Restricted Use Motorcycles (RUM)

[dirtrider]

After a chat with some friends it is pretty obvious and still easy to get a dirt bike on the street. In fact in a strange way it opened the door to put anything on the street.

In the heels of the "custom" Vtwins and their way through getting a piece of crap on the road with stolen parts all we need to do is now call anything we want street legal a "u Built" about the only difference between our attempts and a chopper is the fuel system and the regulations for them.

I will do a bit more digging but somewhere I have seen or heard is that in production bikes they are now able to use plastic. In the past there was a requirement for a metal tank based on a "skid / impact" test on pavement before the tank leaked or ruptured.

There should be no reason why something with 2 wheels and a motor can not be inspected to meet the requirement to be put on the street.

If there becomes a war against " offroad type" bikes not to be insured then this become an issue where a certian type of lifestyle istargeted. A law is a law and it must apply eaqualy to all parties of the same. A 2 wheeled motorized vehical is just that. Shouldnt matter if it makes alot of noise or goes off a road also. As long as it meets the written requirements by the law.

What I think this is is an attempt at people taking "enduro" type bikes like the ones withonly installed head light and rear light, and walikng into an insurance place and getting that insured. And we all know this happened...lots! Even I did it years ago with my DR 350. It was easy!

If I have the time I might just build up my TTR125 with all the approved goodies and call it a U built then see what happens.

[fartypants]

sueandal wrote:

i have just one question
has there ever - even once - been an accident caused because the m/c was a rum bike ?
i'm not talking rider error (speed) guys get themselves killed all the time .
see thats the whole point , these rum bikes are plenty strong and safe.

so i am throwing down that challenge
a single incident anywhere in b.c. that because it was a rum bike it caused the accident.

things get created for one purpose and used for another all the time(viagra).

looks like the rum's are the pintos of the m/c world(explode on impact-and still insurable)
ok that makes them the opposite of the pinto- safe and non-insurable.


[size=6]al

I personally have been involved with 2 fatalities with RUM bikes ( and a few "closed course competition" bikes). You will not find any stats on rum bike crashes or fatalities though as that information is never asked or recorded.

[zoo]

zokalr13 wrote:

i just came from VMS and this is the deal:any bike that NOW has a dual-sport kit and had insurance on [used] CAN be insured....BUT if you say buy a XR650r or KLX450Rthis week -end and put a baja kit on it youWONT be insured.. anyone who has a baja kit will have to sell it on EBAY now...so used dirt bikes with dakar ,baja kits will now be in demand -i hope the prices dont go up too much now because of it!! i was set to buy a stock dirt bike and put a kit on ....now i WONT....:X

2 different insurance companies told me today that yes if the bikes been pre-registared then you have a better chance of getting it by them. Capri insurance told me they have been told to go out and view the bike and decals before insuring. That being said she also said get into an accident with liability and you better hope ICBC doesnt get picky. I dont think they will just stop with the "oh well it was already inspected" line. If they push this thing they will go all the way with it.

Typical Goverment crap. Instead of looking into adjusting the laws they will just go with the old guidelines and be done with it. Its clear that they need to revisit whats written.

[Brimstone]

With any accident there are always mitigating factors. Whether it was speed, another driver, non DOT tires, a ruptured plastic tank leaking fuel after sliding on the ground and then catching fire igniting the rider... etc etc..

I think the real point of the issue is that most reasonable dual sport riders are more than willing to follow the rules and make sure their bike complies with a reasonable set of rules and policies.

If I can go out and build a bike from scratch that can conform to an established set of ICBC rules and get said bike registered and insured, then I should be able to modify an existing bike whether marked as RUM or not to conform to said rules. Even if that means I need to add lights, horn, new fuel tank/hoses/vents, mirrors, DOT tires, brake light switches etc etc.. Set out the requirements for inspection and be strict with it. At least then dual sport riders will know where they stand. I think that is all any of these guys are asking for.

Lee J
Kelowna, BC

[zokalr13]

i dont think this new guideline is for legalities about if your bike is "proper' -its put in place to limit access to sensitive watersheds that are high up in the mtns .if you get in an accident ICBC will try and blame both partie$$ so it doesnt matter really if you have all the good parts- they will be smashed up anyway....

