From the National Fleet Manager Association newsletter 01/06/03
COPS GET A CRASH COURSE
The Utah Department of Public Safety has almost doubled the number of required
driving-training hours and integrated two driving simulators into its training
program, resulting in a drop in the number of car accidents involving state
troopers.
The program was changed because the rates of officer-involved traffic accidents
rose in the late 1990s in the Salt Lake Valley after most area departments
installed laptop computers in squad cars. "As soon as those went into cars, we
had guys trying to run license plate numbers on their computers while they were
driving down the road and consequently, we had people running into people,"
notes Sgt. Doug Slagowski.
In two years, the number of accidents has decreased from 215 in 2000 to 80 in
2002. The simulators allow trainers to change the weather, add pedestrians, or
link the machines to test teamwork, while observing how officers handle radio
communications, traffic conditions, and suspect-tracking. The Department of
Public Safety plans to buy another two simulators, at a combined cost of
$100,000.
By
Sue Kiesewetter
Enquirer Contributor
FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP — When Lt. Keith Bradley got into the PatrolSim simulator at the D. Russel Lee Career-Technology Center he received his assignment: look for and pursue a white van.
The Greene County sheriff's officer adjusted his seat, turned on the Crown Victoria cruiser console, found the van on the 35-by-20-inch screen, turned on his lights and sirenand began the pursuit. Within 15 seconds he had crashed.
“It caught me off guard. I didn't follow through on my mirrors,” the 26-year veteran said. “About halfway through I had to tell myself, "Wait a minute. You're supposed to be breathing.' Your adrenaline goes sky high and you have to learn to slow your body down. That's (simulator) the way it is out on the streets.”
The simulator is one of two the vocational school bought for its Police Training Institute at a cost of $90,000 each, said director R. Barry Andrews, a former Cleves police officer. The simulators train officers in the proper techniques of pursuit driving. They also will be used to train other public safety employees, including firefighters and public works employees, in defensive driving, vehicle operations and collision avoidance.
Mr. Andrews recently taught two dozen officers how to use the equipment so they could train their employees. Police departments represented included Warren, Greene and Butler county sheriffs, Springdale, Mason, Lebanon, Harrison and Forest Park.
Hamilton County Park Rangers Sgt. Dale Reatherford said he experienced more tunnel vision than he had expected.
“It's a good way to critique your self,” Sgt. Reatherford said.
With a selection of 14 vehicles and 140 scenarios, the unit can simulate driving on urban, suburban, rural or interstate roadways in all kinds of weather, day or night. The instructor can program in events - such as people walking in front of a cruiser - so that no two missions are ever alike, Mr. Andrews said. After each simulation, the trainer can replay the exercise, using different camera angles so that trainers can talk about situations with trainees.
The San Antonio Police Department found that after its officers completed training on the simulators, intersection crashes involving police cruisers decreased by 74 percent, said Michael Holdsworth, developer of the program and a former Louisiana police officer.
“We teach how to recognize hazards and how to respond to hazards,” Mr. Holdsworth said. “You learn to apply skills in a risk-free environment before going to the streets.”
By: Jack Nerad for Driving Today
Date: 2002-01-31
As those of you who have done both know, it is far better to crash your vehicle
in a computer simulation than on the road. This is the premise behind GE Capital
I-Sim, a company that has just opened its first Driver Development Service
Center in Salt Lake City. The new facility combines classroom instruction with
new, state-of-the-art driving simulators using computer technology (natch.)
Whether it's truck drivers, police officers, or emergency vehicle operators, the
I-Sim program focuses on real-life scenarios that train drivers how to avoid
accidents without endangering life or property. The company might soon have
additional programs for taxi drivers, garbage collectors, and the drivers of
criminal getaway cars.
"We can train truck drivers to maneuver their 18-wheelers through hazardous road
conditions or emergency vehicles to reach a disaster scene quickly and safely,"
said Mark Stulga, CEO of GE Capital I-Sim. "Our complete program lets drivers
take classroom learning straight to a life-like simulator. I-Sim technology
allows instructors to correct virtual mistakes before they become reality."
