BMF blows gaff on new 'National Motorcycling Council'

[The Spin Doctor]

I am a little surprised that this story hasn't appeared here yet as I ran it in my Elevenses webcast on Weds morning, but the BMF appear to have accidentally blown the gaff by prematurely revealing the creation of a new 'motorcycling council' intending to speak 'with one voice' on behalf of motorcycling.

Word of the formation of the National Motorcyclists Council - which appears to be ahead of the OFFICIAL news - was broken in a British Motorcyclists Federation news release on their website.

In reporting on the proceedings of BMF Regional Meetings in January 2021, the BMF published a webpage dated Monday 15 February which stated that Jim Freeman, the BMF chair explained how in response to the Coronavirus pandemic "a platform of like-minded bike organisations" was assembled "to speak with one voice".

I got to sent a link to the webpage late Tuesday night then ran the story on Elevenses on Wednesday morning.

He said that this platform - the Coalition of Motorcycle Organisations (CoMorg) - had come together to put out advice about riding bikes during the pandemic.

Mr Freeman explained how CoMorg had shown the need for a unified voice to talk to government:

"To civil servants in the Department of Transport (DfT), you are one of a number of organisations – they want to know ‘who do you represent and what are your issues’."

He continued:

"Due to the success of CoMorg, it has been decided that this will now evolve into the National Motorcyclists Council – NMC – working on a launch hopefully in February.

"We are financially committed to the NMC, along with the TRF, the ACU and IAM RoadSmart. The VMCC are likely to join. MAG are supporting on a non-financial basis via the Director of Campaigns and Political Engagement, Colin Brown.

"The NMC will be in cooperation and under the leadership of Craig Carey-Clinch. Craig worked for the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA) with his company, Rowan Associates, providing political engagement and also public relations.

Mr Freeman concluded: "We feel this is a strategically major development and a really ‘good’ outcome from 2020."
:
:
So that's the news... what about my opinion?

If you want my honest opinion, it's not a bad thing for the formation of a group isn't totally behind closed doors.

The first thing I'd say is to note the use of the word motorcyclists rather than motorcycle. It's subtle, but the implication is that it represents BIKERS rather than a mode of transport. It may seem an unimportant distinction but the question we should all be asking is:

"Who gets a voice on this new council?"

If it's ONLY the organisations who have signed up, then I'd say it's representing those organisations - and indirectly THEIR members - and thus their own interests and NOT motorcyclists as a body.

Only by taking on board the views of the ORDINARY RIDERS who are NOT interested in getting involved in groups like MAG and the BMF or who have no specialist interest like trail riding or vintage biking, will they be representing motorcyclists properly.

Why do I say this now before it's even had time to announce policy?

Because as a brand-new body, there's still time to influence it - we can see this with the success of 'Biker Down'.

Because it was created by a Fire Service with no prior 'world view' of what a rider safely intervention should be, Biker Down has been recognised as a truly innovative riders safety intervention. And without that wide-open viewpoint, it's unlikely my 'Science Of Being Seen' #SOBS presentation would ever have become an integral part of Biker Down.

Once established on their own terms, I know that shifting internal viewpoints and policy becomes almost impossible. I tried that with the MCIA on rider training issues twenty years ago and got nowhere.

And what are its chances of success?

Jim Freeman commented on the problems of speaking with a unified voice to government, but that's the nature of the beast. Motorcycling is composed of lots of groups with different interests and different agendas.

A 'unified' committee is therefore a mongrel, since it's composed of representatives of organisations who push and pull in different ways.

That's clear enough - he actually said:

"A long time ago, the BMF was that voice but, over the years, there has been a fragmentation of interest – the Vintage Motorcycle Club (VMCC), the Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF), the Auto Cycle Union (ACU) etc. . We are all aware of the classic choice of the BMF or the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) for political lobbying in the UK."

When related groups like this find common cause, it's not unusual for them to come together for a time... but then internal pressures often pull them apart again.

And what do I expect them to achieve?

If - as I suppose - rider safety and reductions in casualty numbers is going to be an important topic, then I say to the organisers "please please please push for input beyond the police, road safety bodies, RoSPA, and the IAM".