[snackdaddy]

fartypants wrote:

Bikes that are currently plated may have to show proof of compliance at the time of renewal. If that doesn't happen and you are stopped, a Notice & Order will be issued to have an inspection that you cannot pass. The outstanding N&O will be in ICBC system effectively ending the game.

ALthough I am not saying this could never happen... but

How would ICBC know that I had plated RUM in the first place

ICBC would have to tell everyone with amotoprcycle to bring itin to get inspected by the insurance agent before it could be insured..... So how the hell am I supposed to get it to them with out insurance on it.

Who is paying the insurance agent for the extra time

[bajaman]

cactusreid wrote:

look like something that came out of a mad max movie

COOL.....

[zokalr13]

how about someone compiling a completelist of the off-road bikes that ICBC willNEVER give you grief about ..ones that come factory street -legal i guess...im trying to purchase a new enduro and this list will help me decide which bike to buy.

[spc]

zokalr13 wrote:

how about someone compiling a completelist of the off-road bikes that ICBC willNEVER give you grief about ..ones that come factory street -legal i guess...im trying to purchase a new enduro and this list will help me decide which bike to buy.

Check outa manufacturers Canadian website. If they advertise a bike as a dual sport it should be okay. Check the manufacturer’s compliance label ona bike. If it states "motorcycle" or "M/C" it is okay. If it says anything else,leave it alone. Go to several bike shops, compare compliance labels and you will see what is a motorcycle and what isa RUM.

[fartypants]

tomcycle wrote:

Fartypants

great handle, seems you have the inside information that we all seek.

I now wonder why such a concern with the RUM bikes? If I had to compare my 25 hp dirt bike with a +150hp harley clone with a 2 foot wide rear tire with raked out front forks and ape hangers for handle bars. I doesnt take a university scholar to figure out witch one is going to be dangerous on the road. On top of that we as DS riders usually ride with full armour and full face helmets, have you seen what these other guys are wearing for protection?

Our little RUM bikes were actually designed to fall over, cant say that about most street bikes.

I think CVSE guys are going after the wrong group of riders out there. I do understand the underlying issue with RUM bikes being made street legal, seem silly but if the rules are clear and everyone understands them then OK. Up till now its been pretty vaque.

I know in California when they decided to put a stop to licencing off road bikes (about 5 years ago) there was a full years notice in advance from the government of their intentions. That gave those who wanted to bring their bikes into compliance time to do so and be legal.

In typical Canadian fashion we want to take what are basically law abiding citizens and make them into petty criminals.

If this is CVSE intents to enforce this compliance issue and hand out the"Notice & Order to have an inspection that you cannot pass." It may be time to take on "the man" What do we have to loose?, judging by what is being said here CSVE is going to be gunning for us.

If CSVE decides to start pulling DS bikes over for spot inpections, we should hear about it and lets take CSVE to court and plead our case to a judge. What do we have to loose?

Tom

I will totally agree that there are lots of "Ubilt" choppers and the like runnng around totally non-compliant. I'm not sure how that is even relevant here. It does not change the fact that RUM's are not designed nor intended for the street.

I guess that eveyone thinks that the only thing needed to make a rum compliant is lights, tires and a speedo. If that was the case you`d be able to get them from the factory like that. It is not the case. On one of my RUM`s there is a sticker on the rear fender that states it does not comply with the federal standards and is strictly for off road use. The addition of parts does not change this.

Regarding N&O`s. They are not disputable in a court of law. The only recourse is to talk to the issuing officer or his direct supervisor.

[fartypants]

zokalr13 wrote:

i dont think this new guideline is for legalities about if your bike is "proper' -its put in place to limit access to sensitive watersheds that are high up in the mtns .if you get in an accident ICBC will try and blame both partie$$ so it doesnt matter really if you have all the good parts- they will be smashed up anyway....

What??

How does stopping rum's from being registered on the street stop me from riding any dirt bike high into a watershed??

Ya lost me there.:?

[fartypants]

zokalr13 wrote:

how about someone compiling a completelist of the off-road bikes that ICBC willNEVER give you grief about ..ones that come factory street -legal i guess...im trying to purchase a new enduro and this list will help me decide which bike to buy.

Like spc posted, that information is on the bike already. If it says "MC" or "Motorcycle", you are good to go. If it says "RUM" or "Restricted Use Motorcycle" or "Closed Course Competition Use Only" ( Like the example that sueandal posted) you are not good to go.