The center uses a three-part training approach—classroom instruction,
computer-based training with a complete driver skills evaluation, and hands-on
simulation time, although the company failed to mention exactly what their hands
were on during the simulation. And we'd hate to guess.
The computerized training is currently aimed at professional drivers, and you
can see why. The more than 30,000 accidents that occur each year cost the
trucking industry $24 billion. The Salt Lake City facility features the new Mark
II simulator—a full-size, fully operational truck cab placed in a
three-dimensional cinema. (Which strikes us as a bad place to park.) Police
officers can get life-like training on the latest PatrolSim. And soon drive-in
movie-goers might hone their skills in the MakeOutSim.
"We're definitely plowing new ground with this approach to driver training,"
Stulga said. "The technology that's involved is phenomenal."
In addition to the Salt Lake City training center, Stulga says GE Capital I-Sim
plans to open new Driver Development Service Centers in Chicago, Dallas, Denver,
Los Angeles, and Philadelphia.
LAW ENFORCEMENT DRIVING SIMULATORS
by Sgt. George Grein
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office
For those of you
considering purchase of a Law Enforcement Driving Simulator system, the
following information may be of assistance.
First of all, let us answer one critical question: Will a driving simulator
replace the need for running a behind-the-wheel Emergency Vehicle Operations
program? The answer is clearly "NO"
Simulation enhances a training program and allows a student to "experience the consequences" of driving decisions made while involved in Code-3 Operation. It is not meant to fully teach driving skills, although it can reinforce some skills such as steering or braking. The limitations of the two dimensional aspects of the simulator (yes, it is only two dimensional - despite some claims to the contrary) make it difficult for the student to judge some distances until some orientation time is experienced. Judgment of speed is another issue that challenges the student early on. It=s kind of like driving with one eye closed, it takes the brain a little time to adjust.
What simulation can do is concentrate on judgment/decision making issues, such as intersection clearance and Code-3 driving tactics involving other motorists. Coordination, communication and supervision issues involving multiple units can be addressed with specific reference to department policy compliance in real time. Scenarios can be developed which address agency priorities, and recreate actual incidents, if desirable. Safety issues prevent behind-the-wheel trainers from exposing their students to cross traffic, blind corners and some elements of collision avoidance. This is the strength of the driving simulator.
For those of you who have existing behind-the-wheel programs, you may be concerned about instructor support for simulators. That is a legitimate issue, and should be dealt with openly and positively. Instructors may feel threatened by this different approach to vehicle operations. They may feel that simulation training requires significant computer knowledge. Not true! In addition, they may feel that the simulator, and its playback feature will replace them. That is particularly not true. The simulator instructor is the most critical element in the training process of interaction between student, machine, and instructor. Replay, and/or critique of a student performance is where students learn how to properly operate a motor vehicle under emergency driving conditions. The instructors' expertise and experience are critical to this process. Merely replaying a student's performance is not sufficient. And, the best opportunity for quality instruction comes from experienced EVOC trainers who can relate certain issues in the simulation to actual motor vehicle situations. Simulator instructors are not "baby sitters". Take the time to win over the support of your instructors, and make sure that they fully understand their important role.
Anyone who tells you that simulator disorientation, or Simulation Adaptation Syndrome (SAS), is not a significant factor in the new generation of equipment is "mis-speaking" the facts. Almost everyone will, to some degree, experience some degree of SAS. It comes from the mixed signals being sent to the brain from the body. One message from the inner ear is telling the brain that the body is in fact not moving. However, a contradictory message from the eyes is informing the brain that it detects movement. Three of the current manufacturers (DORON, FAAC, and I-SIM,) have created excellent graphics, which are much more realistic looking. That is part of the problem, because it is more real like to the brain. Other factors may come into play to influence the amount of SAS you may experience (e.g. speed of processing the graphics, similarity of simulated vehicle dynamics to that of a real car). The instructor plays a critical part in this issue. How the student is introduced to simulation and the amount of time spent driving the first few scenarios is critical. The reality is, a few people will never be able to adapt to simulation. The important thing is to keep that number low through proper training techniques.
