Restricted Use Motorcycles (RUM)

[Buckethead]

imported post

imported post

spc wrote:

We all make fun of the guys wearing a beanie (which are uncertified) but if you are riding a RUM on the highway you are doing the same thing.

Hey-

I take a moderate position on this issue - I think making bikes safer is a good idea, but I don't think that the government is handling this well or has fully thought this course of action out. I also sympathize with the front line government employees who have to actually enforce these types of policies.

That said, I have to take issue with your statement above. Where a beanie is completely different from a RUM is that a reasonable person would assess a beanie as being much less safe than an approved helmet.

A reasonable person (this group has a few) would assess many RUMs as being as safe their as factory street legal cousins. The difference between them is often simply legal not physical - Franhoser's Te610 is a great example. The fact that so many RUMs have actually passed individual inspection proves this fact.

Regards,
Matthew

 

[cactusreid]

imported post

imported post

spc wrote:

.

. Until a manufacturer submits a bike for testing and is allowed to certify it as a “motorcycle” we do not know how well it will stand up on the highway.



.

so how on earth does a home built chopper of dubious origin get a thumbs up to run on the highway, and we are now being told that rum origin bikes aren't safe enough. if the powers that be remove the uncertified choppers from the highways then they can remove the rum bikes as well. but the laws/rules need to be enforced equally for everyone concerned.

 

[franhoser]

imported post

imported post

fartypants wrote:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/regulations/crc-c1038/sch-iii/menu.htm

I've read this list and to me it still looks like tires, mirror, etc. Minor stuff. Brake lines are same as highway lines. Fuel delivery system is just concerned weather you use garden hose from or proper cables, for example carbureted bikes need SAE J-30 ratedfuel line, FI one need SAE (forgot the rating now). All rum bikes have this. I know cause I’ve changed tanks before.

So after all is said and done it come back to my point, lights, mirrors, horn, electrical components to operate these safety devices, tires...

All I'm saying that between a 06 and 07 KTM 450 EXC nothing has changed other than KTM putting on a few lights and minor modification andpaying a ton of money to some engineer and Transport Canada to get a M/C certification in Canada.

 

[Brimstone]

imported post

imported post

fartypants wrote:

The only way these bikes could be made compliant is to pay an engineer to see if it meets all the standards of a bike branded as a MC.Everyone seems to be missing the fact thatadding lights and tires does not make it compliant.

Here is a link to Transport Canada's Schedule. It shows what standards apply todifferent bikes.You will not a lot of "X's" missing on the RUM`s.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/acts-regulations/regulations/crc-c1038/sch-iii/menu.htm

Everywhere there is an X for a motorcycle and not for a rum means an engineer would have to do all the testing for that standard. About 3 years ago an engineer was hired just to check a vehicle for compliance with the lighting standard (108). It cost just over $5000 for this testing. There appears to be ten standards that a rum does not meet/hasn`t been tested. Better get out the Platinum visa. Also to test the fuel system integrity the tank will bedestroyed.

If I take those items marked with an X and replace those with DOT certified components, then technically my bike should be compliant. Which should negate the need for an engineer to certify anything. My point is that the government does not give us that option.

The government has instead decided that no RUM's can be converted. Period. I disagree with this position. I have never said that it is simply a lights/mirrors/tires issue. I understand that there is more to making a bike compliant that just those "simple" items. My point is that the government could allow RUM owners to convert their bikes provided they use DOT certified equipment. This would make the bike compliant and reduce liability. It would be trivial for the inspecting officer to note the items which are not DOT certified and require the owner to get the proper parts and then pay for another inspection.

I'm not asking for a free lunch here... I'm simply asking for the government to give owners the opportunity to do everything they can to ensure the 10 items on that list are in compliance with DOT regulations.

If I buy a DOT certified gas tank, use DOT certified fuel lines then why would it need to be tested by an engineer?

Lee J
Kelowna, BC

 

[spc]

imported post

imported post

Buckethead wrote:

spc wrote:

We all make fun of the guys wearing a beanie (which are uncertified) but if you are riding a RUM on the highway you are doing the same thing.

That said, I have to take issue with your statement above. Where a beanie is completely different from a RUM is that a reasonable person would assess a beanie as being much less safe than an approved helmet.

What about two full face helmets? They look similar. The salesman in the bike shop tells you that they both will do the same job.They are both about the same price. One has a Snell certification the other has no certification at all. Which one would you buy and why?

 

[tomcycle]

imported post

imported post

spc and fartypants

Both or you obviously take the side of our beloved Government:?Do you really believe Big Brother has our best interests at heart, or are you protecting something else? Are you guys on the inside of this issue? If so it would be nice to know, it would only be fair.

The whole RUM motorcycle issue needs to be resolved. I agree with many here that the Government is making some bad decisions here, afterall CSVE openlly admits to the knowledge of RUM bikes being inspected and registered. Registering RUM's has been going on since I can remember. Its a little late to start tring to enforce some laws that have never been enforced. I dont know what the answer is, but from what I see going on here and other sites, a line is going to be drawn in the sand and there will be a fight.

