MCN Gets a Cease and Desist Letter.

[frozenuts]

This could get interesting.

I link to the original MCN article and the rest of the important information in the beginning of my piece.

The 40 page document starts to get going around page 5 or so, and the history of the MSF and MIC starts around page 12 if you feel like skipping around, but I strongly suggest that you read the whole 40 pages.

 

[Caddywumpus]

There's a lot more layers than I first anticipated

 

[frozenuts]

There's a lot more layers than I first anticipated

Yes there are.

 

[ontherearwheel]

It’s a pissing match that will only harm motorcyclist.

 

[East Bay Mike]

Cliff notes please.

 

[frozenuts]

It’s a pissing match that will only harm motorcyclist.

There is way more to it than that. There is obviously no love lost between MSF and Total Control, though.

 

[Cincinnatus]

"Somebody did something."

 

[Enchanter]

Full disclosure:
I'm a current TCTI (CMSP) instructor, and MSF Ridercoach, and am actively teaching both beginner courses.

The implication that the defective product has a direct link to the deaths of students and instructors during classes, is meaningless without knowing exactly what actions led to their deaths.

Example:
I'm aware of one Ridercoach death since I started teaching in 1989. I'm not sure if that is the one referenced in the CPSC vs MSF document. That person tripped over a cone, fell and hit their head. He died 1-2 days later due to that injury. If this incident is the one being repeatedly referenced in the document, that is more than disingenuous commentary from Mr. Kimsey.

I've seen some pretty crazy crashes during classes, and can tell you that the contributing factors for the crashes I've seen, are present in each curriculum.

 

[DataDan]

There is way more to it than that. There is obviously no love lost between MSF and Total Control, though.

You know, of course, that Lee Parks (who is TCT) wants to replace MSF as training provider in other states, as he did in California. So anything he can do to fuck MSF over is potentially millions in his pocket. If you're reading this as an altruistic effort to make us safer, you're a little naive.

From the CPSC complaint (p18-19, with some minor edits for readability):

The 2001 MSF Basic RiderCourse replaced earlier versions of the basic course known as the Motorcycle RiderCourse: Riding and Street Skills (MRC:RSS). The Basic RiderCourse was reintroduced in 2014 with slight modification and an online component and became known as the BRC 2014. A third one-day version was introduced as the BRC2-LW. All versions of the BRC/BRC 2014/BRC2-LW are distributed and sold as consumer products to the public for recreational purposes.

According to a fact witness present during this "roll-out," the Basic RiderCourse was opposed by the instructors as being a "dumbed down" MRC:RSS. Almost immediately, with the introduction of the Product, public motorcycle fatalities began to rise disproportionate to other factors. [1] An independent analysis of state-required training programs where the MSF Basic RiderCourse was the mandated curriculum, collisions and fatalities were 10 percent higher compared with multiple states without those same requirements noting: "Contributors to the high fatality rates are the industry's promotion of the 'safe' motorcycling lifestyle and the subsequent promotion of this lifestyle by state motorcycle safety programs without appropriate warnings about the danger." [2] IIHS Study (listed in supporting documents).
​

My note [1] is a subject I'll come back to in another post. TL;DR: Motorcycle fatalities increased from 1998 to 2008 because of tremendous growth in the sport, not because of inadequate training.

Based on my previous research on this subject, the quote at [2] did NOT come from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It came from National Motorcycle Institute on this page (see "Introduction", paragraph 5). I have tried in the past to source the assertion from an "independent analysis of state-required training programs" without success. It is not supported by references at the NMI site, and I have not found any other source for it. IMHO, it is false.


EDIT: I do have an IIHS study that touches on insurance claims and training (but not crashes or fatalities). It found 10% more claims on collision coverage by riders under age 21 in states that require training for riders under age 21. This is what they had to say (document available here as PDF):

The estimate corresponding to rider education (0.0971) was not statistically significant. However, contrary to the intent of training laws, it suggests a 10 percent increase in collision claim frequencies for riders younger than 21 in states where they are subject to an education requirement. The lack of statistical significance means it cannot be said with confidence that the collision claim frequencies of riders subject to a state education requirement actually are more likely to crash than riders of a similar age. However, if the increase is in fact real, one potential explanation might be that in some states, a participant is fully licensed upon completion of a course. This could, in practice, shorten the holding period for the permit and hasten riding.

