Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#11

Post by 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.

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#12

Post by mantas »

icc97 wrote: post #8
tomcooks wrote: post #5

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…

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.

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.

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#14

Post by vertex-four »

mantas wrote: post #12
icc97 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Some modern motorcycles are not simple in the slightest, unfortunately - we’re at the point where you can’t maintain some higher-end bikes entirely yourself. Some people appear to like the technology.

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#15

Post by icc97 »

mantas wrote: post #12
icc97 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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).

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#16

Post by hprotagonist »

icc97 wrote: post #9
hprotagonist wrote: post #4

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 g…

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...

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.

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#17

Post by Shivetya »

tomcooks wrote: post #5

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…

Well the story confirms what was posted elsewhere, that this one done to accelerate testing of safety systems for all motorcycles. plus I can imagine the benefit of testing any changes to a motorcycle including more radical geometry changes.

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

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#18

Post by goobynight »

tomcooks wrote: post #5

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…

I'll address the lower class question. While I love using trains, buses, my 100+ mpg motorcycle, and other cheap forms of transportation, let's not pretend that trains and buses are a perfect replacement.

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!

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#19

Post by icc97 »

hprotagonist wrote: post #16
icc97 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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 t…

> 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.

Re: BMW made a self-driving motorcycle

#20

Post by toddh »

tomcooks wrote: post #5

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…

I wouldn't, but I would buy a motorcycle that could detect a low siding event and take evasive action, like a better ABS.

Oh, another scenario is taking pictures. It would be nice to be able to take pictures while driving.

Post reply on HN