Part of the allure is the attention garnered by some of these foolish and risky behaviors. The examples you posted fall into the same category, and I'd go after any and all of them that are AMA members. Why? Simple. When the is telling the Feds, cities, etc. that "Our members are not the problem," they need to make sure that's true. It's clearly not when you have folks like the one flying in the video I posted above flaunting AMA rules and the FARs. I've never been a fan of punishing the innocent in my career. I've focused on "crushing the guilty." If the notoriety they get by posting these puts their AMA at risk, they'll stop posting. W/o the attention, less incentive do the act in the first place. This won't guarantee that it stops, but it will put a lid on the allure of it. To stop it, you need the second part of the "campaign."

The second problem is how to establish what you and Andy seem to have at your clubs, that is the courage for folks to intervene when anyone is doing something they should not. There's major work done on that subject in the safety world, and it's based on what is known as the DuPont Bradley Curve. When a culture reaches that stage, called "interdependent," it's when members of the group "take ownership for safety, and take responsibility for themselves and others. People do not accept low standards and risk-taking. They actively converse with others to understand their point of view. They believe true improvement can only be achieved as a group, and that zero injuries is an attainable goal."

http://www.dupont.com/products-and-s...ley-curve.html

One doesn't have to look far in these pages to see examples that AMA and many members (the culture) is in the reactive stage. Look at the DuPont definition of that state, and we see the exact famous phrase we've seen here many times, namely that "accidents happen."

I spent a year helping my client develop an interdependent safety culture among their employees. We did it by first establishing a single set of standards, and holding people to them. Not just when people were watching, but when they're not. And when someone was found not following them, we didn't just pursue that individual action, but also looked into everyone else that knew or should have known about the behavior and what they did (or didn't do) to stop it before the incident.

At your club, folks intervened. They reacted to what I've called a "weak signal" - namely a minor non-incident violation of rules - and called you on it. That did a couple things: it showed they noticed, they know, and made sure that you knew. Secondly, it made it less likely to happen again. The whole goal of an interdependent safety culture.

That's what I think AMA should do. Build an interdependent safety culture so that all clubs do what yours does.