I'm pretty sure a new rider's license states "M1" right on it. I'm sure a seller private or commercial could easily ask few quick questions like, "How long have you been riding", "What's the most powerful bike you've owned?", "Have you taken any rider safety training courses?" which could give some significant insight into a purchaser's ability to handle a RR type bike and don't seem unreasonable to ask, especially of a fresh faced kid or even an obviously older person who may be harboring delusions of grandeur. Presently it's not the law, but I think morally it's the right thing to do, and like I said, I've personally made it clear when selling bikes in the past that they were not for beginners, and indeed when a buyer did show up I indeed asked similar questions to the above. It's not unreasonable IMO to take personal responsibility and care about what might happen. I couldn't sleep at night knowing I sold a RR type bike to a kid. Others may take the position that they are not their brother's keeper, but I disagree. In the real world, there are already examples of potential owners having to show they have experience if wanting to buy certain powerful, exotic new cars and bikes from dealers.
|
|
|
Rosedale Valley Road - High Risk?
- Thread starter slayerofsouls
- Start date
I'm pretty sure a new rider's license states "M1" right on it. I'm sure a seller private or commercial could easily ask few quick questions like, "How long have you been riding", "What's the most powerful bike you've owned?", "Have you taken any rider safety training courses?" which could give some significant insight into a purchaser's ability to handle a RR type bike and don't seem unreasonable to ask, especially of a fresh faced kid or even an obviously older person who may be harboring delusions of grandeur. Presently it's not the law, but I think morally it's the right thing to do, and like I said, I've personally made it clear when selling bikes in the past that they were not for beginners, and indeed when a buyer did show up I indeed asked similar questions to the above. It's not unreasonable IMO to take personal responsibility and care about what might happen. I couldn't sleep at night knowing I sold a RR type bike to a kid. Others may take the position that they are not their brother's keeper, but I disagree. In the real world, there are already examples of potential owners having to show they have experience if wanting to buy certain powerful, exotic new cars and bikes from dealers.
Sure.
But as long as there is no LAW forbidding an M1 rider from riding something more than X (whatever X is), then it's gonna happen from time to time, and a person selling that person that bike has not broken any law.
"Not a good idea" is different from "illegal". "Illegal" is enforceable. "Not a good idea" is not.
It's closed again for a collision investigation, not sure if it's motorcycle related.
https://twitter.com/TPSOperations/status/597027708657340416
9:17 AM - 9 May 2015
https://twitter.com/TPSOperations/status/597027708657340416
Traffic Alert: Entrance to Rosedale Valley Road at Bayview Ave is CLOSED due to a collision investigation. ^AG
9:17 AM - 9 May 2015
I recall a few of us riding that road a couple years ago, and the lead guy shooting straight out of RVR and right into the side of BMW.
Again, shutting down the road and it becoming a heat score for a few weeks afterwards.
Again, shutting down the road and it becoming a heat score for a few weeks afterwards.
It was. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/05/09/man-seriously-injured-after-motorcycle-crash.html
It's not even that curvy.. just slow down.
I've already acknowledged several times that my position is not based on Ontario criminal law. It's based on a set of moral codes and "reasonable" sense that some people have and others don't thought they ought to. Is it reasonable to sell a potentially very dangerous bike to an inexperienced rider? It may be legal but that doesn't make it right. If I was the parents of the deceased, I'd speak to a good personal injury lawyer and see if there's a potential law suite that can be pursued against who ever sold that kid a gixxer 1000. Like I mentioned before, people have been found guilty of wrongful death, even if not charged or convicted of a crime. Not all laws are criminal.
stevie t
Well-known member
Maybe the parents should be charged with negligence for letting the kid ride one?
But ya, should not have been on that bike, not based on age or experience, but based on lack of respect for the machine, his passenger, the rules and of course himself.
RIP
conundrum
Well-known member
Arguably it is one of the 'better' roads near the core, and although I've never been down there on the bike, I used to drive it all the time when I had meetings or late night classes at the UTSG campus. That said, I wouldn't call this an overly 'dangerous' road, but that completely boils down to the person who is riding or driving it. Arguably if anything makes it a 'risky' road it is that there is very little or no run-off, so if you go off the road, you are pretty much going to hit something hard.
Although I love motorcycles, part of what attracts some is the risk and pretending they are Rossi or Marquez on a racetrack. Like others have said there is no reset button in life, and if you ride for the rush of death being potentially around the next corner, it very well might be. For me the joy of riding is about the oneness of man, machine, and road...and that doesn't require near supersonic speeds on public roads.
Although I love motorcycles, part of what attracts some is the risk and pretending they are Rossi or Marquez on a racetrack. Like others have said there is no reset button in life, and if you ride for the rush of death being potentially around the next corner, it very well might be. For me the joy of riding is about the oneness of man, machine, and road...and that doesn't require near supersonic speeds on public roads.
Last edited:
Riceburner
Well-known member
New rider on a high powered SS with a passenger....doesn't need a lot of initial speed to be dangerous to themselves. Gas it at the wrong time and you are into the curb and then a tree or pole.
I went thru RVR last night likely a few minutes before the second accident. There was a group at the site of the first accident with their car parked on the road (flashers on) facing west, right at the site. There's no shoulder. I was just about hit head on when a westbound car came way way into my lane to get around the parked car on the road.
They could havent parked at the bottom and walked up but instead decided to park in a dangerous area to mourn the tragic loss of their friend. Bad decisions seem the norm with these guys.
They could havent parked at the bottom and walked up but instead decided to park in a dangerous area to mourn the tragic loss of their friend. Bad decisions seem the norm with these guys.