They've been dominating our thinking on rider safety since the 1970s and by and large we're still having precisely the same problems with riders crashing as we always were.

The motorcycle world has been inventing committees and panels* for years and it seems to me they ALL consist of the same people (or at least, the same interested bodies), saying the same things that everyone expects to hear, and since that's what they expected to hear, everyone's in agreement.

And nothing goes anywhere meaningful.

We have had 50 years of campaigns espousing better riding, and the same for campaigns aimed at driver awareness - and the places riders crash remains unchanged.

The same old ideas are simply recycled in new clothes - accidents happen because of 'bad' riding and driving, and we're told we could cure the problem if everyone was better-trained and better-behaved. The fact that most crashes happen to ordinary riders doing ordinary things is simply overlooked in pursuit of a simple narrative.

Science Of Being Seen is one example a chance to break this cycle - simply because it DOESN'T recycle the "look harder / ride brighter" exhortations, but uses real science to explain HOW and WHY drivers make errors and builds the potential for rider intervention on that understanding, not on a faulty belief that 'brighter is better' and that if it doesn't work... "why, then it's the driver's fault, not the rider's for failing to predict driver error".

SOBS seeks to create an understanding of how things go wrong, rather than a blame laden retrospective of "what should have happened".

My work on SOBS is a subset of the ideas in 'No Surprise? No Accident!'. If this council REALLY wants things to change - and not just be a talking shop - it's where I think they should look for fresh ideas on rider safety.

And they want a model of how the message can be brought to bikers, I'd suggest they take a look at Shiny Side Up from NZ - where they have recognised that there is a potential for INTERNATIONAL input - ideas that don't simply come from within the UK.

So my word is for god's sake get an independent voice or two on your committee.

But do I expect things to change? Nope. I'm a cynic. If you don't like government policy you can write to your MP. It might not get you anywhere, but at least you have a point of contact and you MAY find a sympathetic ear. With committees like this, getting heard is usually next-to-impossible. Maybe the answer is, as I suggested, an independent, non-aligned, member.

* Yesterday, I was reminded that there was previously - in the late 90s and early 2000s - a National MotorCYCLE Council - composed of many of the same groups. I can't find much mention online of what it actually achieved... which rather makes my point!

www.bmf.co.uk/news/show/proceedings-of- ... nuary-2021

Elevenses - https://youtu.be/U2CuLV2MQOI

Facebook post - https://business.facebook.com/SurvivalS ... 5193530036

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Stay well clear, it'll be a bunch of self serving twats inventing paid jobs for themselves whilst claiming to represent motorcyclists, there won't be any democratic elections for these jobs, they'll want your money but won't do anything for it.

[Horse]

'Paid jobs'? Where would that be funded from?

The best most involved are likely to get is their costs reimbursed.

[Horse]

And what a daft shortening of the name, sounds like 'co-morbidity'.

Co-Moto would have been better.

[Skub]

Wot the cheese sed.

[Bigjawa]

'Paid jobs'? Where would that be funded from?

The best most involved are likely to get is their costs reimbursed.

Someone will cough up somewhere.

The BMF are like the old guy in the pub who was a tough nut 50 years ago but now sits in the corner mumbling into his pint, just not relevant any more.

[Cousin Jack]

Wot the cheese sed.

Yeh. Been there, done that, tried to influence an amalgamation of existing interest groups (the NPA, the NRA, and the NSRA, together with a few others.

Herding cats is a doddle by comparison. If you thought the EU was intransigent and obstructive in negotiations, pah. They are amateurs compared with British interest groups run by enthusiasts.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

'Paid jobs'? Where would that be funded from?

The best most involved are likely to get is their costs reimbursed.

Bit of rant follows

TBH I don't care if they're paid or not because I won't be giving any money to them, what I object to is a bunch of people claiming to represent UK motorcyclists but not actually asking ALL UK motorcyclists whether they want to be represented, and that's everyone from someone who uses a moped occasionally to the die hard BMF/MAG member, these organisations only represent their members, which is fine, not every one who uses a motorcycle in the UK, the claim that they represent UK motorcyclists is bollocks, IME the people who run these organisations very much do it for themselves.

