AAA says maybe not.

https://www.hdforums.com/articles/dr...e-roads-safer/

 

I've always said that these stupid nanny devices are more about marketing than safety. Instead of exacerbating the problem of handing out licenses to inattentive and careless drivers, I wish we would follow the European example of actually requiring people to demonstrate skills and responsibility before allowing them behind a wheel.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I didn't read the article but I think that the safer something is made the more accidents will happen because people will be less cautious. It's not an opinion, it's just plain fact.

Case in point, someone posted a question on here about ABS brakes, I don't remember the title, and people were saying that they thought the computer ABS system controlled the bike's stopping better than proper education and they didn't have to be properly educated on how to apply the brakes with ABS.

Once a safety measure is added, people automatically become less careful.

 

IMO the picture is Total Bull ****... it shows each lane 250 ft wide....

ours lanes here in INdiana at most is,, maybe at most 20 ft.... that's why IMO Splitting lanes would be a DEATH sentence for anyone who tries ti...

 

Like the wreck that I worked where a college aged female slammed into the car in front of her at a red light in the middle of town. For some reason, she was using the cruise control in busy traffic and thought that the laser assist that moderates your speed in traffic, would bring her to a complete stop at a light.

 

Wish it weren't the case, but from what I have seen I completely agree with this...

 

I think if a car was designed to give you a 50/50 chance of survival purely based on driving skills and awareness you'd see fatalities decrease. Yeah, yeah I know the inherent problem with that statement, but you get the idea.

 

What does this have to do with lane splitting? And just about every rider from California or the rest of the world would disagree.

On topic, I agree that people are relying on these computer systems far too much. Eventually the technology will have developed to the point that driving aids are effective, but that'll create drivers who don't know what to do without them. The computer will fail at times, either through not being effective enough or just plain shutting off, and drivers who've used them since they were 16 won't know how to compensate.

My other fear is a computer that doesn't just relay information to you, but actually controls the car for you. We're already seeing it with systems that'll correct the steering to keep the car from drifting outside its lane - and Google's autonomous car. I don't want some program second-guessing my maneuvers, especially if there's an emergency and I need to react immediately to what's going on ahead of me or near me.

On the other hand, I do like ABS. People should get at least a few thousand miles behind the wheel with standard brakes so they know what to do if the computer fails, but learning to brake more effectively with standard brakes than with ABS is difficult. Threshold braking is a fantastic skill to have, and will stop a vehicle faster than one equipped with ABS would be able to, but mastering it requires a lot of time controlling the vehicle and consistent road conditions. That's feasible on a track, but on a public road, I could see threshold braking leading to a low-side if the tires unexpectedly transition from dry asphalt to a bit of loose sediment, a patch of oil, even a painted line.

 

I have blind spot monitoring on my CX-9. It works great and I love it. As they say in the article - it's an "aid". To rely on it would be foolish. However, I have had it beep at me when considering a lane change and a car was in my blind spot. I can't comment on how it will be with motorcycles. I can say that it detects people walking well off to the side of me when I'm backing out of a parking space.