If you look into the data on fatal accidents and examine them even for a few minutes you'll easily see that this is a foolhardy bet. The causes of accidents and fatalities are highly variable and not what you would expect. There's also extreme variability between the individual states; for example, Texas has more _total_ fatalities than California. There's extreme variability between the sexes and for different age groups within those sexes. Finally, there are motorcycles.
AI/Driverless, AV and all the attendant sensors and inputs will have an impact, just not nearly as large of one as many people unfortunately expect.
Personally I downloaded their database and then converted into an SQLite database that I could run queries against. They do have an online tool, but I have no experience with that.
Would a decrease in some types of collisions be a reasonable assumption under the grandparents premise?
Absolutely, I wish every prospective motorcyclist would study the stats (more than 35 times increased mortality rate per driven km [1]) and discuss this with their loved ones.
Those who insist driving a motorcycle afterwards deserve their genes to be removed from the gene pool.
So, I suggest to take the risk-taking elsewhere: go climb a mountain, do base-jumping or take the motorcycle to a racing track (bonus: real competition!). But leave other motorists out of your game.
Severely deficient mandatory motorcycle training, riders who refuse to wear helmets or any safety gear at all, a tendency to just go for the biggest most powerful engine right away, and of course shitty drivers, who either deliberately antagonize riders, or simply don't give a shit.
Squids and outlaw bikers heavily skew the numbers.
All I am saying is: it's fun to enjoy a sport, I get it. As a top-roping climber, I also empathise with the thrill of adrenalin. But I just did the numbers: an average motor-cyclist will have a 6% chance to be involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in his lifetime, causing extreme trauma. 50% of those accidents involve other drivers. Think of them. They did not choose for cyclists driving 200 kph while overtaking through the middle. Did that cyclist take that other driver into account when he lays there on the tarmac? Did he take into account the years of psychological trauma he caused by his reckless behaviour?
You don't have a bike license, do you? Your line of reasoning is very consistent with car drivers who are a bit afraid of traffic, and very afraid of "murdercycles".
Quoting the linked article:
At the moment, most AEB systems are "forward-looking". In other words they are designed to prevent crashes where one car runs into the back of another.
Such crashes account for around a quarter of all accidents, but these are the incidents which can cause some of the nastiest injuries, such as whiplash.
AEB has been shown to reduce such collisions by 38%, according to research by the safety organisation Euro NCAP.
It also has front sensors which has alerted and braked for me a couple of times when someone has almost stopped dead at 60MPH (even with stopping distance, it was a quick stop).
In my car you can manually give it the gas when changing lanes and accelerate faster than by ACC without disabling ACC. Maybe your car allows that too?