I have personally worked directly with personnel from all three of the current simulator manufacturers. I have found that the technical and engineering staffs of all three are highly dedicated and impressively qualified. Initially, all three manufacturers lacked full understanding of what are the needs of EVOC trainers. This is changing, as they interact more with our peers. Despite what you may hear from sales representatives, all three manufacturers have similar backgrounds in manufacturing simulation equipment, and all of these products will perform the basic and necessary tasks. The question comes down to what is different from system to system.
Each agency will have its own priorities. Some features are more desirable to some than to others. For example, I have no interest in a simulator system feature involving a "rabbit". My current system has it, and I chose to not use it. To some degree all three manufacturers can offer this feature by linking the stations and putting an instructor in one of the stations to perform as the "bad guy".That is my problem with this feature, it takes the instructor out of the role of evaluator, and makes that instructor a participant. Even more of a concern, it potentially allows that instructor to influence the outcome of a student performance in a way that is different from student to student. I do not wish to place my instructor in that position, regardless of how they may try to be neutral. The concept of a pre-scripted scenario where each student experiences similar conflicts, is important to me. You may or may not like the "flat tire" or "ice patch" features that can be arbitrarily activated by the instructor at the Work Station. The important thing is to clearly understand what the various features offered are, and what their impact might be on your student's performance.
Ask hard questions of the sales and technical representatives. Make sure that your specifications for purchase (particularly if your agency uses a bid system) are clearly stated and specific enough. Ask for a demonstration of the "user friendliness" of the system, both for operation and for scenario development. Ask about software upgrades, and if the warranty will allow for any improvements during its life. Most importantly, ask for names of all of the manufacturer's customers, and call them on your own. Don't discount a manufacturer just because a customer may have experienced some operation problems early on. Quite frankly, all three manufacturers have experienced some glitches as they strive to stay competitive with each other. What is most important is how the manufacturer dealt with these problems. I will predict that, for the most part, all three manufacturers are doing a competent job. Response times, parts availability, and quality of work are important questions to ask.
Overall, I have been impressed with the simulator manufacturers. Thanks to the State of California, I have had the opportunity to visit all three production sites. I have, in fact, been a customer of two of the three manufacturers. My experience has been, for the most part, a positive one. If your preference is for one product over the others, and you are required to accept low bid, make sure that you do your homework when it comes to preparation of the specifications that are provided.
I continue to believe in driving simulators. However, I am not naïve in believing that they will solve all of my concerns. Student feedback has, for the most part, been good. Many of the complaints about quality of graphics will go away with this new generation of simulation product. However, a student who gets sick will generally not have a positive opinion about the training.
What we are attempting to do, both behind-the-wheel and in simulation, is provide the law enforcement driver with an as close to realistic driving environment as is reasonably possible. Quality training, which addresses attitudinal and judgment issues, as well as proper skills and tactics, is the key to making our officers and deputies better and safer drivers.
Sergeant Grein has been the supervisor of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's Emergency Vehicle Operations Center since 1990. He first became involved with driving simulator development in 1992. His training unit has used simulators since early 1994. He is serving as a program certification Subject Matter Expert/Consultant for the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
Getting a Grip on the Realities of Driving
The SkidCar System Philosophy and Approach to Driver Training
The concept of confronting reality is often a very difficult process for the human mind. While very few public safety professionals will dwell on the dangers they face on a day to day basis, resolution of these realities is critical to the survival process for these people. When the need for immediate responses to situations that are fraught with danger arise, the mental approach to solving this crisis is widely recognized to be the most critical component of safe resolutions. Experience, insight, and training become the foundation for successful outcomes in high-stress and dangerous encounters.