The compliance labels where this informnation is contained is mandated by Transport Canada, so they all have to have it with the type displayed.

[fartypants]

Brimstone wrote:

With any accident there are always mitigating factors. Whether it was speed, another driver, non DOT tires, a ruptured plastic tank leaking fuel after sliding on the ground and then catching fire igniting the rider... etc etc..

I think the real point of the issue is that most reasonable dual sport riders are more than willing to follow the rules and make sure their bike complies with a reasonable set of rules and policies.

If I can go out and build a bike from scratch that can conform to an established set of ICBC rules and get said bike registered and insured, then I should be able to modify an existing bike whether marked as RUM or not to conform to said rules. Even if that means I need to add lights, horn, new fuel tank/hoses/vents, mirrors, DOT tires, brake light switches etc etc.. Set out the requirements for inspection and be strict with it. At least then dual sport riders will know where they stand. I think that is all any of these guys are asking for.

Lee J
Kelowna, BC

First off, this has nothing to do with a riders ability. It is an equipment issue.

Yes you can build whatever you want and as long as it passes a Provincial inspection you are good to go. You cannot modify an existing non-compliant bike for the road. My opinion why is that it is easy to modify an existing bike. No special skills are required as almost everything needed is easily bolted on (even if you have to drill a couple of holes). In contrast it is not easy to build your own bike. Many people do not have the skills, tools or know how to accomplish this.

To the people who have posted that they will just change some parts and call it a ubilt better read the bulletin again. Doing that would simply make it a RUM with parts addded. The bulletin reads that any bike manufactured as a non-compliant street bike cannot be modified for road use.

[cactusreid]

i'm just throw'n this out there- but if there ever was an issue that we as dualsport bc members should throw our support and money behind fighting in court ,i feel this is it! if choppers built out of SH%^T can be legal on the roads,surely a engineered,manufactured motorcycle,that has all the lights and trinkets to make it road legal in bc should at least be equal in compliance. I don't ride an offroad biased motorcycle to be a criminal,it's just that i spent most of my dualsport riding time offroad!

[kaos]

To the people who have posted that they will just change some parts and call it a ubilt better read the bulletin again. Doing that would simply make it a RUM with parts addded. The bulletin reads that any bike manufactured as a non-compliant street bike cannot be modified for road use.


its all in the wording,you don't modify a ''rum'' bike ,you assemble parts. the used frame would likely have no 'rum '' sticker and as a you build, it given a serial #,so the sticker is not an issue after the fact.

[VIMike]

Fartypants I appreciate your knowledge and wisdom in this matter. I can also appreciate that my next point could be a bit costly to inform the public, but why can't we see a phase-in? It seems like the law maker's hammer just drops sometimes without any grace period.

I haven't read anything in the papers or heard anything on the news aboutit.Another thoughtis thatthe government has contacts with the various interest groups that will be impacted socouldn't they be contacted so the word can get out before it becomes law?

Just some typical pondering on my part.

VIMike

[cactusreid]

kaos wrote:

FARTYPANTS,i'm wondering if you could enlighten us on this angle. lets say i take a frame with no serial # and assemble a motorcycle that has all the pieces to make it road legal and plate-able in b.c. Reguardless what it looks like or resembles ie: a streetbike,a chopper, a 2stroke cafe racer or a dualsport style motorcycle, am i correct that i could get a serial # issued,and legally buy insurance and a plate and ride my "ubilt motorcycle" in this province? or is there a clause that say's if it "looks" like a rum bike UPON COMPLETION-it must be a rum bike? Or does a ubilt motorcycle have to be gobbed together with chicken sh%^t welds on the frame and walmart fasteners on the bodywork in order to be street legal in this province?also i would think that i should be able to get a list of all the required parts and components that would be looked at and approved at the time of inspection. example being if a steel fuel tank is required,i'm sure not going to show up for an inspection with a plastic tank on my ubilt MOTORCYCLE. you seem to be the man in the know here, and thanks for the help so far in getting our heads around this topic. cactusreid

its all in the wording,you don't modify a ''rum'' bike ,you assemble parts. the used frame would likely have no 'rum '' sticker and as a you build, it given a serial #,so the sticker is not an issue after the fact.

