MSF / TEAM Oregon Controversy

[moshe_levy]

All-

 

One of my fellow students at the RLEP class yesterday was interested in learning more about the MSF / TEAM Oregon controversy, including the lawsuit. If I remember correctly, David Hough had an article in MCN with his thoughts, and I think there a few other noteworthy articles. I'm at work away from my MCN stash - anyone know the issue date? Also, any links to any other worthy articles on the subject? Appreciated....

 

-MKL

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

Taken from the online list of articles on MCN website.

 

Trouble in Rider Training (don't know content), Part 1: May 04, Part 2, June 04

MSF Interview, Jan 05

Interview with Steve Garets Director of Team Oregon, Feb 06

Who Owns Rider Training? Mar 07

 

Those are my list of "most likely" to fit your bill.

[moshe_levy]

Thanks much - that's helpful.

 

-MKL

[gottabmw]

Here's an article on the resolution of the case. The current training requirements in Oregon have changed, however.

 

 

[Francois_Dumas]

Still extremely cheap compared to European training...... you guys continue to be 'lucky'

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Hi Francois-

 

Look at the other side of this - namely, that this training we're seeling out and paying for on our own is in some cases much less rigorous than the mandatory training you require in Europe just to get a license in the first place. How would you like to come here and ride with a bunch of guys who just got their motorcycle licenses by taking a 15 minute "test" riding an automatic 50cc scooter at the motor vehicle agency?

 

-MKL

[Francois_Dumas]

True. Still wish it was cheaper here

[pmdave]

It's a good idea to read the articles, so you have an idea of what has happened. But if you need more information about the situation, feel free to ask.

 

Almost all state motorcycle safety programs use the MSF Basic RiderCourse for novice training. Oregon and Idaho use the Basic Rider Training course developed by Steve Garets at Team Oregon in Corvallis. Actually, Team Oregon has several courses in addition to the basic, including one that gives unlicensed riders a way to get a day's training and an endorsement.

 

The bottom line is that today's novice rider training (the BRC) is apparently not solving the fatality problem. I would encourage anyone interested in skills training to lobby for your state to wrest motorcycle safety from the sticky hands of the MSF, and give the state program the freedom to do what is needed to get riders better trained.

 

pmdave

[Jim Moore]

The bottom line is that today's novice rider training (the BRC) is apparently not solving the fatality problem. I would encourage anyone interested in skills training to lobby for your state to wrest motorcycle safety from the sticky hands of the MSF, and give the state program the freedom to do what is needed to get riders better trained.

 

pmdave

I'm only familiar with the MSF course. What sorts of changes would you recommend to get riders better trained and solve the fatality problem?

[tallman]

Just a comment, I think fatalities were down last year, but I'm not going to cite.

If I'm remebering that correctly, it was the first time in 13 years for a decrease to occur.

 

What it means?

I don't know.

Best wishes.

[Twisties]

The bottom line is that today's novice rider training (the BRC) is apparently not solving the fatality problem.

 

Aside from, as tallman said, that fatalities have finally started to decline, there are way too many variables involved to suggest that a failure of the msf curriculum is responsible for the prior trend to increased fatalities. Or even that the msf program is ineffective. For instance, in Utah, rider training is not required at all.

 

If you have any studies or other evidence to back up your statement, I would be most interested in seeing them.

[CoarsegoldKid]

I'm curious about how one is able to hang a "Motorcycle Training" shingle at least in the state of California. Not necessarily a training that provides a path to testing but one to improve one's chances of surviving in the real world. Would there be some state requirements. I looked but could not find any. I'm probably looking in the wrong place.

[pmdave]

I think one of our problems today is that most states use the same identical curriculum, even though the problems that are occurring are different in different parts of the country. For example, deer strikes are a major problem in W Virginia, but not in California. California has lots of traffic, where Oregon has curvy roads and mountain passes.

 

That's why I suggest the Team Oregon approach, where regional statistics drive course content. If a rider crashes tonight, Team Oregon sees it tomorrow morning, provided by ODOT.

 

That way, what's being taught can be a response to the sort of crashes that are occurring--which can be considerably different in different regions of North America.

 

To allow that sort of reality check, it's necessary for the rider training program to have full autonomy, or should I say full responsibility for what is being taught and tested. The current situation is that almost all states contract with the MSF for curricula and instructor ("coach") certification. The training program signs a very comprehensive contract with the MSF to not change anything, at risk of having their licensed pulled.