Now the question is are we organised and concerned enough to do something about this? or are we just going to lay down and roll over:wi:and do what we are told?

 

[cactusreid]

imported post

imported post

tomcycle wrote:

spc and fartypants


The whole RUM motorcycle issue needs to be resolved. I agree with many here that Now the question is are we organised and concerned enough to do something about this? or are we just going to lay down and roll over:wi:and do what we are told?

I'm in for a fight!

 

[kaos]

imported post

imported post

actually we have had it easy with the rum loophole.now we will have to go the route of the choppers and kit car guys (think cobras).as i said before though,it the wording.we are no longer converting a ''crfxxx'',we are ''building'' a motorcycle with ''crf ''markings.the red tape the feds make the manufactors go through is bull.one only has to look at mv agusta to see they are ''inadmissable' in canada ,when they are sold worldwide otherwise.

 

[Buckethead]

imported post

imported post

spc wrote:

Buckethead wrote:

spc wrote:

We all make fun of the guys wearing a beanie (which are uncertified) but if you are riding a RUM on the highway you are doing the same thing.

That said, I have to take issue with your statement above. Where a beanie is completely different from a RUM is that a reasonable person would assess a beanie as being much less safe than an approved helmet.

 

What about two full face helmets?  They look similar.  The salesman in the bike shop tells you that they both will do the same job. They are both about the same price. One has a Snell certification the other has no certification at all. Which one would you buy and why?

Hey-

SPC and Fartypants - thanks for providing the other side of this discussion.

We're wandering a bit off topic here, but since you brought it up, helmet certification is actually a great analogy for this issue.

I assume from your post that you are suggesting that a Snell certified helmet is safer than a DOT helmet certification. That may well be the case. Both of my helmets do have Snell certification.

(Deep breath)

However, lots of people disagree with this, including former Snell directors. A quick Google search will yield lots of hits on this issue, but if you are interested this article explains it pretty well: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

Similar to our RUM situation, what we have is different governments and agencies coming up with their own standards, refusing to recognize other standards, with lots of disagreement as to what the actual facts are. The consumer and manufacturers are caught in the resulting regulatory mess where the solutions often have more to do with meeting a given criteria than actually building the safest helmet.

Sound Familiar?

For that matter, if TC recognizes DOT helmets, why won't they recognize DOT approved bikes?

Regards,
Matthew

 

[North]

imported post

imported post

I am sorry, but I don't get the helmet comparision. Most RUM bikes are stronger better built bikes than their more tame street legal counterparts. The difference being that they are stripped down for less weight, have better parts and they might not have dot gas tanks. Not to mention that the dot tank thing is a joke.

And as far as dualsport bikes not passing a crash test. Can a honda ruckus or scooter pass. I guess they can, they are street legal. Not to mention the plated e-bikes on the road now. My point being that dirt bikes can take far more abuse than street bikes.

There is no real reason why RUM bikes with bolt-on parts cannot be made street legal.

 

[snackdaddy]

imported post

imported post

This Issue really makes me angry for some reason so I decided to ask some questions. I emailed the contact guy listed on the buliten and recieved a very quick response.

What piece of legislation gives your agency the power to ban RUM bikes from being licensed?



· CVSE has not ‘banned’ the licensing of these vehicles. ICBC is responsible for the registration and licensing of all vehicles under their operating authority. This bulletin was produced in consultation with ICBC.



What legislation exists for your agency to tell ICBC what type of vehicles it may register?



· As noted above.



Why is a home built “chopper” type motorcycle fine to register but motorcycle designed for rugged off road use not safe for the road?



· Ubilt vehicles may not be suitable for highway use and may not pass the inspection process if shown to be non-compliant with standards or unsafe for highway operation.



If you trust your licensed inspectors to determine that a backyard mechanic can design, engineer and build a motorcycle that is “Safe” for the road why can’t that same inspector make the same judgement call about a RUM bike?



· Authorized inspectors may not be able to determine component compliance or the structural integrity of ubilt vehicles. Professional Engineers testing or certification may be required prior to a vehicle passing an inspection.



Why has your agency decided to issue this advisory and actively pursue the end of converting RUM bikes?



· Due to inspection liability concerns raised from Designated Inspection Facility Operators and Authorized Inspectors and a sharp increase in safety concerns received from the public and other enforcement agencies regarding these vehicles.



Was any public consulting done before your agency issued this bulletin?



· Consultation is not required for information issued by CVSE to provincial Designated Inspection Facilities and Authorized Inspectors.





I still do not understand why a ubuilt is safer then a bike designe to fly 40 feet in the air and then get tboned going into a corner but at least he attempted to answer my questions.

 

[Sweet]

imported post

imported post

This is what I mean by Government B.S. For example Suzuki makes 3 versions of the DRZ 400. Almost all major components are exactly the same and interchangeable. One version is RUM because it is sold without lights, speedo and DOT tires. If you add these items it is exactly the same as the other two compliant bikes. Except for the all important Govt. approved sticker. Notice how itis the Govt. minions that are so worried about every minor detail and rule. This is clearly not about vehicle safety.

