So, What’s It All About, This VR Driver Simulator Training Thing? › Forums › General › NSW Parliament StaySafe Committee Inquiry into Driver Education, Training and Road Safety
- February 27, 2017 at 5:09 pm #867
Until I heard about this Inquiry I had no intention of “going public” with my serious hobby project until I had something that worked. However it is both an opportunity to let interested caring people know about the potential here and would be disrespectful not to. I have no idea what will come from the Inquiry, or any particular preconceptions or needs as I am well on my own course and have enough mettle and persistence to push through to where I want this thing to go – the only thing I am uncertain of is the time.
Previously, I expected to just beaver away in my own time and get this thing to a useful working demonstration prototype mid-year some time. THEN think about going public. By then I should know if my other plans to fund the roll-out are likely to bear fruit any time soon, or an idea of the timetable. A project like this won’t suffer if it is made to take longer to be fully ready. Regardless, with the announcement in Nov of the Inquiry and mid Feb submission date, I needed to get a patent done and a website sorted to then put in a submission that tied the info all together.
Probably a good thing as, whilst I am a bit peeved at going public a bit prematurely, the process ITSELF has been instructive and helpful in terms of the ultimate performance / effectiveness of the prototype as it has caused me to look very carefully at some of the distant future aspects which play well into what I do now and otherwise may not have been contemplated for some time. I am especially delighted that the patent process made me think through exactly what had been invented here, the application of these principles leading to the development of a simpler embodiment for a full commercial roll-out, at the expense of needing to go through another (much shorter) prototype verification process.
However I extend to people the opportunity to recognise a good, well founded idea when they see it, and use their resources / capabilities to seriously put a rocket under it if they think fit. Hence I added the tasks needed to get the admin side of the project well advanced. Will this committee contemplate anything like that, and what might it look like if they did? I’m not even going to try to guess! However, whilst I am not making outlandish claims here, this does look a lot like a “silver bullet” style of solution to anyone that sees it, and it would definitely come on a lot faster and harder if it was given a serious six-pack of resources to get it happening. Just saying, you know – as one human being to another… we only live once, apparently.
But I make no bones about it – I want this thing to “stay pure”, so it can’t get diffused by competing pressures. If assistance comes, it must be driven primarily by altruistic intent. This technology needs to be and remain extremely available, with enough commercial acumen thrown in the mix that it can keep “giving”, nominally each new period at an order of magnitude higher than the last period. A sort of Moore’s Law for VR driver simulator training is what I am looking for here, but going with exponential increases rather than a mere doubling every two years…. There is a few chapters in logically deriving Sunter’s Simplified ViRSim Law – but for now I will stick with my musings in the About Us section, as any such further flights of fancy is just ego driven guesswork. Of which there is enough available every day on the tele, without me adding to the mix!!!
I started this topic to deal with whatever is seen from the direction of the Parliamentary Inquiry, so will let you know as I find out. Submissions closed a week ago, but they are yet to appear here. Putting in a submission in part draws this response “please do not separately publish or disclose your submission unless authorised by the Committee. Anyone who republishes a committee document apart from the Parliament or its committee is subject to the laws of defamation.” so that means I can’t yet formally publish my submission. That doc was a detailed four page submission plus cover page, website index and 32 page printout of the website as it stood at that date (19th Feb 2017).
I have asked to understand the process for permission to be able to release the submission, but am not really in a rush to do so. I am perfectly fine with the committee doing whatever it likes; the last thing I want to do is interfere with that in any way. Watch this space….March 1, 2017 at 12:35 am #993
I have been informed the Committee sits end of March and submissions will be made public soon after that. Then public hearings will commence, complete with transcripts being made available.June 9, 2017 at 11:44 pm #18027
The submissions were made public here. Mine is #10.
This Committee is doing a brilliant job, and poking around very sensibly in a complicated field full of porcupines, with messy boundaries. They have held public hearings and the transcripts can be downloaded here. They will now move into a consolidation phase and may put questions on notice.
As far as simulator training is involved it is plain the Committee was very interested to explore the possibilities. However they called neither myself nor others talking about simulator hardware. Reading through the transcripts, what became obvious to me is that the driver education topic is firstly about “if” one should contemplate going down the simulator path, and then a question of “to what extent”. Good evidence was taken on both points.
It is a totally separate question re “how” one should do that, touched on in evidence. But this is the domain of government for action, should the Committee recommend further study or particular actions, and Government accepts the recommendations.
I have read every single submission and they all make a worthwhile contribution to the topic; none of them abused the privilege of being allowed to make representation. When considered from the perspective of driving simulators, many of them were substantially irrelevant. Some will be extremely useful when setting up lesson plans from an evidentiary basis. So I have made my own summary list for future reference. For convenience, they have been resized to be typically much smaller than the originals, and which you can direct download here, complete with more usefully descriptive filenames:
Submission 1 (0.3Mb) Rob Laidlaw – Interesting Anti-Hooning Suggestion
Submission 3 (0.34Mb) Henry Naser – Driving Instructor with well-anchored approach
Submission 10 (1.3Mb) Vince Sunter – Revolutionary VR Simulator system under construction (edited to remove annexed but superceded Jan 20 submission)
Submission 19 (1.1Mb) Police Citizens Boys Club – Pragmatic sensible view of status quo and what works
Submission 20 (0.6Mb) Michael King – Driving Instructor with strong views about increased driver training and testing
Submission 25 (0.7Mb) Motorcycle Council NSW – Emphasising the merits of ongoing training
Submission 27 (1.4Mb) ii-Drive – Putting the science behind VR simulator driver training
Submission 30 (0.75Mb) NSW Driver Trainers Assn – Pragmatic view of issues around current driver training system
Submission 45 (0.9Mb) Blue Datto Foundation – Pragmatic overview of what works in training younger drivers
Submission 50 (5.3Mb) Road Safety Education Ltd – Detailed explanation of what works training younger drivers
Submission 51 (0.44Mb) NRMA – Some perspective on the status quo and future needs
Submission 55 (0.4Mb) Aust Road Safety Foundation – Commentary across full spectrum of training and education needs
Submission 58 (0.5Mb) Aust Driver Trainers Assn – Giving an overall driving instructors perspective
Submission 62 (0.34Mb) Academy of Road Safety – Advocates earlier education – Hit em early and hit em hard!
Submission 66 (1.1Mb) Ian Luff Motivation – Real world telling-it-like-it-is driver training
Submission 67 (2.8Mb) Nat Motorists Assn Aust – beautifully detailed presentation of the science of improving each area
Submission 69 (0.4Mb) George Institute for Global Health – a cautionary note on what the big picture tells us
Submission 70 (0.4Mb) Len Woodman – highlighting deficiencies in Aust system compared to UK
Submission 71 (1.3Mb) Ian Faulks – strongly advocates for competency standards and puts the case for change there
Submission 75 (1.3Mb) Todd Lister – Transport for NSW detailed and thorough review of status quo and validity of optionsJanuary 30, 2018 at 8:16 pm #37152
The final report and summary is available here. The Committee is very interested in the concept of simulators to enhance skills and behaviours, and has currently charged Transport for NSW with the task of determining how they may be validly used to achieve outcomes.
From my perspective, whilst I completely understand and accept the rationale of the decision-making and recommendations, and think the quality of work overall by this Committee was truly excellent, this is baby steps when a much more visionary approach is needed. OK, that is fine, up to me and other like-minded individuals to create that visionary approach by delivering on our promises. THEN there will be something to look at!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.