Self-driving systems are great for alertness/response time, where as humans are better at vision. So having the self-driving systems take over if the human misses something / becomes unwell is the perfect kind of human augmentation.
This is opposed to the Autopilot style, where the car uses it's poorer vision and the human uses their poorer alertness skills to take over if needed.
The most avoidable accidents are not operator dependent:
- the “one party is going straight and the other is turning left at a four way” accident which is so common it has its own acronym: SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn’t See Ya)
- right hook at an intersection
That said, if BMW can do things like stabilizing the lean-in when you go into a turn hotter than planned and fail to commit, that might be nice. The solution is “push harder into the turn”, but it’s easy to be scared of this and thus go wide instead.
> the “one party is going straight and the other is turning left at a four way” accident
A self-driving motorcycle would solve that problem, because where as a motorcyclists vision is significantly impaired from the helmet, detection systems on the bike can be looking in all directions
[0]: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-we-say-ca...
>, because where as a motorcyclists vision is significantly impaired from the helmet...
This is incorrect. My vision on the bike is not impaired by my helmet. My field of view in a car is more restricted -- and critically in SMIDSY situations, the peripheral field is obstructed by the pillars holding the roof up. SMIDSYs happen when the car fails to give way to the bike; usually this is due to the fact that bikes are small visual targets or unexpected ones. We may mitigate these problems by raising the visual salience of the bike, but we solve them by designing intersections such that they can't happen.
I understand self-driving cars, some people really enjoy the idea of doing things in a moving pod (trains and buses are too lower class for them?), but a BMW motorcycle is something you buy because you like the idea of piloting an engine while being exposed to air and the elements, battling physics and -unless you bought a BMW because you want to show off- owning a vehicle that can be very reliable on extremely rough terrain.
Both have a defined start and end time, and place that they pick up and drop off. Additionally both don't have the best coverage, especially outside of large cities, and then not all of them either. Also Trains can be more expensive than driving.
Completely agree with you about the reasons to buy a motorbike. I'm not convinced that people would pay for this. I would certainly be concerned if I was on a bike that started to do stuff without me. Riding a motorbike is more interactive than driving a car.
I could see them displaying more info for a rider, maybe some sort of HUD in the helmet. Like, a red light to a side that a vehicle is on as a warning not to overtake. Though I'm not convinced this would be better than just being aware of your surroundings.
If they are even available in your area, they have set pickup points, don't leave when you want them to (could be a 30min wait), could involve transferring, could be overcrowded, don't allow music played through speakers (hopefully), and sometimes go out of service at night.
I only put up with this since, in the end, it is not that bad compared to the cost of owning a vehicle + having to drive and park it, given my current finances and goals. Once I achieve my goals? Private pod 9/10 times!
Oh, another scenario is taking pictures. It would be nice to be able to take pictures while driving.
Now if we go the idea of self driving why does it have to be a traditional motorcycle. How about a two wheel pod complete with stability wheels when stopped? Need a ride, hail a service using these and it can be done very cheaply. the self driving self service revolution need not be confined to four wheeled vehicles
