Exactly my point. If you are not following your own rules what is the point!
|
|
|
RTI M2X Course, Test without highway portion
- Thread starter roadrash
- Start date
If you're being tested on a motorcycle incapable of reaching safe highway speeds you should be given an M(L) license and follow Ministry guidelines later to upgrade to an M.
If you're afraid of/unwilling to take the highway portion of the exam you should similarly be limited to LSM machines and the rules that apply to them.
If you're located in an area with only 80- 90-kph secondary roads (and no controlled-access highways) then you can and should follow MTO allowances as long as you're riding a machine otherwise capable of reaching highway speeds.
If you're trying to game the system by taking your M test in such an area then this is a loophole that should be closed by the province.
If you're offering a service where you provide an M2X exam and you offer "options" to riders outside the intent, spirit or letter of the law (e.g. offering a "no highway" M test for those riding what are effectively LSMs or who are too terrified to ride on controlled-access highways) then you're not doing them any good. They're not qualified to carry a full M license.
IMHO.
If you're afraid of/unwilling to take the highway portion of the exam you should similarly be limited to LSM machines and the rules that apply to them.
If you're located in an area with only 80- 90-kph secondary roads (and no controlled-access highways) then you can and should follow MTO allowances as long as you're riding a machine otherwise capable of reaching highway speeds.
If you're trying to game the system by taking your M test in such an area then this is a loophole that should be closed by the province.
If you're offering a service where you provide an M2X exam and you offer "options" to riders outside the intent, spirit or letter of the law (e.g. offering a "no highway" M test for those riding what are effectively LSMs or who are too terrified to ride on controlled-access highways) then you're not doing them any good. They're not qualified to carry a full M license.
IMHO.
What about people (for any license class) that go to a test center outside their own area because the pass rate is higher? While I find it disheartening that "shopping around" is possible, the DriveTest centers are open to Ontario residents, and the test routes meet the minimum requirements. Just because test routes in and around the GTA use 100 kph expressways doesn't make that the standard. It's just what's here.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by almost everyone here. People should not be afraid of 100 kph expressways, and if they are, they need to determine what their actual fear is and find a solution. Training, therapy, practice, whatever.
Everyone is entitled to equal treatment whether it makes sense or not, and therefore anyone should be entitled to be tested on an approved route in the province. Those that strive to achieve a minimum standard are likely to only ever achieve a minimum standard.
FLSTC
Well-known member
If the Rexdale/27 course meets the MoT requirements, why doesn't RTI offer this to all prospective students instead of pretending: “100cc-250cc” version is also available for M2 class riders who own a motorcycle/scooter between 100cc and 250cc that cannot reach highway speeds in excess of 80km/hr.
Let the riders decide if they want a possible easier test route. They're adults and can assume the risk.
Let the riders decide if they want a possible easier test route. They're adults and can assume the risk.
I wrote: "If you're trying to game the system by taking your M test in such an area [no controlled access highways] then this is a loophole that should be closed by the province."
The reason that MTO allowance is there is purely for geographic realities of a province this size. It was never intended to be used to allow any lazy schmo or quivering snowflake from bypassing the controlled-access highway part of the qualification test.
It's unethical for an institute to drive a bus through this "loophole" and make the option available to anyone, not those restricted by geography but rather because their machine is too small or they're too scared. Forget ethics....it doesn't even make sense.
And in the meantime they should not be given full licenses.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. If you cannot demonstrate the ability to drive safely on all public highways then your license should be restricted unless allowances are made.) If that means an M(L) license, so be it. One can always upgrade later when one has more confidence, a faster bike etc.
I get your point, but this, (although a very reasonable assumption):
"
"
The reason that MTO allowance is there is purely for geographic realities of a province this size. It was never intended to be used to allow any lazy schmo or quivering snowflake from bypassing the controlled-access highway part of the qualification test."
...is where the argument breaks down because you're referring to controlled access, whereas the argument was about 400 series or 100 kph routes. The issue here is that there are tests that don't include 400 series highways, but still include controlled-access highways. I don't know the RTI route, but I gave an example earlier of a route in the Kitchener-Waterloo area with lower speed limits. The Gardiner Expressway and the DVP are not 100 kph routes either.
Like I said, I agree with the sentiment overall,
I think we agree it's a bad idea....is where the argument breaks down because you're referring to controlled access, whereas the argument was about 400 series or 100 kph routes. The issue here is that there are tests that don't include 400 series highways, but still include controlled-access highways. I don't know the RTI route, but I gave an example earlier of a route in the Kitchener-Waterloo area with lower speed limits. The Gardiner Expressway and the DVP are not 100 kph routes either.
Like I said, I agree with the sentiment overall,
and I don't like what's being offered either, because I think it caters to people who are then even less likely to face a challenge they should be required to face, developing basic skills.
Without knowing the exact route RTI is using, I'm not sure it should be considered a loophole if the standard is being met, even though so many other riders have to meet a higher standard based on where they tested.I agree that it makes sense that there is an exception for the M2X test for people in rural areas. I think the problem most people have is that RTI is offering this in Toronto. I find it a little disingenuous that RTI sells itself as a non-profit focused on comprehensive rider training but then offers a mickey mouse express course for a full unrestricted license.
If this course is truly for the odd person who buys a 150cc Vespa then they should develop the course around using one of their 250’s or something. IMO from what I saw at my course they should be failing people at a much higher rate for the M1X as well but that’s a whole other discussion.
If this course is truly for the odd person who buys a 150cc Vespa then they should develop the course around using one of their 250’s or something. IMO from what I saw at my course they should be failing people at a much higher rate for the M1X as well but that’s a whole other discussion.
I beginning to recognize why so many people think I'm an a-hole, cuz I can't let that go. It's not an exception. Many of the views on this thread are biased this way - as though the requirement is our local highways, and everywhere else gets an exception. The requirement is highways with limits 80 kph and above. In the GTA, the most convenient highways have higher limits - but it's not the requirement.
At least the common thing in all of our threads is that we agree: Offering the lowest possible standard in a region where the most prevalent highways are 90 and 100 kph limits is not a "best practice" for rider development.
|
|
|
|
|