It is important to emphasize that this analysis does not answer the question of whether riders who voluntarily take rider education courses have higher or lower crash risk. To conduct that analysis, HLDI would need to know which rated drivers (riders) had training and which did not. This is not a data element currently in the HLDI database.
​

 

[motomania2007]

I am an MSF RiderCoach still teaching MSF BRC and also a Total Control instructor in the CMSP and I teach several other MSF and TCTI courses and other courses like RoadRider 2.0.

All the courses offer good training.

MSF was the pioneer in actually getting formal motorcycle training out to the masses.

That is a monumental undertaking and they succeeded in getting that out there!

As a 10 year RiderCoach, I am somewhat surprised to learn about fatalities DURING the BRC.

In a bigger picture though that data needs to be placed in proper context. How many millions of students took the BRC. How many of those students were injured. How many of those died as a result of those injuries.

We all know riding a motorcycle is complex and dangerous and noobs screw up and crash, even at 5-15 mph in a controlled environment.

If millions took the class and thousands crashed and got hurt, it does not really surprise me that at least a few actually died. It is just simple numbers.

TCTI has not yet taught millions of students.

But from a bigger picture perspective, what follow-up actions did MSF take?

All RCs and instructors fill out incident reports for student involved accidents during the classes.

What does MSF or TCTI do with that incident report information?

Do they actually analyze the cause and see if there is some way to improve the course or course delivery or range set up or range certification to prevent a recurrence of the injury?

To me, it seems like there should be some analysis and a finding of what to do about it.

Quite possibly, the finding could often be, there is nothing we could do to prevent it.

But there should be a paper trail where they actually did look at it and make some sort of decision.

Since I have been teaching the BRC for 10 years, I have not seen any real change to the curriculum nor training to deliver the course any differently or any other improvement that might be related to the fatalities.

Like Tim said above, it is likely that all of the issues leading up the the injuries and fatalities are present in both MSF and TCTI curriculums.

The difference comes with whether the provider hid the data from potential student customers and potential State and other governmental entity customers.

Injury and fatality data during the course would seem to be an important data point to consider when selecting "safety training" of any subject.

On another front, here in California, MSF ran the California Motorcycle Safety Program (CMSP) up until 2015 but really offered only the BRC.

As every RC I know of, we had many students that passed the BRC and were not ready to ride on the street, but there was no additional training offered by MSF to fill that need.

That always concerned me. I asked about other classes and there were basically none. In actuality, there were additional course offerings but they were only offered a couple of times each year of generally only at one site in Southern California. So basically not available to the masses.

In contrast, TCTI pushes more training and many (if not most) CMSP sites offer several sorts of additional, supervised or coached riding time, individual coaching, and additional levels of training like the TCTI IRC and ARC.

So now we have options for helping the students improve.

I still teach the BRC at a few military sites around California. It is good to see the military sites usually REQUIRE additional training beyond the BRC. I wish MSF would have at least offered more courses back in the MSF era of running CMSP.

MSF's lack of offering and promoting additional training undermines their message as being safety first and supports the appearance and the belief that some have that MSF is more about selling motorcycles than training riders to be more safe.

If they are hiding accident statistics then that further undermines their image of safety first.

TCTI is not perfect, no course is. I don't believe any course can be perfect.

And yes, this is a dog eat dog business competition and both sides are using every bit of every ammo they can.

 

[frozenuts]

You know, of course, that Lee Parks (who is TCT) wants to replace MSF as training provider in other states, as he did in California. So anything he can do to fuck MSF over is potentially millions in his pocket. If you're reading this as an altruistic effort to make us safer, you're a little naive.

From the CPSC complaint (p18-19, with some minor edits for readability):

The 2001 MSF Basic RiderCourse replaced earlier versions of the basic course known as the Motorcycle RiderCourse: Riding and Street Skills (MRC:RSS). The Basic RiderCourse was reintroduced in 2014 with slight modification and an online component and became known as the BRC 2014. A third one-day version was introduced as the BRC2-LW. All versions of the BRC/BRC 2014/BRC2-LW are distributed and sold as consumer products to the public for recreational purposes.

