictions for learners or restrictions on engine size like they do in England etc.???

Heck non! We'll make an arbitrary list of "crotch rockets" and pretend like we actually know what we're doing, and in fact actually give a crap.

Job.....done.
 
Glenn/RZ500 said:
On the front page at www.advrider.com Some of it makes some sense, some of it is like the Liberals definition of an "assault rifle". The comments at the bottom are interesting. Kudos if it saves some riders but the driving public also needs a severe wake up with crushing fines, like tens of thousands of dollars or real jail time mandatory for distracted or impaired driving.
Click to expand...
Crushing fines have a problem.

We have tolerated bad and poorly trained drivers for so long that the typical driver is poorly trained and bad on p of that.

If we clamped down on poorly trained bad drivers how would people from Brampton get to work?
 
nobbie48 said:
Crushing fines have a problem.

We have tolerated bad and poorly trained drivers for so long that the typical driver is poorly trained and bad on p of that.

If we clamped down on poorly trained bad drivers how would people from Brampton get to work?
Click to expand...
I like fines based on income as what is crushing for one person is not even pocket change for another.

Bad drivers can take public transit. More riders reduces the subsidy per trip required (and potentially even the total subsidy required if transit vehicles are full enough to cover costs).
 
So my take is that abs fairings are deadly. Daytona = deadly, street triple = safe. Rsv4 = deadly, tuono = safe. S1000rr = deadly, s1000r = safe.
Apparently the same crew that make banned gun lists know as much about motorcycles.
Why is everyone in government flocking retarded? They really need aptitude tests and minimum standards before hiring.
 
nobbie48 said:
Crushing fines have a problem.

We have tolerated bad and poorly trained drivers for so long that the typical driver is poorly trained and bad on p of that.

If we clamped down on poorly trained bad drivers how would people from Brampton get to work?
Click to expand...
Problem too is vehicles for a lot of people are just extensions of their phone and become a rolling iPad. Any vehicle commercial sells all the techno crap, no mention of much else. Give the (stupid and distracted) people what they want.
 
Brian P said:
What's needed are better driving schools.
Click to expand...
And licensing.

G1 test is in 28 languages. If you can't pass in English or French, you aren't ready to drive in Ontario yet. The road signs are not in 28 languages.

Force driving tests to the closest location to your address works to right-size testing centres and ensures you get tested in conditions most representative of the location you drive most often.
 
GreyGhost said:
And licensing.

G1 test is in 28 languages. If you can't pass in English or French, you aren't ready to drive in Ontario yet. The road signs are not in 28 languages.

Force driving tests to the closest location to your address works to right-size testing centres and ensures you get tested in conditions most representative of the location you drive most often.
Click to expand...
That`s racist!!, how dare you. 😜 😜
 
Brian P said:
What's needed are better driving schools.
Click to expand...
Follow the money.

1) Develop a mini city on a cheaply bought remote plot of land without public transit.

2) Print driver's licenses on paper coffee cups.

3) Sell out the sub division to new drivers.

Eliminate #2 and #1 and #3 don't happen.
 
GreyGhost said:
I like fines based on income as what is crushing for one person is not even pocket change for another.

Bad drivers can take public transit. More riders reduces the subsidy per trip required (and potentially even the total subsidy required if transit vehicles are full enough to cover costs).
Click to expand...
They found out that public greed is as bad as corporate greed. One Scandinavian country went the % of income route for fines and the local LEOs let the Ladas through at 30 over while waiting for a bigger fish in an M-B doing 20 over.

I don't think money should be used as punishment. How about community service instead?

Minor offense: A half day helping at a homeless shelter

Higher risk: Full day

Dangerous offense: Bring a sleeping bag
 
So for anyone else who was like "What the **** is this thread talking about?" like I was...

here is the top secret and confidential link to the article: https://www.advrider.com/do-quebecs-rules-for-new-riders-make-sense/

here is the list of high risk motorcycles: https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/list-high-risk-motorcycles.pdf


And for anyone thinking "So what? The insurance costs make this a non-issue." I think you're missing the bigger picture:

1) You would be surprised if you knew how many customers I have who I find out don't have insurance on the bikes they're daily riding.