Admit it now – how many of you thought we were talking about driving and how many think of driving as dangerous and high-stress? How many of you have the tools or technology to deliver this type of instruction? The SkidCar System is a cost-effective and proven method of meeting these concerns in a safe and controlled environment where the risk of personal injury and property damage is eliminated.
From our very first driver training we have been conditioned to drive defensively. Those who have taken opportunities to improve their driving in various schools have learned additional new skills to control vehicles in adverse situations. The physical processes of steering, braking, and cornering and techniques to perform these skills in stressful environments have been successfully presented in many training schools for years. Despite these schools and training courses, it is apparent the driver training industry has done as much harm to drivers in these courses as we have provided them with survival skills. SkidCar System recognizes that driving skills perish and emphasize that skills alone do not remove the dangers of driving.
We have gained experience in the last twenty-five years with driver training programs in the United States and Canada as well as many European countries. The two things that are consistent in all of these programs are simple. First of all, skills diminish with time. Secondly, successful programs have been able to present their training with heavy emphasis on the critical nature of decision making. Agencies utilizing the SkidCar System have a training product that has proven effective in the retention of concepts and reinforces both the positive and negative outcomes of driving decisions, because the emphasis in training is to develop the insight and experience base of the student. SkidCar System training makes the complex and technical aspects of driving simple. Drivers learn their personal limits and what happens when those limits are exceeded.
These two points taken together emphasize that simply participating in a class is not enough. The knowledge and confidence of those exercises may remain in the brain, but the muscles needed to perform the skill are not honed as they were when the training was initially received. Agencies utilizing the SkidCar System have a training product that has proven effective in the retention of concepts and reinforces both the positive and negative outcomes of driving decisions, because the emphasis in training is to develop the insight and experience base of the student.
The concept of driver accountability is the focal point for drivers who participate in SkidCar System training. Accountability is a rather cumbersome word with multiple meanings and implications. Our definition and belief is simple and grounded in the fact that a driver must understand his responsibility to himself and others. Accountability is a mental process that starts with the driver’s ability to maintain control over himself and his vehicle. While this can digress into a complex process, it really doesn’t need to. Getting a grip on this is a matter of showing drivers the correlation and relationships of their driving decisions and the impact of that decision on the stability and performance of a vehicle.
We have found it is just as important to know why you cannot do something as it is important to learn how to do something in the first place.
When a driving instructor tells a group of students it is important to make smooth and fluid inputs to the steering of a vehicle when changing directions, many students accept this information on the faith they have in the class or the instructor. This type of faith is important and must not be overlooked, however if the instructor follows this information with the negative impact – what a harsh or rough input of steering might cause – the lesson reaches everyone. The lesson goes beyond the technique and skill of smooth steering to a more cerebral assessment in the mind of the student that smooth steering will equate to their safety. This deeper understanding leads to a driver gaining accountability and striving to avoid poor technique. Students in SkidCar System courses receive instant validation for the purpose of this technique in a safe and controlled environment, where mistakes do not mean personal injury and property damage.
We have developed curriculum for use with the SkidCar System based upon the concept of this deeper learning and upon the idea of accountability. Our program goal is simply stated and fits with this philosophy of driving. “A superior driver is one who makes superior decisions to avoid circumstances that require superior skill.” In simple terms, a driver who is thinking in terms of his accountability to the vehicle platform and its stability, the safety of himself and others, and the reduction of risk will think and make decisions which will continually reduce the chances of finding himself in trouble and having to pass a “skill test” on the road.
At SkidCar System, we have examined the relationships of theoretical and conceptual materials typically presented in a classroom with the application of these concepts in the environment of the track. We base our instruction on a formula of “grip”. Our formula assumes that grip is equal to traction, stability, and control. More importantly grip is equal to safety. When a driver makes a decision that will develop or maintain grip, the decision equates to a safer driving environment and the driver is exercising a high degree of accountability for everyone. Driving decisions made in situations where grip is diminished or lost relate directly to elevated risks and a reduction in safety to everyone. Our classroom and in-car instruction focus heavily on analyzing the relationship of the decision to the increase or reduction of grip. Training becomes a process of helping a driver understand that a decision intrinsically has more impact on safety than a skill.
