In the wake ofthis article from last week, it’s time to revisit some of the ideas that governments are enacting, to make sure we stay safe on our motorcycles… you never can be too careful, right?—Ed.

---

“Don’t buy a motorcycle—you’ll crash!”—thus many a prospective rider’s career has been ended or at least delayed by their mother, father or significant other.

And that negativity is not entirely wrong. Motorcycling is inherently risky, and any rider who says otherwise is a fool. Van Neistat calls it “the most dangerous activity that normal people do.” InThe Old Rider’s Almanac, Pat Hahn summed it up along these lines (I’m paraphrasing): When on a motorcycle, no matter the laws of the road, you must accept 100 percent responsibility for your own safety, and even if you do everything right and still crash,it’s still your fault, for getting on a motorcycle in the first place. That might sound like a big downer, but it was just a realistic appraisal of the hazards of the road, coming from a very experienced rider.

But, what if technology could reduce your chance of crashing to zero? You might scorn and laugh at that, but that’s exactly what some manufacturers are working towards—although there are some weaknesses with the plan, as we’ll see below.

The rise of technology

For decades, the quest for performance improvement was the main driver behind motorcycle design. Not that the manufacturers weren’t concerned about safety, but for most companies, going fast was the first priority. Speed sold bikes.

But then, something changed around the end of the 1990s. By the time the Hayabusa and ZX-14R showed up, the industry seemed to realize they had packed about as much power into a bike as people could realistically use, and I believe you could argue that motorcycle design didn’t take the same leaps and bounds through the 2000s that it had through the 1990s and 1980s. I think this was partly because the public was obsessed with choppers for the first half of the decade, and then the 2008 financial collapse sucked a lot of energy out of the second half of the decade.

But 2008 also brought the iPhone. Along with the general changes of the Information Age (near-omniscience, as long as you’re within cell tower range), the iPhone also brought a boom in accelerometer production. Those accelerometers were then used to create Inertial Measurement Units (IMU), and since the early 2010s, manufacturers have been using these gadgets to give us much-improved ABS and traction control systems, which can compensate for lean angles. These modern sensors can detected acceleration or deceleration along multiple axis, and use that information to limit engine speed or braking power. They’re far more advanced than the clunky soup-can sized ABS systems that BMW debuted on the K bike line back in the 1980s.

Already, some riders complain about these systems, and in some cases they have justification. A non-switchable rear-wheel ABS system can be annoying or even dangerous when you’re riding off-road. However, I could contend that for most road users, the only real negative they experience from these modern safety systems is the price tag—and that has come downa lot. IMU-powered tech that was only available on racebikes a decade ago is now available on entry-level machines like the KTM 390 series.

However, I believe the coming safety systems will be even more intrusive, and probably much more annoying to motorcyclists.

The loss of rider control

Bikes already come with sensors that analyze their trajectory and lean angle along with the proximity of other vehicles (through radar, cameras and other V2V tech). Some safety systems (adaptive cruise control, ABS, traction control) already manipulate your power output or brake strength based on the inputs of those sensors. Now, engineers are also working on “smart steering” that avoids crashes based on those sensors.

The detractors of first-generation ABS and later traction control believed they were better at braking and throttle control than the circuit board was. This sort of complaining went away as the systems became more refined and people became more accustomed to them, and as manufacturers installed systems that could be disabled, should the rider want to ride with no electronic aids (in some markets, this isn’t an option).

Whether or not you agree with those riders, the point is, they realized they had lost some level of control over their vehicle, and they didn’t like it. Now, if we look at the technology companies are working on, we see even greater electronic control will be enabled in the future.

For instance: BMW unveiled an AI motorcycle steering assistance system as far back as 2018, and revealed a self-balancing motorcycle concept in 2016. That means that A), they were working on it long before it was unveiled and B) they’ve had another several years to work on this tech since. The technology behind a self-steering motorcycle is almost certainly within the realm of reality.

It’s not just BMW.Yamaha has been working on similar systemsthrough roughly the same timespan (rememberMotobot?). This winter, Yamaha showed off its AMSAS technology, which controls a vehicle’s power delivery and steering input to prevent low-speed crashes (more on thathere). Honda is working on vehicle-to-vehicle tech that is supposed to completely eliminate crashes between Honda motorcycles and cars by 2050. Other companies have also been working on adapting similar vehicle-to-vehicle tech from cars to motorcycles.

