Factory Street legal bottom line

[cactusreid]

i have no vendetta against RUM bikes drifter dave ,but as i had said in the past , just a bit of an issue against people that are passing them off as street legal bikes when they obviously know the new rules ( think klr 650 street legal here if you can't keep up to what i'm saying). Which means that when you get into a really bad crash and kill a lawyers wife and their 3 kids are standing there and the lawyer husband/ father and 6 of his friends are there as well ,you can just pull your insurance papers out of your tankbag toss it at his feet and yell at him -sue me, i'm covered 10 ways from sunday! I'm not even gonna say, what i should say to you about now. but by the way what will your next bike be- RUM or street legal from the factory??

 

[Curse]

Just to chime in on subject if bike is street legal from manufacture with transport Canada sticker great.
However for those 4 or 5 years if I remember correct when you were able to add DOT appv tires signal lights and mirror/horn and all the items needed they registered as RUM bike. If you talk to several people at ICBC you don't get same answers. I don't think they are grandfathered like others have said. However everyone knows it only takes one case of someone who removes the signal lights or uses non DOT appv ones and doesn't have DOT tires who lowsides and hits the wrong person with bike in crosswalk etc and all bets are off one single news story and you all know that's it..

Lots of dealers will sell non DOT signal lights but wont install them on bike as they don't want a lawsuit

Even writing a letter to ICBC you might get wrong answer I remember story about guy who got a gas engine bicycle and they said he was allowed to ride on the road which is 100% incorrect and was pulled over first ride and went to court the judge of course dismissed all charges and couldn't believe ICBC didn't even know the rules.

 

[cactusreid]

We had a very vigorous discussion with a member of government or he may have been an RCMP member a few years ago, who signed up on this forum and went by the name of "farty pants" he was doing his best to convince all of us in the error of our ways in trying to licence our dirtbikes as being street legal. But the big point that i took from that discussion was that even if you had a signal light out or worse yet a non conforming type of signals on your bike, as long as your bike officially started out as being street legal from the factory, you were just as safe and protected by the law as you would be running a old car with a burnt out taillight.

 

[drifter dave]

If it wasn't legal, ICBC would not insure it. Period.
Again Reid, I don't know what your reason is for denying this simple fact. I'm not talking about removing DOT required gear, that is a different topic.
I like your random insanity though.
Please re-adjust your tinfoil hat.
BTW there are a few RUM bikes for sale on here, better PM the people selling and give them a lecture as soon as possible.

http://www.dualsportbc.com/forums/showthread.php?14588-FS-2000-Yamaha-TTR-250
http://www.dualsportbc.com/forums/showthread.php?14584-2006-xr650r-4250-obo
http://www.dualsportbc.com/forums/showthread.php?14580-FS-2002-Honda-XR650R-3600

That's from page one only. Get busy.

 

[kenf]

If it wasn't legal, ICBC would not insure it. Period.

Dave, unless you are an ICBC lawyer (are you?) I'd say you might be out of line on this one. Finding the friend of a friend with the right connections to print you out registration papers is not necessarily the same thing as having ICBC actually cover you with 3rd party liability insurance. I expect if push came to shove, ICBC lawyers may quite successfully argue that your papers were obtained fraudulently and therefore deny any claims. I have heard a 3rd or 4th hand story in the last year or two (believe what you want) about a local case where a dude on a 'berg hit a pedestrian, did some damage, and did indeed end up out of pocket to the tune of several grand paying damages when his 3rd party liability insurance was deemed invalid, as the bike was not a street legal model (FE from a few years back, as I understand it).

As for being pulled off the road by a gung-ho inspector, just because none of your friends have had it happen, and none of the regular posters here have had it happen, I wouldn't assume it can't/doesn't happen. It's been 25 years since I ran into a roadside vehicle check on a bike myself, but a close friend got checked last year on his modestly mod'ed sportbike and got written up for several thousand in tickets for a whole laundry list of violations - signals too small, too close together, brake light too small, rear fender/mudguard removed (all sound familiar?) and a bunch of other stuff that would probably apply to 90% of the bikes on this forum, even the legal ones, including mine. He had to get it inspected as well to confirm that he restored it to "factory" or equivalent if he didn't want to pay the tickets. Had that been a RUM convert, I can imagine he might have had a whole lot more problems with the inspection. I don't know for sure, but I'd hate to find out the hard way.

The OP was asking about actual strictly above-board street-legal bikes. Everybody here trying to tell him that RUM bikes are just as good or better in any way is just doing him a serious dis-service, probably mostly through self-interest. Give it a rest.

 

[drifter dave]

Finding the friend of a friend with the right connections to print you out registration papers

Dude, I get that you don't ride a converted bike, but that doesn't mean that others can't.
Back in the day you could put on the right equipment, get it inspected and convert it with legitimate registration. There are 100's of converted bikes in the province. I've owned 3. Take your regi, go to ANY autoplan and insure it. Simple. What people are saying here is that all of these converted bikes are now suddenly illegal (they're not) or that your insurance will be void (it won't) without any first hand experience at all.
So if you want to take some internet BS for fact, go for it. I like to hear first hand before I base an opinion on some made up bullshit.