According to a fact witness present during this "roll-out," the Basic RiderCourse was opposed by the instructors as being a "dumbed down" MRC:RSS. Almost immediately, with the introduction of the Product, public motorcycle fatalities began to rise disproportionate to other factors. [1] An independent analysis of state-required training programs where the MSF Basic RiderCourse was the mandated curriculum, collisions and fatalities were 10 percent higher compared with multiple states without those same requirements noting: "Contributors to the high fatality rates are the industry's promotion of the 'safe' motorcycling lifestyle and the subsequent promotion of this lifestyle by state motorcycle safety programs without appropriate warnings about the danger." [2] IIHS Study (listed in supporting documents).
​

My note [1] is a subject I'll come back to in another post. TL;DR: Motorcycle fatalities increased from 1998 to 2008 because of tremendous growth in the sport, not because of inadequate training.

Based on my previous research on this subject, the quote at [2] did NOT come from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. It came from National Motorcycle Institute on this page (see "Introduction", paragraph 5). I have tried in the past to source the assertion from an "independent analysis of state-required training programs" without success. It is not supported by references at the NMI site, and I have not found any other source for it. IMHO, it is false.


EDIT: I do have an IIHS study that touches on insurance claims and training (but not crashes or fatalities). It found 10% more claims on collision coverage by riders under age 21 in states that require training for riders under age 21. This is what they had to say (document available here as PDF):

The estimate corresponding to rider education (0.0971) was not statistically significant. However, contrary to the intent of training laws, it suggests a 10 percent increase in collision claim frequencies for riders younger than 21 in states where they are subject to an education requirement. The lack of statistical significance means it cannot be said with confidence that the collision claim frequencies of riders subject to a state education requirement actually are more likely to crash than riders of a similar age. However, if the increase is in fact real, one potential explanation might be that in some states, a participant is fully licensed upon completion of a course. This could, in practice, shorten the holding period for the permit and hasten riding.

It is important to emphasize that this analysis does not answer the question of whether riders who voluntarily take rider education courses have higher or lower crash risk. To conduct that analysis, HLDI would need to know which rated drivers (riders) had training and which did not. This is not a data element currently in the HLDI database.
​

I was hoping you would chime in!

I know who Lee is and what he does, but the point of my article has nothing to do with him, minus what the MSF lawyers had to say of course. While I am sure Lee would happily take over all of the MSF locations, he has told MCN that he was not involved in this. I will be contacting him directly for his side as soon as possible.

I would live to grab a coffee or beer or something and talk in more details about your analysis.

 

[Enchanter]

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the MSF didn't offer additional training.

Like today, each training facility is independently owned an operated. As such the individual site was responsible for the classes they offered.

I ran the Site in Mountain View from 1999 to 2012. I did everything I could to conduct the ERC and ARC quarterly. I simply could not get the enrollment to support more than 1 a year. It was similar at every site in the Bay Area.

 

[DataDan]

Just spitballin' here, but based on what the MSF lawyer says about the "CPSC complaint", it is no such thing.

According to the cease-and-desist letter it is a phony-baloney document written by Mr. Kimsey and submitted to a CPSC site called SaferProducts.gov, through which anyone can complain about anything. So the letterhead and its official looking notations are all apparently bogus.

If true, Editor Hilgendorf really stepped in it.

 

[motomania2007]

It's a bit inaccurate to say that the MSF didn't offer additional training.

Like today, each training facility is independently owned an operated. As such the individual site was responsible for the classes they offered.

I ran the Site in Mountain View from 1999 to 2012. I did everything I could to conduct the ERC and ARC quarterly. I simply could not get the enrollment to support more than 1 a year. It was similar at every site in the Bay Area.

Tim, I can appreciate that but the period I am referring to is after My View was shut down.

I called MSF and asked where I could take the ARC and the only option they ever offered was in Colton.

I asked TWST, where I taught and they said they occasionally offered the ERC/ BRC2 but they had no interest in offering an ARC.

I took the ERC/BRC2 3 times in the 80s. I knew it was mostly a refresher and did not offer more skills.

I wanted more skills.

I brought the subject up at out annual PDW and was told to go to the Colton site...

That is my experience. Maybe there were ARCs offered in other locations but no one knew about it, including folks at MSF.

You know how persistent I can be and if I couldn't find an ARC, then how do you think a typical student would do at finding an ARC.

 

[frozenuts]

Just spitballin' here, but based on what the MSF lawyer says about the "CPSC complaint", it is no such thing.

According to the cease-and-desist letter it is a phony-baloney document written by Mr. Kimsey and submitted to a CPSC site called SaferProducts.gov, through which anyone can complain about anything. So the letterhead and its official looking notations are all apparently bogus.

If true, Editor Hilgendorf really stepped in it.

