Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts

3 Oct 2014

But aren’t motorbikes dangerous?


Yawn... I've heard this question so many times it has become an utter bore.

It's true—a motorcyclist is more vulnerable than someone in the air conditioned, acoustically dampened safety cage of their car. But that vulnerability also results in greater alertness and awareness which comes from being directly exposed to the environment.

On a motorbike you are acutely aware of the sights, sounds, smells—and sometimes even tastes—around you, not to mention the uninsulated sensations of being sat almost directly on the frame and engine of the bike. This awareness enables greater anticipation of things to come and helps to build intuition—seeing and hearing with 360 uninhibited degrees of clarity. The small size and high performance of motorcycles means a greater chance of avoiding a crash.

There are roughly 35 million registered vehicles on the roads of our little islands—more than one vehicle for every two people of all ages. A few notable stats—40% of all vehicles are registered to women, just over 50% of all vehicles are diesel powered, and the average fuel consumption of all cars registered in 2012 was 49 mpg (41 mpg US). The UK is a country which appreciates motor vehicles, while at the same time—due to EU regulations or otherwise—is somewhat conscientious of the environment. The US and Canada have some catching up to do with an average consumption of 28 mpg (24 mpg US) in 2013...

Despite the numbers of vehicles and relative density of traffic, we have a somewhat enviable road safety record in the UK—only 1,713 people died in vehicles in 2013, 331 of whom were motorcyclists. On a level playing field this translates to 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population, or roughly 1/3 the fatality rate of the US (13.9 deaths per 100,000 population). Stats from the World Life Expectancy and GOV.uk websites.

The level of danger associated with riding motorbikes is of course linked to the overall level of safety in a given country—but how does it compare on a broader scale? This is where the stats begin to get more interesting—and where they begin to please my mum.

Selection of cause of death Number of deaths in 2013
Heart attack 92,299
Stroke 55,919
Flu 37,348
Lung cancer 35,845
Breast cancer 14,343
Pancreatic cancer 7,954
Diabetes 6,682
Suicide 4,660
Falls 4,450
Diarrhoea 3,081
All road traffic accidents (incl. pedetrians, cyclists etc) 3,073
Skin cancer 2,947
Poisoning 1,805
Drug use 1,247
Alcohol 862
Violence 703
Fires 380
Motorcycling 331

Not all crashes end in tears (Photo: BMW GS Trophy)

Suddenly motorcycling seems a whole lot safer when considering I am 113x more likely to die from something as innocuous as the winter flu—ok, not really. In reality, those dying from flu tend to be the frail/elderly or the very young. And in reality only 2% of the population rides a motorbike (and therefore would be susceptible to dying on one), whereas 100% of the population is potentially susceptible to the flu virus. Still the numbers compare favourable—2% of flu deaths equates to 747 people, or more than double the number of motorcycle deaths.

Nevertheless the stats give an overall sense of the dangers of everyday life—the dangers of riding a motorbike are far down the list. My mum can now sleep better at night.

However, stats are only the beginning—stats mean nothing when you make bad decisions, ride when overly tired, go too fast for the conditions, misread road surfaces and on and on. Riding a motorcycle is about focusing and being responsible for your own life—part of this is wearing appropriate gear (take it from me, I know). Doing away with other distractions. Viewing all other road users as potential killers. Focus and awareness are key to avoid becoming another statistic.

Thoughts? Comments? Let me know below.

29 May 2014

Rider assistance electronics—why all the hate?


One thing I hear from time to time is how a good number of people hate electronic aids on their bikes—how they take away from the experience, how they are unnecessary, how they are just something else to break. There are people who go so far as to pull fuses to disable systems which could give them a little bit of an extra margin of safety in an emergency. Think you can brake better without ABS than with it? Get over yourself, you can’t.

And then there are people who believe traction control, ABS etc can break the laws of physics and claim that an electronic aid was to blame when they failed to keep control while not riding prudently in line with the conditions.

Why all the contention and hate? Are the technophobes simply uncomfortable with systems and mechanisms they may not fully understand? Are others putting themselves at risk by deliberately relying on systems designed only for emergencies?

My F800GS has no ‘rider aids’ beyond ABS—power too hard mid-corner in the wet and you’re in a hedge. How many times has the ABS saved me? Zero to date on that bike, thankfully, despite having ridden in temperatures down to -12°C including a snow storm in the Alps. I don’t hit the brakes any differently just because I know the ABS system is lying in wait.

ABS system on the BMW R1200GS • Photo: BMW PressClub Global

On the other hand, my R1200GS has every conceivable electronic toy available on motorcycles today—ABS, ASC (stability control) linking in with the electronic suspension and ride-by-wire throttle, cruise control, electronic braking distribution (use one brake and the computer adds the other brake as it sees fit) etc. The only times I’ve seen the ASC light flash is when the computer reduces power during acceleration hard enough to lift the front wheel, and in soft dirt/mud where it only allows the rear wheel to spin up to a specified speed. Again, I ride the bike in the same way I would if it had none of these features.

What ABS, stability control etc provide me is a safety net for the unexpected. The rare moment where something unexpected interrupts the hundreds of mental calculations we all do in our heads every minute during the course of operating a motorcycle—an animal running onto the roadway... clumps of mud midway through a blind corner during otherwise optimal conditions... an unseen spill of diesel on a wet road just before a traffic light. In these scenarios, the electronics might save me from coming off the bike, or maybe they won’t—but they give me more of a fighting chance to stay safe.