 

So, I suggest that the first step in providing better training is for the motorcycle safety programs--usually an arm of a state agency such as a university or department of licensing--to regain control of how and what they teach. With the MSF so intrenched in the knickers of most state motorcycle safety programs, that will require a concerted lobbying effort by motorcycle activists.

 

pmdave

[pmdave]

Let's also note that we have only a very modest understanding of how, where, and why motorcycle crashes take place. We're still relying on the "Hurt Report" for data, even though the traffic situation has changed dramatically since 1978, and so have motorcycles.

 

With freedom from meddling by any national motorcycle safety organization, states have the freedom to do whatever research they think might be helpful. For instance, Team Oregon is doing research on where motorcyclists look. That's very important to answering questions about why a rider might go wide in a turn.

 

I'd like to see more research on "psychological" areas such as why other drivers don't see a motorcycle, and on the development of habits in riding. For years, motorcycle courses have emphasized emergency control skills such as braking and swerving to avoid collisions, but I'm coming to suspect that it's much more important to develop the visual and control habits to see and steer clear of the situation well before it turns into a crisis.

 

pmdave

[pmdave]

I'm curious about how one is able to hang a "Motorcycle Training" shingle at least in the state of California. Not necessarily a training that provides a path to testing but one to improve one's chances of surviving in the real world. Would there be some state requirements. I looked but could not find any. I'm probably looking in the wrong place.

 

The state of California has it's motorcycle training under the CHP. And the MSF managed to get the cotract for training, so they have a strong say in who gets to teach, and what. Most of the old guard motorcycle instructors who were active prior to the MSF taking over CA rider training were very good at modifying the curricula as needed to offer different or additonal skills, were put out to pasture. More than a few training sites that had experienced instructors were deemed to be controversial, and their contracts pulled for sometimes silly reasons.

 

However, it's still possible to do other forms of rider training in CA. Possible, but not easy. Consider the need for liability insurance, or obtaining a suitable piece of paving, or finding classroom space. One training program that is showing promise is Streetmasters, currently run by Walt Fulton III and Nancy Foote.I suggest you take one of the Streetmasters workshops, and decide if that might be a way for you to get involved. www.streetmasters.info or 951.549.1717

 

Walt also generates a monthly safety tip for Friction Zone magazine, which is another way of having an impact on motorcyclists' attitudes and skills. Bob Reichenberg, a former MSF staffer, was a partner in developing Streetmasters, but Bob tired of the hassles with the MSF, and moved to Oregon, to work for (guess who?) Team Oregon.

 

pmdave

[pmdave]

The bottom line is that today's novice rider training (the BRC) is apparently not solving the fatality problem.

 

Aside from, as tallman said, that fatalities have finally started to decline, there are way too many variables involved to suggest that a failure of the msf curriculum is responsible for the prior trend to increased fatalities. Or even that the msf program is ineffective. For instance, in Utah, rider training is not required at all.

 

If you have any studies or other evidence to back up your statement, I would be most interested in seeing them.

 

I don't think it's a matter of the MSF's training causing an increase in the fatality rate, but that whatever the MSF has been doing nationwide has not brought about a reduction. Earlier this year, the MSF announced that there had been a significant reduction in fatalites between 2007 and 2008, and they immediately grasped for credit. The anomoly seems to have been a sudden, huge increase in motorcycle registrations. But just recently NHTSA have released revised numbers that show a much more modest reduction in the fatality rate--during a time frame in which new motorcycle sales have dropped substantially. For 2008 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) there were 7,752,926 registered motorcycles, and 5,290 motorcyclists killed, for a fatality rate of 68.23. (do a search for Traffic Safety Facts 2008)

 

It would be interesting to campare the motorcycle fatality rates of say, Utah (no training), California (MSF-run training), and Oregon (non-MSF training, now mandatory. It would also be interesting to see if Utah lumps quad fatalities and registrations in with motorcycles. I'll try to find the time to dig into that.

 

pmdave

[Jim Moore]

OK, so you have a beef with the MSF. You bump this thread, and you start a thread over at Advrider where you get in your little digs at the MSF also. (Disclosure, I'm an MSF instructor.) I still don't see how you're going to improve the curriculum. West Virginia has deer?! So what. Are you going to put a stuffed deer on the range and have the students ride around it? California has windy roads, but no deer, so a few extra laps on the curve negotiation exercise, but no stuffed deer exercise. I mean, c'mon.

 

If you want to say "I don't like the MSF because they teach the wrong stuff" or "I don't like the MSF because they stole all my ideas," fine, I get it. But so far I haven't seen you raise any legitimate issues.

