Virginia Freedom Riders :: Freedom Forums

MissPenny

From: Ken Ray

Subject: Ken’s Analysis from the Oregon Governor’s Advisory Board on motorcycle safety meeting

This analysis is my own personal opinion, and not representative of any organization.

On Friday, June 9, the Governor's Advisory Board for Motorcycle Safety in Oregon convened to once again hear testimony about the MSF’s request to be certified to give DMV waivers. The only topic on the agenda was a conclusion of the curriculum portion and explanations from MSF on the operations portion. There were a good number of people in the auditorium including ABATE members, Gypsy Jokers, Team Oregon instructors, BikePAC, representatives from other state’s motorcycle training programs and MRF President Karen Bolin. There were four people from MSF present. Two were not identified.

The first speaker was Raymond Ochs representing the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. He talked about the history of the MSF Beginning Rider Course. He claimed that the MSF developed the BRC because the State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) organization failed to agree on things regarding a new curriculum. He talked for over an hour and fielded several questions. He talked about theories of education; he lectured the crowd on what a peer review was. He appeared to be a person very capable in his field, which is a doctorate in educational psychology. The one thing he was incapable of was answering a straight question.

It was clear to those of us in the audience that several committee members were frustrated by the several-minute long responses to questions that then never answered the question’s premise. For example, Dr. Ochs was asked how he could prove that the MSF curriculum measured up to Team Oregon. This started a 5-minute dissertation on how difficult it is to have measurables in rider training and how few studies were being done on that. He talked about how almost everyone in the country thinks the BRC is the best program and how much time they spent updating the BRC with the newest and most academically embraced theories of how learning works. From my perspective his answer to how he could prove the MSF program is effective was, in effect, “It just is. Everyone who understands rider training thinks so.”

During the sections on curriculum Mr. Ochs stressed several times how flexible the MSF program was and how it could be modified by instructors to fit different needs.

At this time several questions came up that were more towards the Operations side so Chair James Stewart suggested a break so a PowerPoint could be set up. Dr Ochs asked if the Curriculum part was finished and if it was he wanted to hear the committee’s decision. The chair stated that the MSF proposal was being considered as a whole and that operations and curriculum could not be separated for consideration. My perception is that Mr. Ochs wanted to be able to “close the book” on the curriculum side because then it would not be subject to further negotiation.

After the break Sheryl Williams was introduced. She gave her background as an Education person and mentioned that she started riding just under a couple of years ago after coming to work for the MSF. She has a title of quality assurance manager for the MSF. She outlined the MSF proposed operations side and how they would build a complete organization starting with a state coordinator. Her presentation emphasized that the MSF did not permit flexibility in Operations and that customizing would not be allowed. Throughout the course of the evening I never did hear how they rectified this statement with Dr. Ochs claim that the program was highly customizable.

She said that there were “numerous requests” from Oregon to have the MSF program brought in. Dr. Williams also talked about the superior national model of the BRC and made a statement about how “she just didn’t understand why some in Oregon wouldn’t want all the benefits associated with an MSF completion card.” The certification process was outlined and the MSF stated that they would follow the Oregon method of apprenticing and mentoring new instructors. It would take over two years to become a rider coach trainer if the MSF followed the proposal as written. It was also mentioned that the MSF would bend its motorcycle size requirements to limit training bike sizes to 250cc.

Ms. Williams was asked several times who would be a sponsor if they came into Oregon. She refused to answer that question.

The committee began asking questions about the MSF proposal. Two committee members at different time asked why Oregon should approve the MSF request when we already had one of the finest training programs in the country. The first time this was asked Ray Ochs replied, “Who says your program is the best? That is just opinion and most groups around the country don’t agree with that.” The second time the question was asked the NHTSA report on Team Oregon practices was mentioned. Sherry Williams responded to that implying that the study in question wasn’t a “real study done by accepted principles.” She also claimed that the source of data was self-reporting. At that time a GAB member pointed out that self-reporting doesn’t necessarily invalidate a study. He pointed out the entire MSF analysis of their program they are asking Oregon to consider credible was self-reported.