I think many people by nature are opposed to change and advances in technology. A vocal few were up in arms about daytime running lights on cars reducing the conspicuity of motorcycles. Since then, I’ve read several research studies undertaken on this topic which unanimously come to the same conclusion—the reduction in conspicuity is a hypothesis at best and no statistically significant differences in accident rates have been measured.

Don’t take my word for it:
But understanding and respecting the electronic aids is a learning process like any other. Many riders would do well to take their bike out somewhere safe and ride it like they stole it so they can fully understand and feel these systems in action! Then they won’t have a panic attack when the systems intervene in a real life emergency (there are still people who pump the brakes on ABS-equipped vehicles, after all). It seems the technophobes either haven’t done this, or are unwilling to do this.

The fact remains, these systems offer the average rider (and not-so-average riders), riding normally, more of a chance to avoid disaster—and by understanding/respecting these features, the informed rider has the added benefit and scope for utilising them proactively as desired rather than reactively/unexpectedly. For example, when avoiding an obstruction is impossible, pulling the brakes as hard as humanly possible to maximise collision mitigation. Or allowing the traction control to do its job off road (in the appropriate ASC mode), restricting wheelspin to a safe level.

As for these features being ‘just something else to break’? They typically consist of a few sensors, the odd pump and some fancy software, and if something fails, the bike is not left stranded—it simply continues on without that functionality, a reassuring thought for riders traversing a desert or otherwise far from civilisation! Motorcycle ABS, for example, has been around since 1988 and it is a proven, reliable technology.

What are your thoughts about about modern tech on bikes?

9 Apr 2014

KTM’s new MSC system—a big deal?


It’s no secret that I like BMW’s motorbikes because they offer some of the most advanced tech on the market, especially the R1200GS with all of its toys—ride by wire, electronic cruise control, riding modes, electronic semi-active suspension etc. These things appeal to my geek side.

So when KTM made the rather grand claim that the 1190 Adventure with the new MSC (motorcycle stability control) system is the safest motorcycle on the market I had to see what the fuss was about. And, without a doubt, they are onto something.

At its core, MSC is simply Bosch’s motorcycle ABS Gen 9 enhanced system, Bosch’s MM5.10 lean angle sensor unit and a software update. The physical components are also used on comparable high end bikes, including the current R1200GS, and provide anti-lock braking as well as traction control functionality.

KTM’s implementation of MSC—Photo credit: KTM

The ABS system consists of a number of sensors (wheel speed, braking pressure etc) and a tennis ball sized pump/control unit weighing in at around 700g. In simplistic terms, the system measures the speed of the wheels and pumps the brakes to ensure the wheel speed differential is within specified parameters. The ‘enhanced’ version can distribute pressure between front and rear brakes, regardless of which is used—a system known as electronic combined brake system, or eCBS.

The lean angle sensor provides information about inertia, roll rate, yaw rate, longitudinal acceleration, transverse acceleration, vertical acceleration, and calculated values for lean and pitch angles. These values are used for anti-wheelie and anti-stoppie control, as well as for traction control (preventing spinning the rear wheel), anti-skid control (preventing too much application of power in corners), chassis regulation via the semi-active suspension and fall detection. These features are already in use on the R1200GS. Additionally, the K1600GT/L utilises this data to control the pivoting Xenon headlamp in corners, the S1000RR for its launch control feature, and the new R1200RT for its hill hold control system.

So how is MSC different? The key is in a software update which enables the ABS system to factor in more data from the lean angle sensor to regulate the ABS functionality while the bike is banked (leaning in a corner). This extra data enables the system to ensure the maximum braking power is applied to the correct wheels to ensure the bike remains neutrally banked, without highsiding or lowsiding, and without forcing the bike upright. Online reports of this new functionality are universally positive.

The software update can be purchased and installed at a KTM dealership for about £335 which upgrades the ABS Gen 9 system to ABS Gen 9M—a bit steep in my opinion because it is simply a software update, but I suppose Bosch needs to recover their development costs.

As the R1200GS has the necessary hardware, I would not be surprised if this feature becomes available before long for this bike as well—and rolled across the range for BMW’s other bikes which also use the same Bosch ABS/ASC components. For the minute, however, it seems the KTM is Bosch’s exclusive launch customer.

If/when this becomes available for the R1200GS, I would be tempted to have it retrofitted, as I believe you can’t have enough safety nets when on two wheels. Or, perhaps when my lease is up, this will already be a standard feature.

Would you pay £300+ to add this to your bike?

See the system in action:



Addendum (10 April):

Thanks to an eagle-eyed contributor on ADVrider for pointing out that the R1200GS doesn't have a discrete Bosch MM5.10 lean angle sensor unit. On further research, and although speculative, it seems the functionality is integrated into the chassis control module as the ASC and ESA systems both utilitise parameters and functionality consistent to what Bosch list for the lean angle sensor.

As BMW don't advertise directly that they use Bosch components it's possible Bosch make a bespoke item for the 1200 which integrates the functionality of the lean angle sensor into BMW's own control module. This is not particularly far fetched (the Nav V GPS is a bespoke Garmin unit built for BMW), and it would mean it should still be possible for MSC to be retrofitted via a software update.

Speculation aside, the values required to make MSC work are collected already by the bike's systems, so it's a matter of wait-and-see!