Just for info, I've been a member of the TRF, BMF and MAG, and I found all of them to be the same, keen to take your money, and not much else
With both the TRF and MAG the local people were good, but the national organisations appeared to be more interested in playing internal politics, with the BMF, you just got an occasional newsletter.

I've also been an ACU member so that I could race, and they were even worse, the ACU wouldn't exist if they didn't have a near monopoly on competition licenses.

And relax

[Cousin Jack]

'Paid jobs'? Where would that be funded from?

The best most involved are likely to get is their costs reimbursed.

You will never get rich from 'costs reimbursed' but it can make a major improvement to your lifestyle.

I once knew a member of the IOC, he only got his expenses paid but they were eye--watering, and involved 1st Class flights and top hotels all over the world. Most organizations are not in that league, but half a dozen expenses-paid trips to London (or wherever) every year is not to be sneezed at.

[Horse]

'Paid jobs'? Where would that be funded from?

The best most involved are likely to get is their costs reimbursed.

Bit of rant follows

TBH I don't care if they're paid or not because I won't be giving any money to them, what I object to is a bunch of people claiming to represent UK motorcyclists but not actually asking ALL UK motorcyclists whether they want to be represented, and that's everyone from someone who uses a moped occasionally to the die hard BMF/MAG member, these organisations only represent their members, which is fine, not every one who uses a motorcycle in the UK, the claim that they represent UK motorcyclists is bollocks, IME the people who run these organisations very much do it for themselves.

Just for info, I've been a member of the TRF, BMF and MAG, and I found all of them to be the same, keen to take your money, and not much else
With both the TRF and MAG the local people were good, but the national organisations appeared to be more interested in playing internal politics, with the BMF, you just got an occasional newsletter.

I've also been an ACU member so that I could race, and they were even worse, the ACU wouldn't exist if they didn't have a near monopoly on competition licenses.

And relax

FWIW my involvement changed. The word 'spectacularly' is not far from a fair description.

At one point I was an area rep for the BMF and also fairly 'senior' in running of the BMF training scheme.

And a MAG member too.

But, due to a number of things, the BMF and RTS no longer represented my views and requirements. One final nail was a BMF promo video which, when talking about providing rider training, showed a 'MOTAG' instructor (ie another scheme ) because "that was all we had".

It's a good point about representing 'all riders' - but if those other riders want different representation then they need to make their case somehow.

And, trust me, I didn't have first class flights for BMF activities!

[The Spin Doctor]

Bit of rant follows

TBH I don't care if they're paid or not because I won't be giving any money to them, what I object to is a bunch of people claiming to represent UK motorcyclists but not actually asking ALL UK motorcyclists whether they want to be represented, and that's everyone from someone who uses a moped occasionally to the die hard BMF/MAG member, these organisations only represent their members, which is fine, not every one who uses a motorcycle in the UK, the claim that they represent UK motorcyclists is bollocks, IME the people who run these organisations very much do it for themselves.

Seems we agree on that then

[The Spin Doctor]

It's a good point about representing 'all riders' - but if those other riders want different representation then they need to make their case somehow.

You also have to know that someone is setting themselves up to represent you.

That's why I object to this council being set up behind closed doors, then presented as a fait accompli.

I'm not a BMF member, but I suspect that there will be a few members of that organisation wondering just who authorised the leadership to promise money to the new NMC.

Given the 'divide and conquer' strategy so commonly played at all levels of government, there IS need for a united voice but not if it functions mainly in its own interest.

[Horse]

It's a good point about representing 'all riders' - but if those other riders want different representation then they need to make their case somehow.

You also have to know that someone is setting themselves up to represent you.

That's why I object to this council being set up behind closed doors, then presented as a fait accompli.

Isn't that a 'Catch 22' situation? You seem to be suggesting that there should have been massive consultation with absolutely everyone before it was agreed.

How on earth could that have worked, each organisation individually, by some form of concurrent process, without any co-ordination, decides a. this new group is needed; b. all others involved will, of course, agree, so c. we'll consult with all of the people we don't know about. Really?

[Horse]

I'm not a BMF member, but I suspect that there will be a few members of that organisation wondering just who authorised the leadership to promise money to the new NMC.