Also according to the letter the MSF never denys fatalities, and they state that the person responsible for the CPSP complaint is referenced as being employed by Lee Parks which appears to not be true based on the research I have done so far. Once I can talk to Lee Parks directly I will have more clarification.

 

[motomania2007]

Lee is currently on vacation out of the Country.

 

[Whammy]

its all about the money:wow

 

[Beanzy]

OP, did I read it right that the first and last links in your blog are the same article but in different formats?

Didn't read all the posts (TL; DR). But in my experience some MSF students passed who should not have been given a passing grade. Like one rider I met who got the cert but could barely use the friction zone? That's just crazy letting somebody get an M1 to try to train better on his or her own. For if someone like that gets passed, then others just as poorly trained got their M1s without knowing how to use the clutch too.

And I can understand adult learners dying on the street while they're still learning. But dying in the parking lot during MSF training? If the deaths were attributed to zealous use of the clutch zone, then the teaching method needs to be addressed. If the deaths were due to malfunctioning bikes, then the fault is clear. Still it's too may deaths in a learning environment where second gear is used sparingly.

 

[Enchanter]

OP, did I read it right that the first and last links in your blog are the same article but in different formats?

Didn't read all the posts (TL; DR). But in my experience some MSF students passed who should not have been given a passing grade. Like one rider I met who got the cert but could barely use the friction zone? That's just crazy letting somebody get an M1 to try to train better on his or her own. For if someone like that gets passed, then others just as poorly trained got their M1s without knowing how to use the clutch too.

And I can understand adult learners dying on the street while they're still learning. But dying in the parking lot during MSF training? If the deaths were attributed to zealous use of the clutch zone, then the teaching method needs to be addressed. If the deaths were due to malfunctioning bikes, then the fault is clear. Still it's too may deaths in a learning environment where second gear is used sparingly.

This is exactly the reaction that Mr. Kimsey was aiming for. :hand :rolleyes.

Let's avoid going Chicken Little over this until we have more information, and quite possibly...some facts.

Question for you:
What year did this take place:

Like one rider I met who got the cert but could barely use the friction zone? That's just crazy letting somebody get an M1 to try to train better on his or her own.

 

[DataDan]

Blaming MSF for the increase in motorcycle deaths is a popular slander among MSF haters. Though he doesn't seem to be a hater himself, Lee Parks of Total Control Training (current CMSP provider) and a direct competitor of MSF for the training market, seems to be tagging along with them to help his own business.

The main factor driving the rise, fall, and rise of motorcycle fatalities over the past 60 years has been the popularity of the sport as shown here:

Deaths increased rapidly during the boom of the 1960s and 1970s, dropped off through the mid 1990s, then grew again with the boom that ended, more or less, with the recession. This graph shows registrations, fatalities, and the rate--deaths per 100,000 registrations:

The current fatality rate is near the all-time low of the mid-1990s, when motorcycling was in a major slump.


But that's only part of the story, because while the fatality rate exceeds its mid-'90s low, crash rate--including all severities from non-injury to fatal--is lower than 20 years ago:

(Note that this graph starts at 1990 while the fatality rate graph starts in 1980. The NHTSA fatality database goes back to 1975, but the crash database goes back only to 1988.)


Some would suggest that crashes per mile traveled is a better measure of riding risk, and I would agree. But there's a big problem with VMT (vehicle-miles traveled), making registrations the best measure of exposure available. As a practical matter, crashes/reg parallels crashes/VMT, so trends can be identified either way.

Comparing the crash rate and fatality rate graphs reveals a significant discrepancy. Why is the improvement in crash rate between the 1990s and today not reflected in the fatality rate? The answer is that motorcycles crashes have become more deadly over the past 30 years. That is seen in a graph showing crash lethality--the likelihood of a crash resulting in rider death:

Fatality rate (gray bars) is the product of crash rate (blue line) and crash lethality (red line). The increase in crash lethality is mostly explainable, maybe in another post someday.


In addition to in-training fatalities, the "CPSC complaint" claims that MSF training is defective because it hasn't just failed to reduce fatalities, but has actually increased them. This is pure crap. Nothing in the "complaint" proves it to be so, and evidence in this post disproves it.


For more on the effectiveness of training, see Gabe's 2016 thread Worse than Nothing?


Data for the graphs in this post comes from NHTSA's FARS, GES, and CRSS databases. Most of the info here is also available in the Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report 2017 (big PDF).