Article from "RiDE" magazine, by editor Colin Overland.10 urgent questions about hi-tech road safety developments.RiDE reports from a European gathering of boffins and bikers.Google’s self-driving car is simply the highest-profile example of ITS, or intelligent transport systems. Cars, trucks and roads themselves are, increasingly, being fitted with gadgetry that makes possible a dizzying variety of developments aimed at improving road safety and traffic flow. Motorcycles have so far largely avoided ITS. But that’s changing right now. Companies that makes cars and bikes, such as BMW and Honda, are working on some very hi-tech safety kit for bikes. And we’re going to find that we’re sharing roads with cars that are taking more control, and more decisions, away from their drivers.We spent two days in Brussels at the European Motorcyclists’ Forum, where the technology and the issues it raises was discussed by a mix of scientists, engineers, psychologists, insurers and riders’ rights campaigners......here are 10 of the points that struck us as most exciting, most worrying, or both. 1. Could this technology really could save lives?Yes. In fact it is already, as the rather broad ITS umbrella covers anti-lock brakes as well as some of the more extreme technology, such as Google’s self-driving car.The piece of imminent technology that seems most benign, and most likely to save riders’ lives, is vehicle-to-vehicle communications. This has many uses, but the most relevant is the warning light on a car’s dashboard saying ‘motorcycle approaching’. It’s vividly demonstrated here. And let’s not pretend that drivers are the only risk – sometimes we need saving from ourselves. US researcher Shane McLaughlin, from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, is deep into a project that involves attaching cameras and sensors to hundreds of riders and recording every journey. His preliminary findings are sobering. They include the observation that few riders brake hard, as they are not used to dealing with emergencies. "Very few people are proficient in the 2.5 seconds before a crash,” he told the European Motorcyclists’ Forum in Brussels. He also noted that many riders left weeks – even months – between rides, so they were permanently rusty, and almost everyone who rides sometimes rides in less than full protective gear.In Europe, the number of motorcyclists is increasing, but the main growth area is commuters – non-enthusiasts not likely to take much trouble to develop their riding skills.2. Do electronic aids make drivers and riders lazy and inattentive?Maybe.Stephan Espie from the French national transport institute said: "With pilots, they've found that if functions are automated or semi-automated, they lose the skill and need re-straining."And the work on driving simulators by Natasha Merat from the Institute for Transport Studies at the University of Leeds has shown that as automation increases, drivers look around more, rather than focusing on the road ahead.There’s also the question of whether drivers would react properly when faced with a flashing light that’s meant to warn them of an approaching bike. What should they do? Brake? Swerve? Accelerate?But the bigger issue may be that most drivers are already lazy and inattentive, so anything that helps them avoid accidents could be a good thing.3. Won’t all these extra warnings just distract drivers and riders?Many riders hate the idea of intercoms and sat nav headsets, let alone the prospect of extra warnings. Drivers, on the other hand, are used to listening to music and sat nav instructions, and making hands-free phone calls. Some cars are already fitted with lane departure warning and blind sport information systems that send a vibration through the seat or steering wheel. How much more can they cope with? On the other hand, drivers with too little to do – for instance, in a big automatic on the motorway with cruise control activated – can easily find their mind wandering.4. Is this technology going to spread whether we like it or not?Up to a point, certainly. The more extreme stuff – driverless cars – will require new legislation, which is not currently on the table. But a lot of vehicle-to-vehicle communication is imminent.Honda boffin Erwin Segers said: "ITS will progressively appear in cars. Powered two wheeler safety will benefit from being included in this connected world." He added that motorcycyle manufacturers were already “working hard on ITS individually and collaboratively”.Alex Stedmon from the University of Coventry said: “Either we shout about what we want or we just have to accept what gets handed down from the automotive field. ITS seems popular with drivers, and the automotive industry will naturally think ‘let's sell it to riders too’. But let's think about what we need.”5. How will the transition happen?It’s a massive challenge that requires very careful management. For years to come, our roads will be used by a mix of cars and trucks fitted with all the available tech, and others fitted with none. The current average age of a car in Europe is 12 years. When you approach another vehicle, you’ll have no idea what technology it has. Then again, there’s currently no way of gauging the quality of a driver, until they do something stupid.Natasha Merat said: "When there's a driver at the wheel, you make eye contact with them, wave them ahead, nod. That won't happen with automated driving. How do you tell who's in control?"Frederic Jeorge, president of the conference organisers, the Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Assocations, stressed: "Remember, not everything on the road is a motor vehicle. There are bicycles, animals, kids. Unless you put a chip in everything, the driver has still got to look."6. Who pays for all this?For now, car buyers, and – less directly – everyone who has an insurance policy for a vehicle. Longer term, taxpayers will be funding road upgrades that incorporate some aspects of the technology.The irony is that the cost of the driver aids means the road users most at risk, and most likely to benefit if they had it – the young and inexperienced – will be least able to afford it.7. Could you fit all this technology on to a motorcycle?No. The vast majority of it is designed for cars and trucks. There are two main practical reasons why you wouldn’t want to fit most of it to a bike. One is the problem of transmitting information to the rider – relatively easy to flag up ‘diesel spill ahead’ in a car, with its speakers and extensive array of dials and screens, but a very different challenge on a bike. The other issue concerns the laws of physics: if an electronic system slams on a car’s brakes because it appears to be heading for a collision, that’s probably a good thing; if a bike’s brakes are applied without the rider being involved, it will probably crash.8. Will it change the nature of motorcycling?For some, certainly. As motorcyclists, we all value our independence and freedom, although we don’t all draw the line in the same