I'm sure there will, no-one will be happy with everything.

But it's also fair to suggest 'put up or shut up' - exactly as you did with NS.

Given the 'divide and conquer' strategy so commonly played at all levels of government, there IS need for a united voice but not if it functions mainly in its own interest.

I have no idea about the BMF's internal structure, people, etc. (Or any other of the organisations involved).

At the time I was heavily involved, the BMF was undergoing internal civil war. At that time, personalities and vindictiveness was rife.

[The Spin Doctor]

Isn't that a 'Catch 22' situation? You seem to be suggesting that there should have been massive consultation with absolutely everyone before it was agreed.

How on earth could that have worked, each organisation individually, by some form of concurrent process, without any co-ordination, decides a. this new group is needed; b. all others involved will, of course, agree, so c. we'll consult with all of the people we don't know about. Really?

It's not my problem to solve.

Think about the VD debacle... all behind closed doors, nothing discussed with the people who actually made the forum function, just a bald notice that we were all 'under new management'. And look how that went.

But here's one suggestion. You can be open that the council is being put together. And another - you can always post an open invitation for ideas... you'll get the usual bunch of loonies responding, but you'll also likely get some sensible suggestions that may or may not be within the council's remit. But putting it all together behind closed doors and then announcing "look what we've done for you all you lucky people" is NOT likely to sit well. Some of the responses here and on my FB page show that!

But it's also fair to suggest 'put up or shut up' - exactly as you did with NS.

??

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Do UK Motorcyclists actually need a "National Council", the last time the Government did something that affected my motorcycling was the Countryside and Rights Of Way act in 2000, when despite the TRF lobbying the government and what the government's own investigation said, the Labour party decided they'd do what the Ramblers Association wanted, which sort of sums up British politics, that who ever can shout the loudest gets what they want, any threats to motorcycling in the near future will be from the Environmental and Road Safety lobbies, and if you think that the UK Motoring Organisations stand any chance against those you're deluded, I know this is defeatist, but I'm not into fighting battles that there is zero chance of winning.

I think the UK Motorcycling Training Industry needs a voice and to be consulted on changes that effect their businesses, but I don't think that will happen, it hasn't happened in the 38 years I've been motorcycling and I can't see it happening in the next 38 years.

[Horse]

Isn't that a 'Catch 22' situation? You seem to be suggesting that there should have been massive consultation with absolutely everyone before it was agreed.

How on earth could that have worked, each organisation individually, by some form of concurrent process, without any co-ordination, decides a. this new group is needed; b. all others involved will, of course, agree, so c. we'll consult with all of the people we don't know about. Really?

It's not my problem to solve.

Try to think of one? You seem to want representation for people who haven't, so far, said they want to be represented. I can't see how that could really happen effectively.

the VD debacle... all behind closed doors, nothing discussed with the people who actually made the forum function, just a bald notice that we were all 'under new management'.

Slightly different? Perhaps users were naive about the influence they could have. Is anything different here? AFAIK Weeksy could sell up today if he wanted.

But here's one suggestion. You can be open that the council is being put together. And another - you can always post an open invitation for ideas... you'll get the usual bunch of loonies responding, but you'll also likely get some sensible suggestions that may or may not be within the council's remit. But putting it all together behind closed doors and then announcing "look what we've done for you all you lucky people" is NOT likely to sit well. Some of the responses here and on my FB page show that!

Two different things there. First is the actual Co-thing. For all I know, the discussions for this may have involved various tiers of reps if not members. I'm fairly sure sure that there was informal BMF - MAG liaison in the past, none of these organisations are likely to work totally in silos.

Second is opening it up for ideas. I don't know how much you know (I know less) about what they have planned, but I doubt they will have minuted 'invite and weed out loony suggestions'. Will you be making an official Survival Skills manifesto?

But it's also fair to suggest 'put up or shut up' - exactly as you did with NS.

??

You were unhappy with the situation. You didn't winge, you did something about it.


I have several self-invented or borrowed rules that I use.

There's a rule that says to be wary of fighting against those in charge until you know what will replace them.

