Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

No more smidsy? Or nanny state?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by titus, May 24, 2011.

  1. http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/the-bmw-that-stops-for-bikes-20110524-1f1pf.html
    I honestly don't know what to think of this. I'm all for personal responsibility but a machine that stops you actually f$%^ing up someone else's life can't be all bad, can it?

    I'm perpared to be convinced either way...

    (FAIR WARNING: Codognotto quoted.)
  2. I'd rather take my chances in the traditional way than see yet more technological solutions to human problems move along the path to being mandated. We don't want technological "solutions" forced on us so to wish it upon others borders on the hypocritical.
  3. I'm not surprised BMW have come up with something like this. It's not very good if you go around killing potential buyers of one of your other products.
  4. ---------------
  5. Our society is addicted to "high-tech solutions". Due to our love of all things high-tech, there seems to be an assumption that it is the only answer to the problems that exist. We keep developing high-tech solutions to problems that probably have simple solutions.

    This is one example, instead of a better training (or even just informing drivers better) related to issues such as this, a company develops technology which takes responsibility away from the driver and allows them to rely on technology instead of basic driving skills.

    Another example, and one which I always recall when I read things like this, is the solution one of America's biggest meat processing companies came up with to kill E. Coli. They treat the meat with ammonia. Nice and high-tech stuff. Or you could just feed the cattle grass for a few days prior to slaughter, instead of grain. But that is hardly as cool as the high-tech solution is it?

    What the **** happened to personal responsiblity for our actions? Why are we obsessed with high-tech solutions that are aimed at patching over problems while ignoring the fundamental issues?

    (Sorry mate I didn't bother looking because computer said it was OK)

    Nah, doesn't work for me
  7. Its easier? And 'cooler'.
  8. I can immediately see a problem in a BMW owner switching to another car and just expecting it to stop him doing something dumb. Instead of learning personal responsibility.
    Then again, some people never learn personal responsibility anyway.
  9. Well there is the nub. This is the equivalent of fitting the bike with a transponder, like aeroplanes, and fitting the car with a TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system)... the bike transponder though broadcasts velocity and direction... hello Greed $cameras.
  10. I smell a rat.
  11. Agreed!
  12. Reverse sensors worry me in this regard, or even when they start failing.
  13. I wonder what BMW thinks about the idea of sharing their technology with governments? At face value, BMW riders might be safe from bad BMW drivers, but would they willingly hand over data to enforcement?
  14. Love it,
    You see a car moving out and you swing wide to avoid it, The sensor picks it up and hits the brakes for you,
    Your leaning over in gravel and the brakes come on, Hahahahahaha
    Pick your self up off the road,
    Where do they get these bright idea's from.
    It might be good in cars, But on a bike, ???????????????????
  15. Tech like this is potentially a good thing, if it complements good driving. Everyone -no exceptions- has moments when something slips their attention, or the manage not to see something. Fortunately, most of those don't end up hurting anyone. A device like this one would reduce those moments by giving the driver an extra 'sense', of sorts.

    So in a place like Germany, with a vigorous licensing process, it would be great. In a place like Aus, where road users are mostly underskilled (with the exception of bus and truck drivers?) and have a greater likelihood of relying on these things instead of using them properly, there is far more reason for concern.
  16. Unless I read it wrong, it's the car that has the control system fitted (?) I guess I assumed that if there was a device in the bike it was intended to trigger the brakes in the car.
  17. That is my understanding, too.
  18. Well said.
  19. I generally like to support anything that will reduce the chance of me being hit but like others here fear that this may lead to an over reliance on systems rather than attentiveness and skill and no system is fool proof.

    Volvo has a similar system for pedestrian safety that is clearly not flawless - worked 9 out of 12 times in demonstrations.

  20. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to modify the turn signals?
    Eg. have the traditional blinker for normal turns, then maybe an additional light with a different relay timing to signify the vehicle is doing a u-turn.

    This is like that car on TopGear that could park itself. It could also pretty much autopilot the car in emergency situations. Like changing lanes if it detected the car in front suddenly braking.

    Surely the smart people behind all this can put there skills towards developing other more useful technologies.