place.As one speaker put it: “If we valued safety more than freedom we probably wouldn't be riding motorcycles at all.”And another: "When I'm commuting, I'm interested in having this technology protect me; at other times, I want to ride like there's a jail break. I want to be able to switch it all off and don't want to be a model citizen included in this big system."And the requirements of a professional rider such as a paramedic might be different from those of a year-round rider, and different again from someone who rides twice a year. But it’s in the nature of these systems that they need to be standardised, or at least compatible. A rider needs to be able to travel from Dublin to Istanbul – and beyond – on the same bike, with the same level of technological support throughout.9. Might it actually actually attract new riders?Most of the Brussels conference was focused on the problems that ITS will cause for motorcyclists, but there are reasons to be optimistic too. Some new riders – and their parents – may be convinced by the extra safety that the systems promise. And some may simply like the extra techy-ness involvolved.John Chatterton-Ross from the FIM said extra IT could be appealing to a new generation brought up on smartphones. They might like the idea of electric bikes too.Niccolo Baldanzini from the University of Florence has been looking at the responses so far given to the RIDERSCAN survey into attitudes to ITS. He said there seemed to be a widespread acceptance of warning systems and post-crash assistance, such as airbags, among less experienced riders. But there were big national differences – the French seemed happy with a broad range of safety technolgy, whereas the Brits were reluctant to accept anything beyond anti-lock brakes.Frederic Jeorge said: “If a technology is mature enough and it's a natural improvement, the consumer will want it. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to. There's such a thing as too much technology. It has to be the right thing in the right place."10. What about training?Speaker after speaker stressed that fancy new electronics mustn’t be seen as a replacement for proper riding and driver skills, and properly maintained roads.Sweden’s Jesper Christensen said: “We have a lot of basic issues that are still not solved after several decades - potholes, diesel spills, gravel on the road - which are killing riders. Should we solve these problems first? We are fooling ourselves if we think ITS can solve this. Maybe ITS can assist us, but we have to train the riders.”Eric Thollier from the French Motorcyclists’ Federation recalled how some early applications of ABS on bikes backfired, because riders started to leave braking much later. The same ‘risk compensation’ phenomenon – where people unconsciously adjust their behaviour in response to the perceived level of risk – could apply to all the proposed innovations, from auto-dipping headlights to adaptive cruise control. All the technology in the world is no use if drivers and riders aren’t paying attention and taking responsibility.
A few months ago, I heard a very intelligent transport academic from the USA on a late-night BBC Radio 5 Live programme discussing ITS (Intelligent Transport Systems). He was a fan of the concept, but was honest enough to outline a few negative details.
One example he gave concerned self-driving vehicles, in which you’d just punch your destination into a computer, then sit back and let the technology do the work.
So, he continued, you’re crossing a narrow bridge over a deep canyon. There’s only room for two vehicles to pass each other, and your trusty computer is letting you move at the maximum speed possible - which would be faster than you‘d do it manually, as you’ve got technology like radar-controlled early-warning braking systems on your side.
A vehicle is approaching in the opposite direction on this tight bridge. Unexpectedly, it suffers a burst tyre and starts slewing all over the road towards you. Given the speeds both parties are travelling at, fatalities are likely when the inevitable collision occurs…
Ah - but is it that inevitable? The computers in both vehicles start talking to each other (and, don’t forget, this is all happening in a split second). The subject under discussion is “Damage Limitation“.
The computers decide that the only way to avoid an accident is if one of the vehicles leaves the road - which means it would plummet into the canyon. They also know that you are the only person in your car, whereas the other vehicle is a coach full of schoolchildren. They weigh up the statistics…
And you have no control whatsoever over your car. So - through no fault of your own - you are dead.
That is an interesting albeit unlikely but plausible scenario. Whilst I admit to its plausibility I question the technological expertise of the speaker on one thing. With modern radial tyre technology blow-outs are a very rare occurrence indeed and with the modern anti puncture goo that is available a blow-out whilst plausible is not a realistic scenario to base the likelihood of the school bus and car situation described unless the vehicle is running under inflated tyres or has struck a kerb or foreign object and remember we are talking about computerised vehicles here so the " yeah but what if" argument is I think a little limited. Having said that If there is a technology around the corner that can save fellow bikers lives, bring it on, I for one will be a fervent supporter.
Handing out driving licences to idiots . Then trying to make up for their pitiful ineptitude with technology.
A higher standard of driving along with 5 year retests would make the roads safer . There would be less vehicles on the roads. More use of public transport.
interesting. i also find the blowout scenario very interesting. tyres still puncture, if they didn't there would be no market for the tyre goo mentioned. yes it may be a bit extreme but history is littered with unthinkable accidents. the titanic was after all unsinkable. airplanes after all don't just disappear. i agree with the opinion that if we were that concerned with our safety we wouldn't ride bikes in the first place. we have a lot of experience on the roads and we still get hit by idiots not looking where they are going and i am sure i am not the only one who would rather rely on my own instincts than a computer, especially one which could decide i was collateral damage and therefore expendable. dumbing down on a skill base is, in my opinion never a good idea. in the wider picture our entire civilisation was built on expanding our skill base, not restricting it.
MV AGUSTA,ALLREADY HAVE IT ON NEW MODELS AND WITH IN BUILT GPS THE BIKE KNOWS WHERE IT IS AND CAN ADJUST TO SUIT ROADS AND LOTS OF OTHER VARIANTS ON ENGINE ND HANDLING,went on test day on Saturday and it was incredible but frightening at the same time
![Hi-tech road safety. - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Hi-tech road safety. - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
