Goodness gracious me, as I'm now identified in a thread title I guess I really must have made a bad name for myself.
Anyhow, I'm not a biker so this isn't of particular interest to me in practical terms, but as it seems to be largely a matter of providing information to riders, I wouldn't criticise it.
What I do not like are systems whereby aspects of vehicle control are taken over by gadgetry, and the driver's inputs are over-ruled, unless there are very good reasons for doing things this way. I can see that stability control systems (for example) might be a legitimate form of driver assistance in that this is increasing the capabilities of the vehicle in extreme conditions such as emergency situations. That seems good so long as drivers don't abuse it and exceed the capacity of the system, thus ending up having higher speed accidents. Even so, it still isn't a feature that I'm particularly anxious to have, given that I managed for several decades without it. I certainly wouldn't choose it as an option extra at additional cost on a new vehicle for my own use: not that I shall be buying any new vehicles that might be telling me how things have to be.
If old CUBby - relatively old and simple as she is, a bit like me really
- will just hang on a while longer, that'll do for me.
Going back to the bike related technology, it does seem to cover quite a lot of stuff and offer warning messages to the rider in a variety of ways, so is there a danger that this may distract the rider from carrying out his own hazard spotting, and evaluation and judgement processes. I hope not, otherwise that would need to be offset against any benefits that this technology offers.
As I have never had an interest in anything with less than four wheels, I'm not best placed to come to any worthwhile conclusions about this sort of development: others will be able to do that much better.
Where's that Horse fellow when you need him?
Best wishes all,
Dave.