The past few years have seen a lot of odd behavior from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF). On December 10, 2003, their President, Tim Buche, shocked everyone during the Murkowski Motorcycle Safety Amendment to the House version of the Highway Safety Bill when he said the state programs provided a broken economic model. MSF had a great deal to do with setting up that model and in almost every state they were the main beneficiary of that funding. Instead of looking for more federal/state funding Buche was knocking it, but not offering any solution. It definitely made the motorcycle press and MSF training sites in every state wonder what is MSF's Administration up to. Equally puzzling has been why the MSF Administration would not certify MSF training sites that did not accept and teach the newer, simpler Basic Rider Course when instead they continued on teaching the older, more comprehensive Rider Street Skills course that everyone agreed provided better training. Also why was MSF meddling in states where they had no authority or involvement and which were financially self-sufficient such as Illinois and Georgia where additional charges to the motorcycle licensing fees completely paid for motorcycle training? MSF actually was able to affect discontinuation of motorcycle training in Georgia even though licensed motorcyclists had completely paid the cost of training themselves through their licensing fees.
There were suspicions that MSF, who was funded by the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC- all of the world's largest motorcycle manufacturers), were dumbing down motorcycle safety training and messing with the government so that they could sell more motorcycles by exposing more of the population to simpler, less effective training. Now, a report has surfaced, suggesting this idea is more than just suspicion. According to Motorcycle Consumer News, August, 2005 issue, p. 26, "In the early '80's MSF hired McManis and Associates, Inc. to develop a detailed plan to cut out non-profit rider training providers and sell for-profit training franchises to private parties. This was presented to the board in a document titled "Report to the MSF" and dated December, 1981." MSF was not in a position to implement the details of the report at that time, but it appears they have been patiently laying the groundwork ever since.
The benefits from cutting out the non-profits are that:
1. MSF would have more direct role in setting up centers, training instructors and monitoring operation,
2. More money can be made if franchised training sites were in the parking lots of the motorcycle dealers and there was no other training available.
Normally, I would think that one central organization intent on providing one public safety product would be the best way to make sure that product was consistent and effective, but in this case it is obvious money is the motivator, not safety. The central organization, MSF, is controlled by the motorcycle manufacturers, MIC, who are much more interested in selling motorcycles, accessories, apparel and maintenance products than in providing the most effective safety training possible. That is evidenced by MSF scraping the more effective and previously used Riding and Street Skills course for what all MSF instructors regard as the shorter "dumbed-down" Basic Riders Course.
To further the profit motivation angle consider that if motorcycle dealers provide rider safety training in their parking lots (or other suitable location) without competition not only can they charge whatever they want for the course fee, the average student probably will buy $300-$400 of merchandise, if not a motorcycle of the same brand they were trained on. It is projected that they can make up to $38,000 per month for merchandise with potentially $250,000 to $750,000 per month for new motorcycles. For MSF's bottom line, they get a franchise fee and 5%-7% of the training revenue brought in by each training site.
You may wonder who would pay whatever a franchise would charge for motorcycle safety training. MSF has thought of that angle too. For years they have been lobbying the states to make motorcycle safety training mandatory for acquiring a motorcycle license. So far, no states I know of require motorcycle training, but the question is, will that situation change?
In Britain, private companies also provide motorcycle training and charge hefty fees. The difference between Britain and here is in Britain the government provides the stringent driving and riding tests that must be passed. The private British motorcycle safety training companies are merely providing training for riders who are attempting to acquire their motorcycle licenses. Safety training and payment of fees for them is voluntary. Here the MSF is meddling in all aspects of training and testing, and the MSF is funded and largely influenced by the motorcycle manufacturers, through the Motorcycle Industry Council. It does not appear to be primarily concerned with safety training or the welfare of existing or future motorcycle riders. Is that how you see it?
Anybody that has additional insights about motorcycle safety training in the USA or Britain I, for one, would like to learn more. Please enlighten me. Thanks.
Fred
There were suspicions that MSF, who was funded by the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC- all of the world's largest motorcycle manufacturers), were dumbing down motorcycle safety training and messing with the government so that they could sell more motorcycles by exposing more of the population to simpler, less effective training. Now, a report has surfaced, suggesting this idea is more than just suspicion. According to Motorcycle Consumer News, August, 2005 issue, p. 26, "In the early '80's MSF hired McManis and Associates, Inc. to develop a detailed plan to cut out non-profit rider training providers and sell for-profit training franchises to private parties. This was presented to the board in a document titled "Report to the MSF" and dated December, 1981." MSF was not in a position to implement the details of the report at that time, but it appears they have been patiently laying the groundwork ever since.
The benefits from cutting out the non-profits are that:
1. MSF would have more direct role in setting up centers, training instructors and monitoring operation,
2. More money can be made if franchised training sites were in the parking lots of the motorcycle dealers and there was no other training available.
Normally, I would think that one central organization intent on providing one public safety product would be the best way to make sure that product was consistent and effective, but in this case it is obvious money is the motivator, not safety. The central organization, MSF, is controlled by the motorcycle manufacturers, MIC, who are much more interested in selling motorcycles, accessories, apparel and maintenance products than in providing the most effective safety training possible. That is evidenced by MSF scraping the more effective and previously used Riding and Street Skills course for what all MSF instructors regard as the shorter "dumbed-down" Basic Riders Course.
To further the profit motivation angle consider that if motorcycle dealers provide rider safety training in their parking lots (or other suitable location) without competition not only can they charge whatever they want for the course fee, the average student probably will buy $300-$400 of merchandise, if not a motorcycle of the same brand they were trained on. It is projected that they can make up to $38,000 per month for merchandise with potentially $250,000 to $750,000 per month for new motorcycles. For MSF's bottom line, they get a franchise fee and 5%-7% of the training revenue brought in by each training site.
You may wonder who would pay whatever a franchise would charge for motorcycle safety training. MSF has thought of that angle too. For years they have been lobbying the states to make motorcycle safety training mandatory for acquiring a motorcycle license. So far, no states I know of require motorcycle training, but the question is, will that situation change?
In Britain, private companies also provide motorcycle training and charge hefty fees. The difference between Britain and here is in Britain the government provides the stringent driving and riding tests that must be passed. The private British motorcycle safety training companies are merely providing training for riders who are attempting to acquire their motorcycle licenses. Safety training and payment of fees for them is voluntary. Here the MSF is meddling in all aspects of training and testing, and the MSF is funded and largely influenced by the motorcycle manufacturers, through the Motorcycle Industry Council. It does not appear to be primarily concerned with safety training or the welfare of existing or future motorcycle riders. Is that how you see it?
Anybody that has additional insights about motorcycle safety training in the USA or Britain I, for one, would like to learn more. Please enlighten me. Thanks.
Fred
