Does our licensing system need a change?

[EngineerJoe]

Forum Sponsor

I was thinking about this randomly today. Over the past few years of riding, I've gotten questions with regards to whether or not I feel that riding is more dangerous than driving. My response is always that I feel that riding is SAFER than driving, simply because you are exposed to your environment and forced to constantly pay attention; not to mention it's nearly impossible to get distracted by regular things that can happen in a car (talking to another person, lighting a cig, cell phone, changing radio, etc.).

Risk is determined by two factors...

1. Likelihood (probability) of an event occurance (i.e. likelihood of crashing your motorcycle)
2. Severity of consequences of said event (e.g. injuries resulting from a low side, left-turner, etc.)

Your argument addresses the reduction of the first, but that is still far outweighed by the severity of the consequences (last factor I read said any given crash on a bike is 35x more likely to result in injury or death compared to a crash in a "cage"). Unless you are 1/35th as likely to get into an accident on a bike compared to a car, your two-wheel passion still carries more risk.

Are you 1/35th as likely to get into an accident on a bike? I certainly don't think so. When we take a closer look at the likelihood of an event, we see there are several things that can affect this number.

Reducing distractions compared to driving (no phones, changing radio stations, talking to another person, etc) which is your argument. This argument is slowly losing ground with the onset of bluetooth headsets that also handle radio stations and MP3 players. Larger bikes also have head units and have had them for some time, which further negates your arguments that distractions are reduced. Keep in mind that people like myself can't easily have a conversation in a vehicle because the primary focus is driving (the conversation only gets a small portion of my attention and is often broken and interrupted). I will certainly agree that my mind is less focused on "life" distractions when riding (e.g. why does my job suck yet my girlfriend doesn't), and this is what makes riding a form of "escape".

Experience. This not only helps reduce the likelihood of an event, it also helps reduce the severity (e.g. knowing what to do when an accident is unavoidable). Unfortunately, things like limited visibility (as we are smaller than cages), higher acceleration rates (typically, although not always) and road conditions (e.g. gravel) are things that negatively impact the probability argument. Experience will reduce the probability of an accident, but I'm not convinced that it will be lower than the probability of an accident in a cage.

That being said, both the probability of an accident and the severity of an accident are higher than when in a cage making it riskier.

 

[Kri$han]

See the problem? You might be responsible, I might be responsible, but the guy down the street might not and end up affecting all of us. Again, just imagine the carnage if you gave every G2 driver something like a SLR AMG.

Inexperienced riders riding on bikes that have too much power are only a small part of the problem, in terms of "single vehicle" accident statistics. These types of accidents can also occur when:
- riding with alcohol or other drugs
- reduced visibility (for the rider, like rain or fog)
- not riding according to road conditions
- riding too aggressively (i.e. with some friends on a "spirited" ride)
- poor driving habits, like not scanning intersections, or seeing an obstacle like a pedestrian too late

Another thing those statistics DON'T tell you is how the rider could have been cut off - ex. performing an evasive maneuver to avoid a car who hadn't seen the rider, and then losing control as a result of this. All of these things can happen to someone riding a CBR125.

Your first post seems to mention too many variables, and would be hard to solve with any one solution, especially one as vague as government intervention.

F*8k the government. Every year some ******* politician is using my tax dollars to hold "conferences" in upscale hotels/locations that I would never be able to afford, while that same money could be used to improve my quality of life. You're fooling yourself if you somehow relate improvements to driver training with lower insurance rates.

 

[drumstyx]

Interesting, so what the hell is causing insurance companies to lose all that money?

Fraud and flat out lies (they aren't losing money).

 

[skapan]

There's always increased risk for new people at any endeavour. New car drivers crash a lot more, new skateboarders fall more, that's how people learn. If legislation tried to make people learn all they needed to be safe before going on the road then we'd be 5 years in training, full time. It's a judgement call on your part - are you wise enough, practiced enough, careful enough to go out on the road with your m2? If not, there's lots of people around to help you get the skills you need. Let's not change the legislation, it's bad enough already.

 

[jc100]

Fraud and flat out lies (they aren't losing money).

