Post by derek on Jan 31, 2011 2:38:21 GMT
Saferider Saga Goes On And On!
30th January 2011
The BBC article – “Motorbikes ‘to get safe driving aids’”, (which Right To Ride EU reported on recently, MIRA Is Your Co-Pilot regarding the press release from MIRA a UK company), has had a reaction from FEMA (Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations), who were partners with MIRA in the SAFERIDER consortium.
What the BBC report and the FEMA article failed to mention is that the very reason for our “No To Throttle Control” campaign was because of the development of the Force Feed back Throttle as well as the integration of warning functions by the SAFERIDER consortium, that would distract the rider.
The “No To Throttle Control” campaign by Right To Ride to have the Consortium withdraw the Force Feedback Throttle was successful. The Consortium agreed to withdraw the device because it failed to prove to be a worthwhile product (although the pressure from riders and organisations such as FIM, must have influenced their decision).
The warning devices were the brainchild of the SAFERIDER Consortium which put together a proposal to get funding from the EU Commission, basing their concepts on car technology. What they convinced the Commission was that they would be able to move this technology on to 2 wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately they did this without consulting expert riders.
When the project started, the then FEMA representative requested that the consortium carry out a Europe wide survey and consult a focus group of experienced trainers from across Europe, which they did, but the trainers in the focus group told them that they believed the ARAS (Advanced Rider Assistance Systems) would most likely be unsuccessful because of the distractions and confusion that they would cause.
FEMA reports that riders’ concerns, “featured prominently in the rider survey held at the beginning of the project, but these concerns have not been fully taken into account during the research and development process.”
The other interpretation of this comment is that in spite of carrying out the survey and a focus group of experts, it was too late, because the Consortium had already decided what they were going to develop. What they had hoped was that the survey respondents and trainers in the focus group would rubber stamp their concepts, when that didn’t happen they selected the results.
Full Article on Right To Ride EU - www.righttoride.eu/?p=6531
Issued by
Trevor Baird
www.righttoride.co.uk
www.righttoride.eu
trevor.baird@righttoride.co.uk
30th January 2011
The BBC article – “Motorbikes ‘to get safe driving aids’”, (which Right To Ride EU reported on recently, MIRA Is Your Co-Pilot regarding the press release from MIRA a UK company), has had a reaction from FEMA (Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations), who were partners with MIRA in the SAFERIDER consortium.
What the BBC report and the FEMA article failed to mention is that the very reason for our “No To Throttle Control” campaign was because of the development of the Force Feed back Throttle as well as the integration of warning functions by the SAFERIDER consortium, that would distract the rider.
The “No To Throttle Control” campaign by Right To Ride to have the Consortium withdraw the Force Feedback Throttle was successful. The Consortium agreed to withdraw the device because it failed to prove to be a worthwhile product (although the pressure from riders and organisations such as FIM, must have influenced their decision).
The warning devices were the brainchild of the SAFERIDER Consortium which put together a proposal to get funding from the EU Commission, basing their concepts on car technology. What they convinced the Commission was that they would be able to move this technology on to 2 wheeled vehicles. Unfortunately they did this without consulting expert riders.
When the project started, the then FEMA representative requested that the consortium carry out a Europe wide survey and consult a focus group of experienced trainers from across Europe, which they did, but the trainers in the focus group told them that they believed the ARAS (Advanced Rider Assistance Systems) would most likely be unsuccessful because of the distractions and confusion that they would cause.
FEMA reports that riders’ concerns, “featured prominently in the rider survey held at the beginning of the project, but these concerns have not been fully taken into account during the research and development process.”
The other interpretation of this comment is that in spite of carrying out the survey and a focus group of experts, it was too late, because the Consortium had already decided what they were going to develop. What they had hoped was that the survey respondents and trainers in the focus group would rubber stamp their concepts, when that didn’t happen they selected the results.
Full Article on Right To Ride EU - www.righttoride.eu/?p=6531
Issued by
Trevor Baird
www.righttoride.co.uk
www.righttoride.eu
trevor.baird@righttoride.co.uk