 

[North]

imported post

imported post

This is what I would like to say the person(s) behind all this BS:

http://soundamerica.com/soundamerica/sounds/play.cfm?tpath=/sounds/cartoons/Warner_Brothers_Cartoons/Marvin_the_Martian/very_mad.wav&tname=very_mad.wav

 

[spc]

imported post

imported post

Buckethead wrote:

We're wandering a bit off topic here, but since you brought it up, helmet certification is actually a great analogy for this issue.

I assume from your post that you are suggesting that a Snell certified helmet is safer than a DOT helmet certification. That may well be the case. Both of my helmets do have Snell certification.

However, lots of people disagree with this, including former Snell directors. A quick Google search will yield lots of hits on this issue, but if you are interested this article explains it pretty well: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

Similar to our RUM situation, what we have is different governments and agencies coming up with their own standards, refusing to recognize other standards, with lots of disagreement as to what the actual facts are. The consumer and manufacturers are caught in the resulting regulatory mess where the solutions often have more to do with meeting a given criteria than actually building the safest helmet.


For that matter, if TC recognizes DOT helmets, why won't they recognize DOT approved bikes?

You should read my post again. I did not suggest that Snell is safer than DOT. In a low impact crash DOT may be better than Snell.

It seems that no one is will to say than they will not buy a helmet that is not certified. People will not pay $300 for a helmet that is not certified but will pay $8000 for a bike that is not certified.

The whole point of the Bulletin is to have bikes meet a safety standard just like we want a helmet to meet a safety standard. A helmet that is not certificated may be just as safe as one that is certified.

The only standard for approval for an on highway vehicle in Canada is the Transport Canada (TC) standard. British Columbia accepts this standard. The BC inspection that everyone here talks about is an inspection of a vehicle that is ALREADY certified by TC for on highway use. It is a superficial inspection of a number of items to see if they still meet the TC standard. It is not as in depth an inspection as the TC certification inspection therefore it cannot substitute for it.

One reason more bikes are not submitted to TC for approval testing is the high cost of the extensive testing. IF you could get the same test from the BC government would you be willing to pay several thousand dollars to get you RUM approved?

 

[tattz]

imported post

imported post

I am curious I have an 02 ktm 520 and every single part has a dot stamp on it the rims are stamped dot the brake lines stamped dot calipers hubs even the factory front tire was dot ...so now that being said i also bought my bike in the states got the riv sheet did the inspection and walked into the insurance company and insured it so I guess not to argu the point with fancypants but i can say every one of those x on the sheet i can actually say yes my bike has so where does that leave my bike if i get pulled over and a cop sends me to get it inspected ?.....

 

[tattz]

imported post

imported post

and ya I think we should get organized and fight this Im always up for a fight

 

[bajaman]

imported post

imported post

cactusreid wrote:

tomcycle wrote:

spc and fartypants


The whole RUM motorcycle issue needs to be resolved. I agree with many here that Now the question is are we organised and concerned enough to do something about this? or are we just going to lay down and roll over:wi:and do what we are told?

I'm in for a fight!

Where do I sign...:mad3:

 

[North]

imported post

imported post

You know, reading what "spc" just posted, makes me think about all Chinese bikes coming on to the market now.

I saw one with a plate on the Albion Ferry this spring. And the first thing I thought was that this piece of crap should not be allowed on the road. But, I guess it passed the BC inspection. I wonder if these Bikes have passed the Transport Canada inspection? I would have to think not.

 

[bajaman]

imported post

imported post

tattz wrote:

I am curious I have an 02 ktm 520 and every single part has a dot stamp on it the rims are stamped dot the brake lines stamped dot calipers hubs even the factory front tire was dot ...so now that being said i also bought my bike in the states got the riv sheet did the inspection and walked into the insurance company and insured it so I guess not to argu the point with fancypants but i can say every one of those x on the sheet i can actually say yes my bike has so where does that leave my bike if i get pulled over and a cop sends me to get it inspected ?.....

Same thing like me...DRZ 400e-DRZ 400s.....same bike,same parts,I put on all the crap as a "s"legal model....like always someone is looking for a promotion...Hey I know what I can do...Go after all those dangerous "RUM"bikes..."NO ONE"from DOT can ever tell me that any "HOMEMADE"chopper made in someones wood shed is more legalor safer than my "RUMMED"up DRZe,sorry boys...lets see pull over a group20 of Harley's(bikers,the real ones)and tell them they have to get there bikes inspected or pick on us,YES but pick on us,someone who"HAS"made there bike legal, all I want to do is ride from my house to the trails,do not want to trailer it......I'm not riding unsafe bike...no way...and thats my rant for the evening...just have to wait for the DOT boys to reply....:Stir:Stir:Stir:gaah:

 

[North]

imported post

imported post

I not I Dot or Dash guy.

As I have said, some of these Chinese Bikes in my mind should not be on the road. They are a pile of junk.

So you have to have some system in place to really check out a Bike.

Having said that, then you have the U-built bikes which you can plate. So the whole system makes no sense.

Than should the government ban U-built bikes? Or should you be able to plate any bike from anywhere that has Dot tires, lights, tank, signals and horn? But the frame weld could break at any time and so-on.