[Brimstone]

So the issue essentially then is that while a bike "could" be modified to be compliant, the government has taken the easier approach to just completely remove that option. In essence forcing consumers to purchase bikes from manufacturers which have produced compliant bikes. Whom I'm sure didn't lobby for this legislation...

The government (ICBC) is taking the easy way out by simply not giving owners the option to bring an existing bike up to compliance. That is what I have a problem with.

The fact that it may be easy or not to modify an existing bike as opposed to having the knowledge and ability to ubuild a bike should not be an issue. I'm not entirely convinced that the guys building any custom bikes are completely qualified anyway. What makes someone qualified to manufacture a bike? Engineering degree? Good with tools? Great metal fabricator? Even Fartypants, who arguably sounds like he knows exactly what it would take to modify an existing bike isn't allowed under the current rules.

I guess it was inevitable that the government would start to clamp down. Now it's our responsibility to pressure manufactures to build the kind of road legal dirtbikes we all want...

Lee J
Kelowna, BC

[cactusreid]

Brimstone wrote:

I guess it was inevitable that the government would start to clamp down. Now it's our responsibility to pressure manufactures to build the kind of road legal dirtbikes we all want...

Lee J
Kelowna, BC

I think it's time to pressure the government to back off! NEXT TO THE HST BEING GOOD FOR US,this is the biggest waste of taxpayers money i've heard about all summer!

[zokalr13]

fartypants wrote:

zokalr13 wrote:

i dont think this new guideline is for legalities about if your bike is "proper' -its put in place to limit access to sensitive watersheds that are high up in the mtns .if you get in an accident ICBC will try and blame both partie$$ so it doesnt matter really if you have all the good parts- they will be smashed up anyway....

What??

How does stopping rum's from being registered on the street stop me from riding any dirt bike high into a watershed??

Ya lost me there.:?

simple-a guy with a dirtbike on a truck will not drive 25km up a logging road to the watersheds to unload his bike ,he will stay down low and unload his bike and ride around keeping close to his truck...its a subtle way the GOV tries to limit access to FSRs -

[old trials guy]

zokalr13 wrote:

fartypants wrote:

zokalr13 wrote:

i dont think this new guideline is for legalities about if your bike is "proper' -its put in place to limit access to sensitive watersheds that are high up in the mtns .if you get in an accident ICBC will try and blame both partie$$ so it doesnt matter really if you have all the good parts- they will be smashed up anyway....

What??

How does stopping rum's from being registered on the street stop me from riding any dirt bike high into a watershed??

Ya lost me there.:?

simple-a guy with a dirtbike on a truck will not drive 25km up a logging road to the watersheds to unload his bike ,he will stay down low and unload his bike and ride around keeping close to his truck...its a subtle way the GOV tries to limit access to FSRs -

I am not so sure zokarl13 is totally off base. There has been a tremendous number of FSR's seemingly arbitrarily closed to the public across our province. Even some that are currently active for logging are being gated. When askedthe usual response is the ministry has decided the road is no longer safe for vehicle traffic or thereis a concern about the watershed. Decommissioning is radical in many instances creating ridiculous cross ditches or removing vital bridges. If they ever had to fight a fire, how the heck would they access it?

I know it reeks of paranoia but I think there is a long term plan to erradicate off road vehicles of all descriptions in anywhere butapproved riding areas (which coincidentlyare almost impossible to find or create due to the stringent environmental requirements). It is fine to clearcut sections of Blue Mountain in Maple Ridge but the local club has to jump through hoops to get access to a few single track trails.

Sorry for getting off topic but I am concerned this is just part of a greater agenda to restrict public access to our forests.

otg

[icanpopawheeli]

"things get created for one purpose and used for another all the time(viagra)."

Is this something that can work for my bike Al?

[Sweet]

What makes a factory street legal dirt bike any safer than a RUM bike that has been converted with a dualsport kit and DOT tires? The sticker!? What a joke! Yet another case of Government B.S.

[franhoser]

icanpopawheeli wrote:

"things get created for one purpose and used for another all the time(viagra)."

Is this something that can work for my bike Al?

yes, three tablets in the gas tankand you get a Husky for about 20 miles.

[icanpopawheeli]

Wicked! I'm off to the pharmacist right now!