What will the result be? At the very least, the SMIDSY (Sorry, Mate, I didn’t See You) scenario won’t be a problem at traffic lights, as long as you are riding or driving certain brands. A Civic will be “smart” enough not to cut off a CBR600, for instance. No doubt some of the manufacturers will collaborate on this tech—Suzuki, Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha, KTM and BMW at the very least.

Once you start chasing down this rabbit hole, you’ll see companies and governments exploring much more restrictive technology, though. Vehicles that are auto-regulated to keep to the speed limit are a very real possibility (already a realityin the world of e-bikes). Expect more news like this in the years to come.

The increase in government control

Most riders will not complain about manufacturers integrating improved stability control systems, or systems that prevent intersection T-bones. However, the increased capability for control also opens the doors for parties beside the rider and the manufacturer to manage vehicles and the roadways they’re on, based on traffic conditions or motorist behavior.

In the past decade, we’ve seen a massive rise in the capability of automated traffic enforcement. The actual roll-out of so-called “noise cameras” and similar devices has been slow. However, once this technology debuted about a decade back. governments have constantly been testing it. They can’t help themselves—no matter their position on the ideological spectrum, no political party can resist increased governmental powers forever. Bureaucracies and non-profit think tanks around the world are constantly looking at ways to use camera networks and mobile communication devices and infrastructure to keep tabs on traffic. Our leaders will enable them.

This information can be used to warn other road users about impending danger, in real-time. We see this especially in congested areas like the UK, where a lot of people are using a little bit of road. The Smart Motorway system (see morehere)适应巷可用性和使用标识tell drivers about upcoming breakdown sites. Advancement on this and similar tech is constantly ongoing in Europe and North America.

The information the government gathers can also be used to regulate drivers by observing their personal habits. In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, auto insurance is provided by SGI, a government-owned Crown corporation. About a decade ago, SGI tried to convince motorcyclists to take part in a “black box” program. Similar to the devices found on aircraft, these black box devices would record a motorcycle’s in-flight data. Your rate of acceleration and braking, your speed, your lean angle, and other data could be recorded and fed back to SGI. At the time that pilot project was announced, the minister responsible said it was “a truly innovative approach to addressing the issues that have been raised by motorcycle owners regarding their insurance rates and traffic safety. Usage-based insurance is the ultimate in rating fairness because it essentially lets the driver control their own insurance rate through their driving behaviour. Simply put, those who drive responsibly pay less and those who don’t pay more. This pilot is an exciting first step to seeing if this could be an effective approach here in Saskatchewan.”

In other words: Ride how SGI wants you to ride, or your rates go up, even with no tickets, crashes or other encounters with Johnny Law. While SGI wouldn’t actually control your bike’s speed, they could effectively slow you down by raising your insurance if they detected unwanted behavior.

That pilot project went nowhere, but in the 10 years since, you can bet the technology has gotten a lot smarter. In the future, do not be surprised if these devices are required by insurers in many jurisdictions, with your rates managed according to the black box data. Insurers don’t want to pay out due to a crash, and they will be happy to adopt technology that helps them achieve that goal, even if you don’t like it.

Our future as motorcyclists

This article only scratches the surface of control technologies being developed. As our identities become digitized and our vehicles become increasingly more complicated and tied intoThe Internet Of Things, the ability for manufacturers to program in control systems (traction control, ABS, and far beyond) has increased as well. Governments and private or public insurance bodies will use these control systems to lessen the risk of crashing—they’re already developing those systems. If they want to retain autonomy over riding decisions, riders have some tough battles ahead of them.

But maybe they’re OK with it? If motorcycling saw risk of crashing reduced to the same rates as cars, would more people ride? Would existing riders be more carefree and happy?

I don’t know, but I do know that most motorcyclists I’ve met, regardless of their political affiliation, want to make their own choices about speed and other risks. No matter how they live their life in other spheres, they want to embrace their motorcycle world on their own terms. Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, most motorcyclists want to ride their machine without being hassled by The Man.

With that in mind, I do think a reduction in risk would be welcome, but an increase in control most certainly won’t be. I don’t think it will kill motorcycling—helmet laws sure didn’t. But there’s a big difference between wearing a helmet, and having your bike say “Sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” as you approach a curve at extra-legal speed. It would be supreme irony if, after generations of potential riders were scared away by the danger of crashing, existing riders were turned off by boring, safer machines and roads.

So maybe, in a decade, we’ll see an even bigger boom in adventure riding, as the Kalahari Desert, the James Bay Road, the Dempster Highway and other isolated regions are the only places we can escape and live our two-wheeled life as we choose? Maybe dirt bikes and track day sportbikes will take over the performance machine market?

I think we’re already seeing some movement in those directions, but as always, time will tell.