2) You would be surprised if you knew how many parents put their kids bikes in their own names.

By not allowing newer riders to ride these bikes it sounds like Quebec is saying you can't ride on this bike, insured or not, and we have one more way of penalizing you for it if you do.


The 3 actual issues I see are:

1) The old taxation without representation debate, but backwards... Does this mean they will be dropping the insurance rates for the people who own these "high risk" bikes, now that the "high risk" riders can't get them, or will they simply keep charging the experience people the high risk rates anyway, despite removing the ones causing the bulk of the accidents from the equation?

2) I forget, concussion moment... fml.

3) The list is kind of a joke when you see things like the 2000 Triumph TT600 on there. Over a quarter century old, and slower than most mid-size street bikes that aren't on this list. Likewise, the 1988 Honda CBR600 Hurricane, the motorcycle that got me into motorcycles, is a big slow-moving dinosaur that qualifies for pennies-on-the-dollar vintage motorcycle insurance, makes less or equal hp and torque as your modern mid-size bike... is somehow high risk... lol.

The only racing these bikes are doing is either in the vintage racing league, or the race to the scrap heap.
Likewise, you have VFR1200s all over the list... It's not lost on me that they're fast, but like... come on lol. If everything is "high risk" than nothing is high risk.
 
adri said:
So for anyone else who was like "What the **** is this thread talking about?" like I was...

here is the top secret and confidential link to the article: https://www.advrider.com/do-quebecs-rules-for-new-riders-make-sense/

here is the list of high risk motorcycles: https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/list-high-risk-motorcycles.pdf


And for anyone thinking "So what? The insurance costs make this a non-issue." I think you're missing the bigger picture:

1) You would be surprised if you knew how many customers I have who I find out don't have insurance on the bikes they're daily riding.

2) You would be surprised if you knew how many parents put their kids bikes in their own names.

By not allowing newer riders to ride these bikes it sounds like Quebec is saying you can't ride on this bike, insured or not, and we have one more way of penalizing you for it if you do.


The 3 actual issues I see are:

1) The old taxation without representation debate, but backwards... Does this mean they will be dropping the insurance rates for the people who own these "high risk" bikes, now that the "high risk" riders can't get them, or will they simply keep charging the experience people the high risk rates anyway, despite removing the ones causing the bulk of the accidents from the equation?

2) I forget, concussion moment... fml.

3) The list is kind of a joke when you see things like the 2000 Triumph TT600 on there. Over a quarter century old, and slower than most mid-size street bikes that aren't on this list. Likewise, the 1988 Honda CBR600 Hurricane, the motorcycle that got me into motorcycles, is a big slow-moving dinosaur that qualifies for pennies-on-the-dollar vintage motorcycle insurance, makes less or equal hp and torque as your modern mid-size bike... is somehow high risk... lol.

The only racing these bikes are doing is either in the vintage racing league, or the race to the scrap heap.
Likewise, you have VFR1200s all over the list... It's not lost on me that they're fast, but like... come on lol. If everything is "high risk" than nothing is high risk.
Click to expand...
Alstate wouldn't talk to me because of my engine size, a 1500 Goldwing. An R series 600 crotch rocket was OK.
 
Is it the motorcycle that is high risk or is it the rider?
Remember guns don't kill people! People kill people!
Speed kills unless you are a bureaucrat and then it only amazes!
Everyone is equal in the eyes of photo radar.
When man tries to idiot proof God creates a better idiot.
My Suzuki GW250 was able to do 20 over any posted speed limit in Canada.
 
The characteristics of high risk motorcycle
  • streamlined fairing to improve aerodynamics, covering the sides of the engine, with a low windshield
  • a forward-leaning riding position
  • low, short handlebars
  • foot pegs placed higher up and farther back
  • a muffler placed at the rear and angled upward
  • two disc brakes in front and one disc brake in the back
  • a chain-driven rear wheel
  • a power-to-weight ratio of over 0.5 hp/kg
  • no center stand
  • an oversize frame
  • a raised passenger seat
The No Center Stand and Chain Driven Rear Wheel are strange ones for me.

What motorcycle can I beginner rider get?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom