
BMW made a self-driving motorcycle - cristiantyping
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/12/17847508/bmw-motorrad-self-driving-motorcycle
======
icc97
The point of this motorcycle is to take over if it spots a potential crash
scenario. This kind of passive system is the perfect kind of system for cars
as well as motorcycles.

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.

~~~
konschubert
This is a very insightful comment.

------
hprotagonist
_BMW apparently wants to start by just helping to cut down on the most
avoidable accidents._

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.

~~~
icc97
Crash is a better term than accident [0].

> 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...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/why-we-say-car-accident-
and-why-we-need-to-stop/403144/)

~~~
hprotagonist
I agree that crash is the proper term, but i just forgot.

>, 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.

~~~
icc97
> My vision on the bike is not impaired by my helmet.

I've never worn a motorcycle helmet, but the visor seems so small that you'd
lose some of the peripheral vision.

I agree that it would often be the car at fault, but as a cyclist I wouldn't
care who was at fault I'd just want to avoid the crash. I'd only crash into
the car if my peripheral vision missed the car.

> we solve them by designing intersections such that they can't happen.

I agree, but I don't want to wait for governments to fix every single bad
junction that exists in the world.

~~~
opless
Having been a motorcyclist when I was younger and ostensibly more reckless
(not that motorcyclists are more reckless) I can tell you from experiance that
you have very little getting in your way visually. However in a car you have
two pillars holding your roof up to your immediate left and right, and door
frames and boot pillars over either shoulders.

As a motorcyclist you have way more situational awareness than other vehicles
on the road.

You also quickly learn that other road users are blissfully unaware of you and
you drive accordingly.

------
jamestimmins
I would have assumed most motorcycle accidents come from other drivers not
seeing the motorcycles. In which case it seems like a helmet with
multidirectional cameras and a warning system (eg alerts if you're in another
car's blind-spot, or if the car in front of you has stopped rapidly) would
have more impact than modifying the motorcycle.

------
tomcooks
Why buy a self-driving motorcycle?

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.

~~~
icc97
Near the end of the video they explain. It's not meant to be a fully
autonomous motorcycle. It's a passive system so that the motorcycle can take
over if it needs to.

~~~
mantas
It will make price so much bigger. And introduce a lot of unnecessary tech.
One of the beauties of motorcycle is that it's simple and relatively cheap.

~~~
icc97
They won't be able to sell the bikes if the price is that much higher.

The 'unnecessary' tech is designed to lower the very high death rate of
motorcyclists.

It will indeed make the bike more complex, but if you don't want the tech you
don't need to buy the bike, it will be purely for those who prefer the extra
safety (assuming that the safety is indeed improved by these changes).

------
cppqt_pingpong
And you will never see on the road. As a motorcycle rider, I will not be happy
to see surprise manuever !!

~~~
chronial
The article already states that it will never be on the road and already
mentions your concern as one of the challenges.