[Twisties]

The bottom line is that today's novice rider training (the BRC) is apparently not solving the fatality problem.

 

Aside from, as tallman said, that fatalities have finally started to decline, there are way too many variables involved to suggest that a failure of the msf curriculum is responsible for the prior trend to increased fatalities. Or even that the msf program is ineffective. For instance, in Utah, rider training is not required at all.

 

If you have any studies or other evidence to back up your statement, I would be most interested in seeing them.

 

I don't think it's a matter of the MSF's training causing an increase in the fatality rate, but that whatever the MSF has been doing nationwide has not brought about a reduction. Earlier this year, the MSF announced that there had been a significant reduction in fatalites between 2007 and 2008, and they immediately grasped for credit. The anomoly seems to have been a sudden, huge increase in motorcycle registrations. But just recently NHTSA have released revised numbers that show a much more modest reduction in the fatality rate--during a time frame in which new motorcycle sales have dropped substantially. For 2008 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) there were 7,752,926 registered motorcycles, and 5,290 motorcyclists killed, for a fatality rate of 68.23. (do a search for Traffic Safety Facts 2008)

 

It would be interesting to campare the motorcycle fatality rates of say, Utah (no training), California (MSF-run training), and Oregon (non-MSF training, now mandatory. It would also be interesting to see if Utah lumps quad fatalities and registrations in with motorcycles. I'll try to find the time to dig into that.

 

pmdave

 

Maybe Nick (Deadboy) can come in here with some more detail, but as I understand it, the AMA believes the prior increase in fatalities (not rate) was related to increase in registrations and vehicle miles traveled (vmt). A number of very serious problems with the NHTSA's vmt estimates for motorcycles were identified, and NHTSA has withdrawn, or at least no longer publishes the vmt estimate for motorcycles, leaving us with no info on fatality rate per vmt.

 

You state a rate of 68.23, without units. I was not able to find that number in the report you referenced, and I note that I could not reproduce it using the number of vehicle registrations you cited either. The typical unit is fatality per vmt. We can talk about per registration too, but that doesn't seem to be what you've done, and is certainly not what NHTSA has done. VMTs for motorcycles are not available at this time. As I understand it, the fatality rate trend when viewed per registrations has been closer to flat.

 

Nor is 2008 the latest year for which data are available. Here is the 2009 data.

 

To suggest that from these data you can infer squat about the msf course's effectiveness is purely hogwash, which was my earlier point.

 

MSF says the course reduces fatalities by a factor of ten. I think they have a study to back them up.

 

You can't look at rates per State as you suggest. It is too convoluted. As you point out, driving conditions vary per State. CA allows lane splitting for instance and has a lot of urban driving. Utah has no mandatory training requirement, but the msf course is offered here on a voluntary basis.

 

It would take a controlled study to gain any meaningful info.

 

 

 

 

[pmdave]

The data I quoted for 2008 includes a rate of fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations. The rate for 2008 was 68.23. I'm not inclined to believe the "fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled" because I don't believe there is any reliable way to know motorcycle miles traveled. The 2008 numbers have registrations available. Registered motorcycle numbers aren't available yet for 2009, and the 2009 fatalities are still being finalized.

 

You are free to draw your own conclusions aobut how I feel about the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. But I request that you not put words into my mouth.

 

pmdave

[tallman]

Jan,

Again, I'm not looking for a fight, just talking, but, if we look at individual states that could be distorted.

Example, Florida with both BiketOberfest and Bike Week.

There are typically a number of fatalities.

Is that something MSF or Team Florida (sic) could address in house?

Wonder whether weather cycles have an impact.

[pmdave]

For those interested in the history of US motorcycle fatalities and the fatality rates, go to the NHTSA website; http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811170.PDF and scan down to Table 10.

 

Fatalities and the fatality rate were both very high around 1980--prior to rider training programs. The rate peaked at 94.02 in 1978, and fatalities topped out at 5,144 in 1990.

 

From 1980 to around 1999 the number of motorcyclists killed, and the fatality rate gradually dropped (excepting a couple of hiccups). Those were the years of the MSF's "Motorcycle RiderCourse; Riding and Street Skills" (MRCRSS) used by all the states offering rider training.

 

In 2001, the fatality rate began to increase, topping out at 73.48 in 2005. It may be just a coincidence, but the MSF changed the novice course from the MRCRSS to a much warmer, friendlier, simpler course, the "Basic RiderCourse" (BRC). Some veteran instructors claimed the new course was much easier to pass than the old one.