 

[cactusreid]

drifter, your drifting—all over the place. The original poster was asking about what bikes are 100% factory street legal as he obviously has heard and is concerned enough ,to want to put his hard earned cash down only on a bike that will surely remain "street legal" as long as he chooses to own it. There is a word for your back in the day conversions that you speak of- FRAUD. It wasn't truly legal then, and sure as hell isn't any more legal now. And yes i do know a fella that converted his CRF450x about the time the new rules were instated. Yes he went to a Gal he knew in the insurance business and got his RUM bike plated, only to have ICBC send him a letter a few weeks later, demanding he turn in his plates, as his bike was never legal to be insured in the first place. He never did turn in the plates in the fall and Icbc made the mistake of sending him a renewal notice the next spring, so he paid up and is back on the road. Having ones head up ones ass and pretending to not know what the rules actually are ,does not somehow make it legal, as a lawyer will tell you. That apparently does not matter to you,but it probably matters to people that are dropping good money for a "street legal" dualsport, only to have it turned into a dirt only bike, if by chance it gets pulled in for an inspection, or worse yet is involved in an accident!

 

[drifter dave]

You are confused.
I am referring to the 100's of converted bikes that were done legitimately when that was still allowed.
You are so adamant about something of which you have zero personal experience, is completely based on rumor, and which you cannot find one person to substantiate.
I guess there is no convincing you that you are wrong, even though you are.
I'm sure that the few dozen members on here riding converted bikes will agree with me and keep riding their machines.
I assume that you are a dealer of some kind, or have some other vested interest in order to hate converted bikes.

 

[Farp]

This argument was covered in depth about 6 years ago right here on the DSBC forum, and a copy of the vehicle safety and standards bulletin which discusses the use of RUM bikes is displayed.

Take a look at it and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.dualsportbc.com/forums/showthread.php?6590-Restricted-Use-Motorcycles-(RUM)

John

 

[kenf]

I assume that you are a dealer of some kind, or have some other vested interest in order to hate converted bikes.

Lol, I couldn't really care less what you choose to ride. I just hate people misleading the uninformed based on their own personal biases. The OP asked a question, I'd like to be sure they get a well-rounded answer, not a tour of possible loopholes that just might come back to burn them badly later.

I'm not a dealer or a lawyer, but I have enough personal assets to lose to a vindictive victim that the lawyer I do consult from time to time strongly recommended being 100% candid and above board in anything to do with liability or insurance and adopt an aggressive CYA attitude at all times. Riding a possibly, maybe, once-upon-a-time, backdoor legalish plated RUM bike doesn't quite fit that strategy for me, or anybody like me.

 

[drifter dave]

I was talking about Ried, he's very passionate on this.

 

[Shuswap]

ICBC has a history of declining to compensate where there is ANY appearance of fraud, deception or criminality. At that point the burden to sue ICBC for the compensation you feel is fair, lies squarely on the plaintiff's shoulders.

Good luck with that, a friend works at a law office that defends ICBC and they are well prepared for your court action. Anyone who believes that they are not incurring more legal risk riding a RUM motorcycle has their head in the sand. And.......we have 2 such bikes in the family, so I don't like it either.

 

[drifter dave]

You should immediately take the insurance off your bikes then, clearly they are fraudulent. Along with the innumerable others out there, three of which are on the classifieds, page one.

 

[kenf]

Dave, now it seems like you are being intentionally obtuse here. Shuswap stated it pretty clearly: there is a real risk of ICBC denying a claim against your insurance on an RUM bike. Likewise, I believe, though cannot prove, that there is a real risk of an RUM bike being pulled off the road in the future, if the rider is unlucky enough to run into a RCMP roadside vehicle safety inspection. Those are the risks, there's no point in denying them. Based on that, everybody can make their own choice on how much risk they are willing to take. You've made yours, Shuswap has made his, I've made mine. Let the OP make up their own mind, but don't try to convince them those risks don't exist.

Cheers
KF

 

[drifter dave]

Fair enough.
I just take issue when people start stating things as fact when there is no proof, no instances or examples.
On top of that I don't appreciate being accused as being some kind of fraudster, when what I'm doing (selling a converted bike) is perfectly legit.
These bikes are plentiful, and if ICBC wanted to pursue it, they would have. Converted bikes have effectively been grandfathered.
SO, go ahead and do what you like folks, but don't listen to BS internet rumor without any facts to back it up.

 

[Shuswap]

Speaking of internet rumors, what facts do you have to support your oft-repeated statement regarding "grandfathering' of plated RUM motorcycles?

ICBC and other insurance companies have you make a series of declarations when you fill out the insurance application, which gives them some 'outs' if any are found to be inconsistent with full disclosure. They rely on your statements until such time as a claim is made then examine accident reports, your statements and the vehicle in determining if they are liable for the claim(s)

 

[drifter dave]

The answer to that is simple.
They keep issuing insurance to converted bikes. These bikes had inspections done and submitted to ICBC: they are in the database, tied to the VIN.
They changed the law around 2008?, but these bikes (converted before the regs changed) are still allowed to be insured: the perfect example of grandfathering.

 

[LordEndo]

 

[joker650]

An example.

I saw a "dirtbike" get plated by 'altering' I believe it was the 9th character.

http://www.motosport.com/blog/how-to-read-and-check-your-motorcycle-or-atv-vin

Yeah it looked legal to the cops and everyone else....but if there was ever an accident, ICBC will not cover the bike, the rider or the person that got killed/injured.

ICBC WILL DO EVERYTHING IN IT'S POWER TO DENY A CLAIM.:ted:
Get in an accident with non DOT tires on your bike, they will not pay you.
You would be FUCKED !
Hope ya like prison :mi:

(pardon my French)

And I cant believe this is still up and running. For some reason the last time it was brought up the thread was shut down.

 

[bajaman]

Ya 6 years ago...and I said it was BS than and its still now....I have had my RUM bike for 8 years and no issues what so ever.