[The Spin Doctor]

Try to think of one? You seem to want representation for people who haven't, so far, said they want to be represented. I can't see how that could really happen effectively.

At times, you're like someone trying to sell me a car... me saying "there are faults with this vehicle"... and your response is "that's as maybe and what are you going to do to fix it, did you expect me to sell you a car without faults"?

That's been your response to the smart motorway issue (you keep asking "what would you do that's better?") and the autonomous cars issue (where you keep asking me "how would you reduce accidents?").

If I can find an issue it's NOT MY JOB to come up with solutions... though I did suggest two ways of engaging.

I have several self-invented or borrowed rules that I use.

There's a rule that says to be wary of fighting against those in charge until you know what will replace them.

And mine would be "be EVEN MORE wary of any group who vote themselves into power".

[The Spin Doctor]

Do UK Motorcyclists actually need a "National Council", the last time the Government did something that affected my motorcycling was the Countryside and Rights Of Way act in 2000, when despite the TRF lobbying the government and what the government's own investigation said, the Labour party decided they'd do what the Ramblers Association wanted, which sort of sums up British politics, that who ever can shout the loudest gets what they want, any threats to motorcycling in the near future will be from the Environmental and Road Safety lobbies, and if you think that the UK Motoring Organisations stand any chance against those you're deluded, I know this is defeatist, but I'm not into fighting battles that there is zero chance of winning.

I think the UK Motorcycling Training Industry needs a voice and to be consulted on changes that effect their businesses, but I don't think that will happen, it hasn't happened in the 38 years I've been motorcycling and I can't see it happening in the next 38 years.

YOUR motorcycling?

What about everyone else?

I haven't got time to sit down and think about all the issues that have cropped up in the last twenty years but two HUGE issues were the way that the UK chose to implement the 2nd and 2rd European Driving Licence Directives. #2 added various manoeuvres to the current test that the DSA chose to perform in an offroad environment which led to the construction of the test supercentres that are often crazy distances from training schools (an issue which the DVSA have pretty much let slide due to a lack of coordinated opposition) and #3 mandated the staged access to motorcycles which has not only added significantly to the cost of getting a licence but also restricted the youngest riders to 125s, which means that having completed the totally inadequate CBT they continue riding on L plates, which has almost certainly resulted in a rise in bike casualties.

[Horse]

That's been your response to the smart motorway issue (you keep asking "what would you do that's better?") and the autonomous cars issue (where you keep asking me "how would you reduce accidents?").

Actually the question I ask is, specifically: how could they provide additional lane capacity to reduce congestion while retaining a hard shoulder?'.

Which do drivers want?

What they probably don't want most of the time is speed enforcement of circa 20mph* to get optimum flow during congestion to obtain optimum traffic density.

* pick a number, it's probably somewhere about there.

If I can find an issue it's NOT MY JOB to come up with solutions... though I did suggest two ways of engaging.

I read your comments that it was set up without any consultation. Chicken and egg. Have you info that they won't be consulting? Have you been proactive and offered help?

And mine would be "be EVEN MORE wary of any group who vote themselves into power".

AFAIK the BMF people* are mainly up for re-election every year Which means that they had already been voted in and could be voted out too.

An alternate view is 'more effective use of the power they have'. And suggesting that BMF Directors etc have 'power' is interesting in itself, when other people will happily complain that they don't ever achieve anything.

* there are AFAIK fewer employed staff than then. At that time, there were one or two on office admin, a researcher (now long retired), one person on government relations etc, and magazine editor and designer.


Incidentally, several coalition articles linked here. Look at their publication dates.

https://www.bmf.co.uk/news/campaigning/

https://www.bmf.co.uk/news/campaigning/ ... -19-crisis
14th May 2020
"The coalition of organisations is ... "

https://www.bmf.co.uk/news/campaigning/ ... ng-support
21st May 2020

https://www.bmf.co.uk/news/campaigning/ ... e-guidance
3rd June 2020

https://www.bmf.co.uk/news/campaigning/ ... anisations
10th June 2020

And, across on the MAG site?

https://www.mag-uk.org/coalition-of-mot ... g-support/
May 2020


Perhaps the real story is how they have kept this abuse of power secret for so long?