MA Moto Trials Australia proposal

[bikerpete]

I just came upon this Motorcycle Trials Australia proposal put forward by Peter Goddard at MA. Seems to me completely sensible and of great benefit to all.
https://trials.au/posts/uniting-trials-in-australia-a-transformative-proposal-18407

Does anyone have any insight into why MV & MNSW aren't supporting it?
At first sight it seems completely bloody minded not to support it & my immediate thought is someone wants to keep their current Empire and power intact, but sometimes there is reason behind madness.

[bikerpete]

I figured going to the source would probably be best, so I've sent the following letter to MV.
MV CEO Robert Mestrom responded, "I have forwarded to the MV board for consideration"

I'll update when I hear back.

I have read the proposal from MA regarding the formation of "Motorcycle Trials Australia" and consider it a very sensible and refreshing approach, so I would like to understand why Motorcycling Victoria does not support this initiative. I am sure the decision has not been taken lightly, but I find it hard to fathom the possible reasons behind that decision.

My guess is that only a very small fraction of trials bike riders join MV, simply because MV offers absolutely no value to them because they don't compete.
I compete occasionally, but it is definitely not a driving motivation for me. Last year I rode around 300 hours on my trials bike and only about 20-25 of them would have been at competition. Not by choice, most of my hours would have been on land that is not intended for riding, uninsured and alone. If there was an opportunity to ride with others at a more appropriate venue I would jump at it, but currently that is virtually impossible because there is simply no avenue for a small trials oriented club (I am in rural Vic) to gain affiliation and insurance that suits this activity.

In the past I have been a member at Oakleigh MCC, but given that is a 4 hour drive from me the social riding is effectively inaccessible. Currently I am a member of TCV purely so I can go to the occasional event - TCV membership is cheaper than Oakleigh, decision made.
The few times I manage to get together with other trials riders (around 120km from me) it is informally on private property with no insurance for rider or landholder or formal management. This is far from ideal.

The 2019 MV Strategic Plan contains several Initiatives that are being completely missed in the Trials space:
Member Value : Support clubs to host additional riding opportunities.
I've no idea how this is being met currently. I believe Oakleigh has been forced to source third party insurance to enable their social riding program, so evidently MV is sorely missing in action in that space. TCV run one or two RPA days that attract a few riders, but it's a drop in the ocean. Apart from that I've no clue how MV is supporting clubs to host additional trials riding opportunities.
Market Development : Recreational riding programs
I've no idea what programs MV have supported for trials? I think none. The MA proposal would open a pathway for considerably more activity in this space.
Women's programs / Develop a plan to attract and retain women in motorcycling
These two Key Initiatives potentially align strongly with trials, yet I see little or no support or effective targeting. Typically women tend to be less risk takers than men, so trials would appear to be one of the most fundamentally attractive motorcycling activities for women. There is evidence that women tend to value inter-personal relationships in the activities they undertake more highly than men - trials is inherently social - even in the midst of a competition much of the time is spent walking sections and talking to your peers, or talking with other riders while waiting for riders to clear the section. I find it hard to understand why any proposal that supports social trials activity would not be seen as a highly valuable opportunity to engage with women in motorcycling.

I'm sure you would have the statistics available to you, but I strongly suspect trials is the discipline with by far the greatest retention of older riders in competition. I would be a case in point - nearly 61 and still competing in Open Trial 3. Surely retention of active participants should be a goal of MV, and trials is quite evidently amongst the lowest risk motorcycle sports ("Twenty years of data confirms that Trial sits at the lower end of MAIL’s risk spectrum." MTA - Motorcycle Trial Aust – Club Follow-up Proposal – 28th May 2023), which makes it far more attractive to ageing participants.

I find it quite puzzling why MV, as a member of MA, would go against a proposal that so obviously would support the development of motorcycle trials activities, and indeed motorcycle activities in general as a pathway sport.

Could you please outline to me the reasons for your reluctance to support the MA proposal.

[Bully fanatic]

The main reason is that proposal didn`t come from MA. It came from someone in MA with a few others. The MQLD Trials Subcommittee recommended that MQ just ignore it and MQ agreed.

[bikerpete]

The main reason is that proposal didn`t come from MA. It came from someone in MA with a few others. The MQLD Trials Subcommittee recommended that MQ just ignore it and MQ agreed.

Reading the PDF and the original post there are several places that explicitly indicate it is a formal MA proposal:

• This new proposal from Motorcycling Australia
• To summarise MA's proposal
• Over the last 6 months MA & MAIL have been seeking the endorsement of SCB’s to proceed with the
  formation of a new National Trial entity
• In Summary, MA proposed to SCB’s:
• MA has now formed the new single entity with a working title ‘Motorcycle Trial Australia’ (MTA).

