Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[Melb] Drivers needed for driving simulator study

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' at netrider.net.au started by Mouth, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. Research is being conducted using the Monash University Accident Research Centre’s Portable Driving Simulator, which is located on the Monash University, Clayton campus

    Fully licenced car drivers are needed who:

    * Are aged between 25 and 55 years
    * Have held a car driver’s licence for at least five years, and


    * Have never held a motorcycle licence or ridden a motorcycle or
    * Hold a current motorcycle licence, have held a motorcycle licence for at least three years, and ride at least two hours a week on average.

    Participation involves a single session of about one and a half hours, and completion of a questionnaire prior to the session. The session involves completing several tasks in the simulator.

    Each participant will be paid $30 for their involvement.

    For further information contact:
    Name: Amy Williamson
    Telephone: +61 3 9902 0198
    Email: amy.williamson@muarc.monash.edu.au
  2. Do you know what the purpose of this research is and who is funding it?
  3. Looks like its run by Monash University, and I would assume its to test and see if riders are more perceptive of their surroundings and other drivers due to the fact they have to be so aware whilst on a bike.

    Correct me if I'm wrong though..

    Seems like a good idea as I've heard a lot about it but noone yet proved that riders make better drivers.

  4. It is the muarc who are conducting it so you know what the outcome will be, the less help these lying bastards receive the better.
  5. I wouldn't give MUARC the sweat off my balls let alone any of my time...paid or not :furious:

    We all know it will be used against us is some way, where has any study conducted by these clowns been positive towards motorcyclists?
  6. I wonder how they'll tie this in with more cameras.

    Monash can go **** themselves.
  7. I once did the motorcycle simulator for Monash and the instructions were "everytime I saw an object or obsticle to be weary of, squeeze the brake lever and the video will stop and explain to the researcher what the threat is"

    So, I rides along in the simulator and every time I saw a car/person/dog/threat I squeezed the brake lever and explained what I thought that issue was with the situation. After about fifteen minutes the researcher got the shits and told me to stop squeezing the lever so much and just ride along. She didnt seem to grasp the whole issue that cars at side roads approching junctions, people standing at the kerbside about to step out, all the usual hazards that riders have to look out for were present in the video simulator. After some debate as to what a hazard was I decided it was a waste of time as the researcher already had an opinion as to what the answer was/should be to the questions she was researching!

    If you go and do this test my advice is just nail it full throttle all the way through the test to get it over as quick as possable, get your $30 then piss off to the Students bar. There's not half some quality totty drinks in there and most of it's looking to pick up.
  8. An hour and a half of my time is worth much more than $30, especially if it's being used by MUABC to ream motorcyclists. No thanks.
  9. To support their next 'report finding' that more speed cameras are needed ;)
  10. Science is about stating a hypothesis then setting about to prove it and explain why most of the data doesn't match up with the hypothesis or explain the data in a way that will verify what you are trying to say.

    It's not lying, it's just not telling the whole truth. It's all a matter of how you interpret the data. All data can be interpretted to suit any hypothesis!
  11. In this case the MUARC always find in favour of government policy or agenda to keep up their funding.
  12. True

    Without funding there is no point setting up a hypothesis - because you can't test it!

    So all hypothesis need to align with the source of cold hard cash!

    It all makes sense ... whether we help or not they will get their answers ... if they don't get participants what is stopping them from doctoring the results to suit!! After all without results the funding stops!

    I agree though, it's better not to encourage them!
  13. wow. I can't believe even a pseudo-scientist would be so useless.
  14. Personally I wouldn't waste my time to assist the state government propaganda research unit.
  15. Research scientists that are not objective........ what next!

    It supports a growing feeling I have, that as time goes on, the more incompetance is considered a virtue. When I get fired, I'm proved correct.