I can understand that opinion. I don't particularly want SGI watching me either - since I may bend an occasional law or two on my bike
. Does that make me dangerous? No, as long as it's done deliberately under safe conditions (i.e. on a gravel road in the middle of nowhere and not on a busy street in a school zone at 3:30 PM etc.). Common sense goes a long way, and I think most of the people in the SDSC have enough of that to know when they shouldn't fool around on the bike.However, I do hope that people in this group would consider participating in the pilot program, even if you don't want the device on your bike later for actual insurance purposes. Dual-sport riding is very different than a lot of other types of riding, and I'm afraid that if SGI eventually pushes this thing through dual-sporters will not be properly represented by the data, and that many of the problems with installing this device on a dual-sport (i.e. defining where you're riding off-road) won't get accounted for when SGI implements the program. If that's the case then down the road if (when?) Big Brother makes these things mandatory we'll really be hooped...
There's no effect on your insurance during the pilot program. SGI just needs baseline data to understand what qualifies as "safe" driving on a motorcycle. Sask is the first place in the world (as far as we know) to do this for motorcycles, and so they can't rely on talking to other insurers or sharing their data.
I think it's obvious to everyone that safe rates of acceleration, braking, cornering, etc are very different for motorcycles than they are for cars. Plus SGI would need a way to tell if a dual-sporter is riding off-road. By having some data demonstrating this it would help them understand the issues with implementing this, and help us not to get screwed by it someday down the line.