It's very hard not to read all that as indicating it's an official MA proposal!

There is also the reference to discussions with MA insurer MAIL, surely these would not have progressed without official endorsement by MA?

Why did the MQTS recommend MQ ignore it? It seems to be a possible solution to some significant problems, so even if they believed it didn't come from MA officially, why not support it?

So far the most believable reason I've heard for the State's not to support it is that they think it could be the "thin end of the wedge" whereby MA gradually take over direct management of disciplines, making SCB's irrelevant. I think that's pretty foolish thinking - it would be trivial to firewall trials based simply on participant numbers. If a discipline has less than X registered participants then MA can (but doesn't have to) provide direct management, once it goes over that number it has to revert back to SCB's. That should have the effect of letting SCB's concentrate on their key activities while allowing small sports to work cohesively to more easily to grow themselves if they want to, or at least to gain the appropriate insurance if nothing else.

[bikerpete]

An update on what's happening in Victoria.

MV have advised that this currently sits with the MV board who will make their decision when they have considered all aspects of the proposal.

So now is the time if any clubs or individuals have an opinion on their support or otherwise for this proposal to write to MV and have your say.
With issues like this a board can only make a decision based on what they have in front of them. If they see potential difficulties for the organisation and are not hearing any voices supporting it then they couldn't be blamed for deciding to stay with the current "known" arrangements.
It's only by letting the decision makers know what you want that you'll get it.

A simple email to [email protected], directed to the Board, saying that you are a member of MV (include your member no.), a member of such and such club and that you strongly support the MA Motorcycle Trials Australia proposal would be enough.
Or an email saying you don't support it if that's the case.

If you want to add reasons for your support, so much the better.

I hope that all the trials clubs have also written to MV.
Talking person-to-person to individuals is one thing, but good governance should certainly consider something in writing addressed directly to the Board in the deliberations.

[bikerpete]

I guess either no-one cares or everyone is on Facebook or somewhere else, not here.
Never mind, I'll talk to myself - as usual.

I can only assume from the silence that everyone is perfectly happy with the current support for trials coming from our State and National bodies, and that everyone is also perfectly happy with the available insurance.

Seems odd to me when a large club like Oakleigh has to run an affiliation with MV for comps and a separate insurance for social riding at the clubgrounds. And I guess other clubs riding on 3rd party properties either operate under RPA permits or also hold a separate insurance, or only ever run comps.
That seems nuts to me. Sports rely on grass roots participation to survive and thrive. Grass roots trials most often looks more like social riding than comps, so why aren't people jumping up and down for better support for social riding? I don't get it.

The MTA proposal seemed like a decent way forward to me, but I guess if this thread is anything to go by it's dead in the water due to lack of interest.

That leaves me wondering what it is that the trials community would like to change within the umbrella organisation's offerings. Maybe nothing?
I see two areas that don't seem to work from my observations:
[list=]
[*]Insurance for social riding at dedicated club grounds
[*]Insurance for social riding on 3rd party landowner properties
[/list]

There really isn't anything available through States/MA for the first, and for the second RPA permits are OK for the odd ride day, but they must be a pain in the arse and relatively costly for any club wanting to run frequent regular weekends.

Around my way the only somewhat organised trials riding is small groups riding on private property with no insurance except what the landowner carries for themselves. This necessarily means that it's pretty much private invitation only and limited to very small numbers, depending on the property. That's a sure fire way to guarantee the sport declines or stagnates!
I don't really have a problem with that, I'll enjoy it while I'm able and after that I'll be dead - not my problem, it's just a game. It's not like it's going to make a major difference to world peace or global warming (well actually if there were no ICE trials bikes it would make a small positive difference to climate change).

Imagine how many football players we would have if you could only practice on private property by private invite only. Or each club had to source it's own independent insurance for it's self-funded clubgrounds. Every weekend clubs would apply to Football Australia for an individual permit to be able to run a competition? Now there's a great plan that I as a non-footballer would fully support!

Seems we are reaping what we have sown, with generally ever declining numbers at events in most areas I hear of.

So is what we've got what we want?