Our experience with our program and with exposure to other driving professionals has shown us that a program must continually evolve. This evolution must occur as the overall philosophy of the program is compared to the actual product reaching students. For a program to retain its long-term success, effectiveness, and credibility, it must adapt. As public safety agencies developed training in the operation of emergency vehicles in the late seventies and early eighties, the existing models of instruction utilized techniques and concepts that were rooted in racing and in vehicle engineering. While these concepts are proven and are based upon the science of physics, they are also based upon environments which are dramatically separated from each other and from real-world driving.
Our experience has shown us that a program must continually evolve. For a program to retain its long-term success, effectiveness, and credibility, it must adapt. The life of an automotive engineer is often theoretical and actual application and testing occurs (necessarily) in a controlled environment under very exacting conditions. The racing world is also a controlled environment with the addition of other vehicles and the unpredictability of other drivers.
We at SkidCar System have found it critical to closely examine techniques and information that we present to drivers and make sure that the information is based on real-world situations. Our program has evolved over the years as we have gained experience and insight with students and with the SkidCar System.
One of the most simple and apparent examples of a theoretical or racing environment is simply the terminology used by those involved. Terms such as oversteer, understeer, lateral or linear acceleration, gyroscopic precession, and apex fill student manuals of new public safety professionals with explanations and definitions of the various conditions drivers’ experience. While we know that students can and do learn these words and the concepts they describe and history has shown this to be true. We have also learned that these terms often create a barrier between student and instructor. Instructors well-versed in the terminology and concepts will often be perceived as “talking down to”, “intimidating”, or “egotistical” in the minds of some. When students become intimidated or frustrated their ability to learn ceases.
We have removed some of the magic from driving, by carefully examining the words we use in a classroom and in a vehicle. We have adapted our program after recognizing this potential block to learning and instead examined what the practical manifestation of terminology was. We have found this to be a very useful and enlightening experience for ourselves as instructors. In many cases, it became clear that the words we used were just fine, however we have adapted in other areas.
For example: Rather than the typical and historical use of the term of understeer in the classroom or on the track, we looked at what happens when a vehicle is in this condition. The front tires quit to develop the necessary grip to brake or steer and begin to skid. Hence, we have a “front skid”. While this may initially appear to be an over-simplification, our experience with a wide array of students has been extremely positive. If we have a student begin to enter a turn with too much speed and the front of the car becomes unresponsive, we would historically have said, “You are understeering.” This simple and accurate assessment of the student performance is loaded with potential – potential for the student to correctly interpret what I said and fix the problem or potential for the student to think I meant more steering was needed and only add to his woes.
Drivers who participate in SkidCar System instruction have the opportunity to develop insight through training. SkidCar System is a comprehensive method of instruction that will enhance driving programs already in use and also is a strong base for agencies that are just developing driver training programs. Students and instructors will validate all of their prior driver training in just a few sessions in the SkidCar System. The realities learned in SkidCar System training are just as relevant as those learned through actual experience and it is much safer and less expensive to learn what it feels like to leave the roadway in the safe and controlled environment of the SkidCar System than it is to learn by leaving the roadway at excessive speeds in the real world.
Getting back to the title of this article, “Getting a Grip on the Realities of Driving”, we see this as a process that every program administrator, every lead instructor, every classroom and track instructor must implement. We know that accountability has far greater meaning than what we have simply stated. When a driver that we train is involved in a tragedy, the accountability extends far beyond the driver. Our philosophies and programs must be able to withstand the scrutiny of 20/20 hindsight and must be material which is clear to all.
We would welcome your thoughts and insight to these concepts. We can be reached at 503-227-6707 or through our website at www.skidcar.com
|
Simulators train police for high-risk driving incidents Salt Lake Tribune - 2003 By Matt Apuzzo |