I'm pretty sure that the insurance companies aren't losing money, so I agree with you. They are in business to manage risk and turn a profit...however, rampant abuse of the insurance system doesn't help. If they didn't have to pay out a fortune for sheisters that claim the world for arranged crashes or claiming for unjust expenses they could turn the same profit and charge us less. Although it's not the main reason, all those stolen condo bikes probably don't help with rates either (in a trickledown fashion). I've never seen an item so frequently stolen as a bike in a condo parking lot.

 

[Two50noob]

Fraud and flat out lies (they aren't losing money).

This. They are legally obligated to make a profit and always do.
They may lose money of parts of their business IE they may payout more cash in claims on bikes than they take in on premiums but they make it up else ware.

 

[murf]

I'm pretty sure that the insurance companies aren't losing money, so I agree with you. They are in business to manage risk and turn a profit...however, rampant abuse of the insurance system doesn't help. If they didn't have to pay out a fortune for sheisters that claim the world for arranged crashes or claiming for unjust expenses they could turn the same profit and charge us less. Although it's not the main reason, all those stolen condo bikes probably don't help with rates either (in a trickledown fashion). I've never seen an item so frequently stolen as a bike in a condo parking lot.

Which begs the Question, why arent the owners of bikes in condos charged more?

 

[Emefef]

The graduated system is certainly better than the old system, but it can be gamed. As several posters have described, one can still go through the steps and end up with an M2 and legal access to any bike with almost no real experience. Unfortunately, time is the only thing we can enforce when it comes to ensuring candidates can't do everything all at once. If they aren't using that time to get experience or training, then perhaps they aren't taking the most responsible approach (I understand this part is also likely to be debated).
The current system, at least with the requirement to go from M2 to full M within 5 years, at least requires people to demonstrate a certain level of skill on the road, beyond what it takes to get the M2 (which was previously the same test to go from an "R" permit to a full M). In that respect, I believe it has had a positive impact. People that took a training course 20 years ago ended up with a full M from a weekend on the parking lot, and still have it. They may not ride for 15 or 20 years, and those are the ones showing up in statistics - at least in the OPP statistics. Most deaths are male, older, cruisers, Sunday afternoon and holiday Mondays, good weather, and many just losing control. At least now it takes a little more effort to get and keep a licence, even if it is only in the first 5 years.
What needs to change before we worry too much about licencing is the insurance system in Ontario. I haven't heard anything about how the no-fault system operates that convinces me it's a better system overall. Now matter what system is place, fraud is a huge problem. It seems the insurance companies only focus on big frauds and conspiracies rather than the smaller cases, because by identifying those, it's easy to justify increases to the premiums.
When I switched bikes a few year ago, I went from a '91 to a '99. Still a CBR600 with no fire/theft, comprehensive, or collision coverage. Just liability and passenger benefits. My premium went up - not significantly - but it went up. I asked why, and the rep said "because it's newer".
Me: I can't do any more damage with it just because it's newer.
Rep: But sir, it will cost more to fix.
Me: But if I crash it, you're not fixing it.
Rep: That's right sir, you're not paying for that coverage.
Me: Right, so why should I pay a higher premium?
Rep: That's the way it works sir.

yep - if my bike gets wrecked an the other person is totally at fault, my insurance is covering my costs. So my premium is higher. Where's the reward for maintaining a good record if we're all paying for the mistakes of those that don't?

 

[Paul1000RR]

I'll be frank, I wouldn't give a rats *** if someone's 16 year old son hopped on a Fireblade, split through a vehicle, killed the driver, passengers, himself and left the intersection he died on as a bloody mess. There is, however, one problem: go look at the insurance section. I don't like paying high insurance and neither does anyone else. We keep blaming insurance for being multi-millionaires that are jipping us of our hard earned cash....then you look at how Jevco, StateFarm and other insurance companies are reporting 100% profit losses from the motorcycle sector.

See the problem? You might be responsible, I might be responsible, but the guy down the street might not and end up affecting all of us. Again, just imagine the carnage if you gave every G2 driver something like a SLR AMG.

WOW! That's quite the view on life. So you don't care about innocent people getting killed, but insurance premiums strike a nerve?

What is wrong with you people?
You actually complaining that there is not enough hoops to jump though before you're allowed to ride a motorcycle? That government does not tell you which exact model of bike you're allowed to buy?
This is called "freedom". Concept soon to be forgotten. Enjoy the precious little that's still left.