[cota]

Hi bikerpete,
I too have wondered if there Is any progress in the MTA proposal, as there seemed a potential opportunity for MA to recognise that Trial does not fit easily into the other "speedracer" common disciplines and all that comes with that, from requirements in MA Ridernet to have a racing number or that Ridernet software app does not accept a SNR licence as being apprpropriate for competing in Trial comps (despite the MOMS) and more. If MTA dId progress then maybe there might be a willing ear that might listen to the discipline and have a better Australia wide collaboration. Fingers crossed.
However, some of what you describe as not achievable or can't happen is not the case in WA. Our Club has a club venue, we have affiliation with MWA, we have practice permits for practice at the Trial Park (with appropriate supervision requirements) and can also take out comp permits for events at the Trial Park and other 3rd party properties. Things work well in WA through MWA our State Controlling Body (SCB). Over the last 11 months we have had 800 individual practice rides at the Trial Park (yes, lots of the same people) from a club with 173 riding members (age 4-76) (OK, some join and then we may not see them too often). So while things may and or are different in other states, it does not mean that things cannot work. Our Club was asked by Oakleigh as to how things worked for us and I provided what I hope was helpful information. But yes, it then has to fit within the domain of the states controlling bodies eg. MV etc. and MA.
From a parochial WA state perspective we would not want states east of our border to muck up what works for us. Perhaps "learn from the West and not control from the East" could be a working model.
Please understand that these are my personal comments and not necessarily representing those of our Club or of MWA. Our Club dId register our support through to MTA.

[bikerpete]

Hi Cota,

Just a comment, without re-reading it all I don't think I've suggested anything "can't happen", just that some things don't. I'm a very firm believer that rules are quite arbitrary and therefore can be changed. Yes, there are some rules that are pretty hard to change and that most people don't want to change - the fairly universal rule against murder for instance. But stuff like who pays what to ride where under what conditions is absolutely pliable! That's the whole reason I started this thread, to see if there was an appetite to help drive some change.

I have no interest in or knowledge of the personal politics of the motorcycle governing bodies, but it's abundantly obvious that it's a significant factor in what happens around the country.

One of the catalysts for getting back onto this topic was finally getting a cooperative response from MV on some long outstanding questions I asked about MTA.
It seems MV have a new acting(?) manager, certainly a new Sports Manager (Martin Orchard) who is managing while the substantive manager is on leave. He rides trials and seems vastly (immensely) more responsive to member concerns, and refreshingly frank about what he will/can/wont/can't do.
He has suggested I (or anyone else I expect) get back to him with what's needed in terms of insurance agreements so he can take it up with MAIL. A comprehensive proposal would be far better than fragmented bits and pieces.
Hearing that WA has a functional practice policy in place with MWA is interesting as it strongly suggests MAIL (Motorcycling Australia Insurance Limited) already has a policy for that kind of activity. I'll have to do a bit of research why that policy was not available or suitable for Oakleigh. From an idle observer's perspective Oakleigh and the WA club grounds look very similar and sound as if they operate similarly.

Perhaps the piece that's missing is having a policy that allows for social/practice riding on 3rd party properties?
For instance in my region there is a possibility of building a clubgrounds at an existing MC club, but there are untold acres of excellent granite country surrounding that club. It will be years before a built clubgrounds is anywhere near the level of variety of the natural terrain nearby, so it would be a huge benefit to be able to run regular, frequent practice sessions at various private properties. We already have a few landowners who are willing to have people ride on their properties, but that remains very restricted to people in their personal network. To get club-level access to those properties for practice will undoubtedly need an insurance policy in place for the financial safety of all.

RPA practice days are an option, but I'm not convinced that a $15 minimum daily fee for every ride is a great way to encourage people to join a club and come and ride together. It's also setup for a somewhat different goal - getting people involved in the first place. You don't need to be a club member to come to an RPA and that of itself could put some landholders off if they'd prefer to know that everyone on their property has some sort of connection to each other and hopefully to the long-term viability of access to the property. It only takes one person who doesn't give a s**t about the long term to wreck it for all and sundry.
It's far more palatable to most people to just pay a lump sum to the club, then come and ride when when they want to. Perhaps a larger club could average the cost across it's members and just pay some or all of the daily fee out of club fees - a few riders ride frequently, many ride very infrequently so the average cost would be relatively low. I'm not sure that would work out well over the long term either, inevitably there will be years where the club makes a loss which could become a problem.
Just to reiterate, this is to do with club practice on third party properties, not club grounds.

Comp permits aren't really a problem according to the people I've spoken to who deal with these things (I humbly admit to being a consumer of events, not much of a contributor. But if we can get a local club up & running that might change).

Cota what you've said reinforces to me that the MTA proposal would be a good step forward for Trials. However if that's fallen off the rails as it appears to have, then simply openly sharing what is happening in each area and club should help everyone pick out the best bits and press for access to them in their own region.