After this the Chair stated that he had difficulty with the MSF and their request. This is because the first contact that MSF had with Oregon after the new Team Oregon course was developed was a threat by MSF to sue Oregon. Dr. Ochs responded that that had to do with “intellectual property issues and he was not going to discuss that.”

After more questions it became obvious that the MSF reps just expected Oregon to find them credible without offering any empirical data to back up their assertations of superiority. GAB member June Clark finally told them that she was tired of hearing them say how great their program was. She hoped they thought it was great, but she wanted facts.

Dr Williams was asked why if the MSF was the best and only answer to rider training why there were so many stories coming out about MSF heavy-handedness and inappropriate practices. Her reply was that “Some people don’t like change and they choose to make personal attacks. The stuff you hear is just hateful personal attacks.”

The floor was opened up to comments from the general public. The chair asked for comments to be limited to three minutes. Several trainers that were familiar with both Team Oregon and the MSF’s BRC testified. They all said that they just didn’t feel that the BRC was as good a learning program for beginners as the Team Oregon program. Comments were heard from a Rider’s Edge coordinator who wanted the MSF in Oregon and claimed that it takes months for people under 21 to get in to Team Oregon classes. Several people went over three minutes in their testimony. Interestingly enough I saw Oregon MSF Attorney/lobbyist Betsy Earls timing speakers with a stopwatch. I don’t know why she would be doing that other than creating evidence of bias for a possible court case.

I also spoke and asked some questions which will probably not get answered. I asked how MSF could come in to Oregon and propose an alternative training program after having their agents state in Colorado that competing programs is a bad thing. My question was “Which state are you completely wrong in?”

MSF needs to decide which it is because they are saying two different things in the two states.

My other question is why is this effort being made in Oregon by MSF? Between flying up four MSF suits from Irvine, Ca, hiring an attorney/lobbyist in Oregon, the extensive number of work-hours that must have been involved in putting together the effort in Oregon, what do they get out of this? The resources they have spent could have surely paid for several training bikes or even a facility somewhere. What is their end game? Are they expending this unusual effort for altruistic reasons as they claim? Or are they here because of ego?

Teresa Hepker also spoke to that topic and she postulated that it is the desire of the MSF to remain a monopoly and like all monopolies they are lashing out at any perceived competition.

All in all about nine people testified. All but one urged denial of the proposal.

Troy Costales from ODOT finished up the meeting by asking some questions as well. One was: “Since there have been fatalities that occur during MSF training classes does that put Oregon at risk for liability if MSF is allowed to train?” He also noted that allowing private businesses such as a Motorcycle dealership to issue these DMV waivers could run afoul of Oregon’s conflict-of-interest laws.

Conclusion.

I found the presentation quality of the MSF to be amateurish and vague. The only things that were clear from their presentation is they think they have the best program and they want to issue DMV skills test waivers in Oregon. I know that I, like many others in the audience, did not appreciate being lectured to as if we couldn’t possibly be bright enough to understand how education processes work. I found several statements lacked credibility and many times the two principle speakers from MSF contradicted each other. The flexibility / no flexibility part was the most blatant but there were several others. MSF claimed the highest standards for training, but that was contradicted by far more believable testimony by instructors.

Even Dr. Willams contradicted herself on the highest quality standards part. She told us during her introduction she had taken her first course as a student two years ago. She stated in MSF’s Oregon proposal that you must be a trainer for over two years to be a Rider coach trainer. She also identified herself as a Rider Coach trainer later in the program. Even if the two-year requirement wasn’t needed I find it unlikely she has personally completed 8 BRC classes as is required under the MSF guidelines. So apparently people can be named to these important positions without following procedures if MSF deems it expedient.

I am hopeful that the GAB will recommend rejection of this proposal. I think that based on the merits of what Oregon has been presented, the MSF program does not measure up.

There will be another meeting of the GAB to discuss this on August 18th.

Ken Ray
_________________
Penny Adams
Virginia Freedom Riders - Legislative Officer

"Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians."
Chester Bowles (1901 - 1986)