And yes, freedom implies responsibility for the choices you make. Scary, eh?

This place is doomed...

+100000000

Also what people fail to realize is that you cannot legislate common sense.

A responsible, mature rider who obeys the laws is no more dangerous on a cbr1000rr then on a cbr250.

 

[油井緋色]

WOW! That's quite the view on life. So you don't care about innocent people getting killed, but insurance premiums strike a nerve?



+100000000

Also what people fail to realize is that you cannot legislate common sense.

A responsible, mature rider who obeys the laws is no more dangerous on a cbr1000rr then on a cbr250.

I was trying to illustrate a point; you can have a horrible outlook on life and still be responsible but responsibility is something that is clearly lacking these days. My point probably came across as inhumane though =/

 

[jc100]

You can't have it both ways....either insurance levels the field or legislation does. A free for all on the roads with some barely responsible and incapable riders on ridiculously overpowered bikes is not a recipe for success. Freedom is absolutely fine when it impacts zero other people.

 

[油井緋色]

You can't have it both ways....either insurance levels the field or legislation does. A free for all on the roads with some barely responsible and incapable riders on ridiculously overpowered bikes is not a recipe for success. Freedom is absolutely fine when it impacts zero other people.

The post I had previously was trying to illustrate this. I originally wanted to mention John Stuart Mill's principle of harm. It pretty much states the only time the government should intervene is when one's self inflicted harm may harm others as well.

...But I didn't want to come across as someone who is liberal. I don't really hold an educated political stance yet.

 

[Paul1000RR]

You can't have it both ways....either insurance levels the field or legislation does. A free for all on the roads with some barely responsible and incapable riders on ridiculously overpowered bikes is not a recipe for success. Freedom is absolutely fine when it impacts zero other people.

so what if you're 18 and have the money to pay for the insurance on a 1000cc?

 

[Paul1000RR]

I was trying to illustrate a point; you can have a horrible outlook on life and still be responsible but responsibility is something that is clearly lacking these days. My point probably came across as inhumane though =/

just a little

 

[drumstyx]

I'm pretty sure that the insurance companies aren't losing money, so I agree with you. They are in business to manage risk and turn a profit...however, rampant abuse of the insurance system doesn't help. If they didn't have to pay out a fortune for sheisters that claim the world for arranged crashes or claiming for unjust expenses they could turn the same profit and charge us less. Although it's not the main reason, all those stolen condo bikes probably don't help with rates either (in a trickledown fashion). I've never seen an item so frequently stolen as a bike in a condo parking lot.

It's likely that if fraud were dealt with, they'd still charge the same premium, while taking a bigger profit, but hiding it in executive salaries and reinvesting it in the company (because of course, they have a maximum profit they can make, though who knows if they're even sticking to that, the information isn't public).

Also, collision and comprehensive coverage really isn't that expensive. The most expensive part is accident benefits, which is what goes up from fraud. I don't have anything but the minimum. My premium for the liability portion is something under 1000/year, but the accident benefits portion is well over 1500.

Bottom line is that it's fraud on both sides: the insurance companies lie about profit, and traditional insurance fraudsters in brampton (and the GTA in general, ok) are ruining it for all of us.

 

[koma]

so what if you're 18 and have the money to pay for the insurance on a 1000cc?

You'd be in the minority, though.

 

[jc100]

so what if you're 18 and have the money to pay for the insurance on a 1000cc?

You'd hope that someone with a little sense might listen to their peers.

 

[Paul1000RR]

You'd hope that someone with a little sense might listen to their peers.

ya cause if there's one thing young people are known for its their ability to listen to their peers lol

 

[jc100]

ya cause if there's one thing young people are known for its their ability to listen to their peers lol

Sadly that's all we have over here though and you've just made a point as to why this should be legislated at least just a little.

 

[Paul1000RR]

Sadly that's all we have over here though and you've just made a point as to why this should be legislated at least just a little.

I believe we should all be able to make decision that affect our lives without the government holding our hands every step of the way. If that choice means we die as a result, well that's life.

What is it with this bubble society where everyone has to be protected from everything?

Forum Sponsor