The Teen Driving Simulation Center

A community resource built around teen driving

The center opened at 1845 Silas Deane Highway in Rocky Hill. In its August 18, 2010 coverage of the opening, NBC Connecticut reported that participation was free for Connecticut teens, with access after school and on weekends planned for at least a year.

The funding also sat within a wider local effort. The Injury Free Coalition for Kids’ Winter 2009 newsletter reported that the Allstate Foundation awarded $50,000 to Injury Free Hartford to purchase simulators for a planned center. Eight were intended to form its core, while other simulators would be used in communities.

That plan combined a dedicated location with access beyond one building. For an educator reading the history today, it highlights a practical consideration: a training resource needs a place in students’ schedules as well as a place to put the equipment.

How the simulator and lessons worked

The Teen Driving Simulator Center Project video describes a setup with three screens, a steering wheel, keypad, accelerator, and brake. The screens provided a virtual road view, while the controls let students respond to what appeared ahead.

The historical software was StreetReady, a 12-lesson program. A published Connecticut study using StreetReady documents the same three-part lesson structure described in the center’s video.

Historical lesson structure, with suggested discussion questions: The questions below are teaching suggestions, rather than quotations from the program.

1. 1. Tutorial

   An introduction explained what the student needed to demonstrate.

   Suggested question: What decision are you practicing?

2. 2. Practice drive

   A simulated drive provided spoken guidance and feedback.

   Suggested question: What did you notice and change?

3. 3. Assessment drive

   Students started at 100 points, lost points for violations, and needed at least 70 to advance.

   Suggested question: What needs another attempt?

That progression gave each lesson a defined task and a way to check performance within the software. Advancing through a lesson was a program milestone; it wasn’t a licensing decision.

Practice across different conditions and hazards

NBC’s report on the center’s driving scenarios described daytime and nighttime driving, rain, snow, and ice, along with distracted and impaired driving. The aim was to expose learners to situations they might not encounter during ordinary driving lessons.

Dr. Brendan Campbell, a trauma surgeon at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, explained the controlled setting this way: “You can make an error on a simulator and suffer no adverse consequences.”

The project video also emphasizes recognizing hazards, managing curves, watching for pedestrians and cyclists, monitoring speed, and approaching intersections. These were decisions students could address through the simulated road environment.

Teaching example: Picture a student encountering a hazard during a lesson, considering their response, and identifying what to watch for on a later supervised drive. This illustrates how simulated practice could connect to an on-road lesson.

Parents were part of the learning process

In the project’s explanation of parent involvement, staff recommended simulator use alongside early learner-permit practice. Parents were encouraged to support participation and help teens apply what they learned during supervised driving.

The center’s approach connected practice in the simulator with practice in a vehicle. A family could use a completed lesson as the starting point for a conversation about what the teen noticed, where they had difficulty, and what deserved more attention.

Suggested discussion prompts, based on that connection:

• Which situation needed the most attention?
• What sign or road user helped you decide how to respond?
• What would you do earlier on another attempt?
• Which point should we revisit during a suitable supervised drive?

These prompts keep the discussion tied to a specific decision.

Research was part of the project’s purpose

The center’s video discusses research into later driving outcomes without announcing a completed finding. That distinction matters when reading the project’s history.

In May 2016, members of the Connecticut team published Efficacy of Driving Simulator Training for Novice Teen Drivers. This related study placed simulator training in a Connecticut high school during 2010–2011. It found no statistically significant difference in self-reported crashes or driving infractions between the compared groups. Low lesson-completion rates limited the evaluation.

Those findings describe that study’s population and delivery. They aren’t a result for every visitor to the Rocky Hill center or an evaluation of current NDE.

FleetOwner’s June 2015 article on driver inexperience used the center’s video as an example while discussing separate research from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania. The research discussed there should also be kept distinct from the Rocky Hill project.

Frequently asked questions

Was participation free?

Yes. NBC’s opening report described free participation for Connecticut teens. That was a historical arrangement, not a statement about current availability.

Can families enroll at the center today?

The sources describe the historical project. They don’t verify current operations or enrollment, so families should confirm availability with the organization running any present-day program.

Connecting the center’s story to driver education today

The Rocky Hill center brought simulator access, structured lessons, family participation, and evaluation into one teen-driving project. Educators exploring a current program can use VDI’s driver education information for schools to consider how simulation could complement their instruction.

To review current lessons and reporting in the context of your students’ needs, request a VDI demo.