Which means ultimately that they are dangerous, right? They drive too fast to be safe with the other slower beginners and they don't have the experience needed to be trusted to make good decisions with the people who drive in the faster circuit. It doesn't seem wrong, it just seems like a natural consequence of learning in a simulator.
> Which means ultimately that they are dangerous, right?
I think that's the implication. The worry is that the claim isn't reliable. A driver who can control a vehicle at higher speeds than you will always appear "dangerous."
And similar claims were used to exclude women from the Indy 500 until years of women in F1 and NASCAR illustrated the prejudice was absurd.
It's admittedly a tough call though. On the one hand, the claim's being made by insiders with vested interests and skepticism towards outsiders. On the other hand, the cost of letting in dangerous drivers is far higher than the cost of prejudice, so there's a reason to err on the side of caution.
I am one of the people who learned in a simulator, and then bought a real car.
Simulators teach some bad stuff, the wheel is amazing and it's just like the real one, but the pedals are not and the use of mirrors is totally different from the real thing.
Also, in simulators any mistake is simply a reset away, there is no survival instinct. This is a very important point, and I think, the most crucial difference.
They are dangerous because those cars, real or virtual are driven to the limit and the most minimal difference in perception will be amplified in those conditions.
Having said that, in a real car, I can brake better, with more control and faster than people who have only driven real cars. I have never missed a shift, and I change gears in less than half a second (I drive a stick). And I have never crashed. But I have never tested a real car to the limit.