 

As a certified MSF instructor in the 1980s, I attended various safety conferences, including a presentation by NHTSA statistics experts that exposed two "smoking guns": more older riders were getting killed, and more fatalities occurred on larger displacement motorcycles. The NHTSA statistical guru was asked if they factored in the ages of motorcyclists and the sizes of motorcycles on the market. They had not. Since then, they have done a much better job of factoring in the demographics, and the "smoking guns" have pretty much been dismissed.

 

I'm glad that NHTSA now includes numbers for both the "miles" rate and the "registrations" rate. It's interesting to note that the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is very parallel to the rate based on registrations. The VMT rate was also high in 1978, slowly dropped until 2000, and then began climbing, peaking in 2007.

 

I think these numbers make a strong case for the fatality situation not being brought under control, especially in the 2002 - 2007 time frame.

 

It may be that training has little effect other than to get more noobs licensed, or that the fatality rates are driven by increases or reductions in motorcycle ridership or alcohol involvement. I'd like to think that training can have an impact.

 

By comparison to other states, Oregon seems to be showing a different pattern. Their fatality rates for the past few years are substantially lower than the national averages. See:

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/images/Motorcycle/Motorcycle_Safety_Databook2008.pdf?ga=t

 

pmdave

[Twisties]

<> Goodbye.

[Jim Moore]

You are free to draw your own conclusions aobut how I feel about the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. But I request that you not put words into my mouth.

 

pmdave

No one would have to put words in your mouth if you were to clearly state why you have issues with the MSF. That's the problem with opening a can of worms. It's, well, a can of worms.

[pmdave]

I've noted that Team Oregon's approach has netted a fatality rate that's much lower than other states. The 1998 - 2002 average was 39.01. 2003 throiugh 2006: 51.13, 40.14, 47.56, 40.52.

 

I found some data on Utah. 1998: 59.0; 2006: 72; 2008:60.36.

 

This seems to offer some insight into the fatality rates (fatals per 100,000 registered motorcycles) between two western states with different motorcycle safety philosophy.

 

In terms of my "issues with the MSF", let's say I agree entirely with the MCN "Trouble in Training articles.

 

pmdave

[dhanson]

I don't think there is a course (2 days) that can prepare a MC rider for the street. I suppose it helps, but you need a mature person, an underpowered bike with good controls and some luck going, to be safe the first 2 years and beyond!

 

I took both the MSF and advanced, pretty simple an basic, but I had been riding for over 40 years before hand. The real newbies that had gotten the course for free with purchase of their new HD, were pretty scary to watch and reminded me of my first days.

 

I recommend a dirtbike and learning to ride on a closed course/track.

 

Most of my near misses (could have been a statistic) were because I was going TOO fast for the conditions or in the process of trying to go TOO fast for the conditions.

 

The more I learn about MCs, the more cautious I become. As someone posted above, the safest approach is to be able to recognize a potential problem before it happens and do not get in that situation.

[pmdave]

I don't think there is a course (2 days) that can prepare a MC rider for the street. I suppose it helps, but you need a mature person, an underpowered bike with good controls and some luck going, to be safe the first 2 years and beyond!

 

The more I learn about MCs, the more cautious I become. As someone posted above, the safest approach is to be able to recognize a potential problem before it happens and do not get in that situation.

 

Yep on that! The BRC (novice rider course) gives novices lots of leeway in practicing skills, but simply doesn't have sufficient time to deal with repeating traffic scenarious, bike-specific surface hazards, wild animals, environmental conditions, etc. In theory, we might expect the Experienced RiderCourse to start where the BRC left off, and continue the new rider's education. But the ERC is basically the same curriculum as the BRC, ridden on the owner's machine rather than the training bike.

 

The MSF has developed a sport bike course for the military. And, hopefully this course will be available to the public, as well. And, we have Lee Parks' Total Control course, available at many training sites nationwide. However, the same basic limitation is that the lion's share of training time is often devoted to cornering skills, on the assumption that sport and sport touring riders need to learn better skills. Yes, most of us could hone our cornering skills, but what we may need even more are the mental skills to comprehend upcoming hazards, and take evasive action early enough that it doesn't have to be sudden.

 

And, even if a comprehensive "experienced" or "advanced" course were available, is there any way to get riders (hopefully those in the most dangerous groups) to take it? Note that Oregon is phasing in mandatory training for all riders. That still doesn't force all riders to get training, but getting nabbed without the appropriate license is a way to encourage more riders to do what's requested.

 

In my mind, crash statistics in a given area should determine what's in the curricula in that area.

 

pmdave