Morality can't be enforced. Simple as that. Of course your "assuming" that the "kid" had bought the bike. What if it was his dads bike and he took it out, (either with or without permission)? If with permission then do we hold his dad liable? It was (according to Brian), about 10 years old. So was likely bought privately. For all we know it could have even been purchased at an Auction, They don't check your licence, when you bid on something.
I agree, I wouldn't have sold this bike to this "kid" BUT I also don't want it mandated/legislated. As I said in another thread I have investigated fatalities back on the 80's with what would today be considered SS bikes BUT they were only 500 cc. We have all seen riders killed on 250's. So where does one "draw the line" as to what a person with a M1 can buy and can't? As even you eluded to, if a 50 year old guy shows up with an M1 and wants to buy a GSXR 1000, is he turned down as well? He may, (as many have), rode before and simply gave it up for many many years and is getting back into it and could easily handle a litre bike. What "means" test does the seller put him through? he may have rode a 500 wayyyy back, but there was no such thing as a litre bike back then. He may have never really had the skills to be able to control a litre bike. So now you sell to aguy who "claims" he had rode for 20 years, gave it up and is getting back int riding. You sell him your bike "thinking" he has the skills, he gets killed and his family take everthing you own, is that where we really want to go?
If so then no one should buy a litre bike as they can't EVER possibly sell it without fear of losing everything.
I agree, I wouldn't have sold this bike to this "kid" BUT I also don't want it mandated/legislated. As I said in another thread I have investigated fatalities back on the 80's with what would today be considered SS bikes BUT they were only 500 cc. We have all seen riders killed on 250's. So where does one "draw the line" as to what a person with a M1 can buy and can't? As even you eluded to, if a 50 year old guy shows up with an M1 and wants to buy a GSXR 1000, is he turned down as well? He may, (as many have), rode before and simply gave it up for many many years and is getting back into it and could easily handle a litre bike. What "means" test does the seller put him through? he may have rode a 500 wayyyy back, but there was no such thing as a litre bike back then. He may have never really had the skills to be able to control a litre bike. So now you sell to aguy who "claims" he had rode for 20 years, gave it up and is getting back int riding. You sell him your bike "thinking" he has the skills, he gets killed and his family take everthing you own, is that where we really want to go?
If so then no one should buy a litre bike as they can't EVER possibly sell it without fear of losing everything.
Yes, morality can be enforced, otherwise there wouldn't be prostitution and drug laws. Those laws are based on moral codes. Some people choose to live their lives to a higher moral standard than others, even if morality can't be enforced. They are people of conscious. I understand not all people are like that.
We can speculate all we like about how the deceased came to be on that bike at that time. In fact I am guessing that he bought the bike. Maybe he didn't. But how he came to be on that bike seems to be the issue, regardless of the method re whether he bought it privately or through a dealer, or whether a family member or friend let him on it. Somebody did him wrong IMO.
Why not? Seems rational to have some rules governing one's riding experience with what one can legally buy. A graduated system is already in place for riders re roads and hours and passenger and alcohol considerations, why not on horsepower ownership?
Yes, he should be turned down if he doesn't have the experience on high performance bikes. And yes, the limits should be based on HP, not CC.
Sellers at present can sell anything to anybody who has the money. But, there could be some legislative changes similar in principle to selling cigarettes or alcohol for example, to certain people under certain conditions. A multi-level licensing system is already in place that prohibits certain drivers/riders from driving/riding under certain conditions. So my point is, there are already similar "laws" on the books that control who can buy what, and who can drive/ride where and when and even how. I don't see it as a big step to say for example, that if riders want to buy an RR bike, he/she must take certain courses and attain a commensurate level license. You can't buy a gun unless you take a course.
See above.
Not really. If such new regulations regarding who can buy a high performance RR bike are established, like they are for tobacco, alcohol, and fire arms, then one just has to perform his due diligence under the law and be reasonable. No biggie.
Respect for the machine and his passenger...come with age and experience.
The "kid" was old enough to make his own decisions, including bad ones. But somebody in his motorcycle world, let him down, or lead him astray. He should have been better looked out for, like we care for those who cannot always make the best decisions, like for example a young lady under the influence of alcohol and almost passed out. Is she "open game" because she chose to drink? Should know better? Or, should responsible people see to it that she doesn't come to harm?
stevie t
Well-known member
That depends, you got a pic of her we can see?
But hey, if you are legislating morality who is responsible for determining who the 'responsible' people are?
yep, I was driving thru that saturday night with a truck full of stuff. Not my intention to sound rude, but really they could've parked their cars at a much better place so it's safer for all other motorists. Having their cars parked around the curves with flashers on... couldn't have picked a worse spot where cars had to jump onto oncoming traffic lane to bypass. No excuse for that.
With regards to selling high-power bikes to newbie... don't think you can ever hold people/sellers/dealers accountable for that. Does that mean taht someone who doesn't hold a motorcycle license cannot own a bike? that's absurd. Maybe that person would just want to buy a bike as a decorative piece for a restaurant or home... you can't slap on restrictions while everyone is screaming about how much freedom we are losing every day. Don't do a witchhunt when an accident like this happens. The victim bares all responsibilities for he/she chose to hop on that bike and twist the throttle.
RVR has a limit of 50km/h. Not worth the long drive downtown unless you live in the area or just happen to be passing by. two accidents? There'll be some heat there for awhile.
nope. save yourself the trip and just enjoy Mississauga Road in your own backyard.
|
|
|
|
|