BattleKart: Global tech-karting sensation coming to Perth
Likened to a real-life Mario Kart-style experience, BattleKart uses around 50 overhead projectors and sensors to transform the floor into an interactive racetrack with a variety of different game modes.
The projected track interacts with the karts, triggering real-time responses like slowing down when hitting virtual obstacles, or being affected by rockets, oil spills, and other in-game hazards created by opponents.
From Dubai and Paris to the UK, there are currently 57 BattleKart centres across 10 countries worldwide, mostly concentrated in Western Europe.
The Malaga centre is set to become just the fourth in Australia.
Belinda Balbissi, who owns BattleKart Melbourne, is behind the franchise expansion into Perth.
She said BattleKart offers a unique combination of technology and entertainment and is excited to bring the experience to WA.
'We're really excited to bring this patented technology to Perth; there's nothing else like it in the world, other than at BattleKart,' Ms Balbissi said.
'We can't wait to open and really think the community will embrace it — it's going to be so much fun for everyone.' The karts have anti-collision technology, meaning helmets are not required. Credit: Supplied
Multiple game modes, including BattleSnake, BattleVirus, and BattleColour, will be played on the same track area at the click of a button, thanks to the projection system, meaning there's no need to set up or change the physical space between games.
Given the karts are single-seaters only and feature anti-collision technology, helmets are also not required.
While there will be no minimum age requirement, riders must be at least 145cm tall to operate the karts, which are electric and run on batteries.
Each game session will last 15 minutes, with up to 10 riders on the track at any one time.
Ms Balbissi said the tech-karting concept is designed to appeal to all ages, and if the Perth launch — expected before the end of the year — is successful, more locations may follow.
'People compare us to traditional karting, but it's unfair on them and unfair on us, we're offering something completely different with all the tech and interactive gameplay,' she said.
'Depending on how well Perth goes, the long-term plan is hopefully to open other centres across the state, but for now, we're focusing on getting this one up and running.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
19 hours ago
- News.com.au
Bizarre ‘Nintendo' solution to huge road problem
Chinese carmaker XPeng has unveiled a quirky new feature that could address one of Australia's biggest driving problems - road rage. And the EV maker's solution might be one of the cleverest ways to deal with bad drivers. The feature, called 'Road Rage Reliever', lets frustrated drivers 'throw' virtual emojis at the offender's car by using the vehicle's AR head-up display found in the new XPeng models. And it will look familiar to anyone who has enjoyed a game of Mario Kart, the Nintendo game that allows you to toss items at other road users while you race. Video circulating on social media shows the feature being introduced during the unveiling of the P7 which offers a massive 87-inch AR-HUD. During a live demonstration, XPeng showed how drivers can express their frustration by throwing virtual emojis onto the car in front by pressing a button on the steering wheel. XPeng claims the feature offers a safer way to release frustration without engaging in aggressive driving. However, the idea has received mixed opinions. Users online praised the feature as being the perfect solution for people with road rage, while others worry it could lead to further incidents caused by driver distraction. 'So you tap the screen while driving....I wonder what happens when driving distracted,' one user on Instagram said. 'Ummm does this distract the drivers?,' another said. 'This will not distract the driver in the slightest....,' another user said sarcastically. 'Imagine throwing a bunch, then they crash, and then you crash. Drivers shouldn't be allowed more distractions,' another commented. While there is visible criticism, other users saw the humorous side of things. 'Now add proximity chat at the same time with a timer. Turn the streets into a COD lobby,' One user said. 'Being visible only to you makes it ineffective, but if it was to both it'd end up being a game,' another said. According to XPeng, the feature is optional, and drivers must decide when it's safe to use. The XPeng P7 is being considered for the Australian market, but there is no confirmation yet on whether Australians will have the opportunity to see this vehicle on local roads. Additionally, it remains uncertain if the innovative Road Rage Reliever feature will be included if the car does become available. However, if introduced, it could be a surprisingly fitting addition considering the Australia's driving habits. In September 2024, a survey conducted by the insurer NRMA involving 1,464 drivers from two states highlighted a concerning trend in Australia's driving behaviour. The survey results revealed that 71 per cent of respondents had witnessed tailgating, 67 per cent had observed drivers excessively honking their horns, 60 per cent had noticed the use of hand gestures, and 58 per cent had seen motorists deliberately cutting in front of others.
The Australian
a day ago
- The Australian
Bizarre ‘Nintendo' solution to huge road problem
Chinese carmaker XPeng has unveiled a quirky new feature that could address one of Australia's biggest driving problems - road rage. And the EV maker's solution might be one of the cleverest ways to deal with bad drivers. The feature, called 'Road Rage Reliever', lets frustrated drivers 'throw' virtual emojis at the offender's car by using the vehicle's AR head-up display found in the new XPeng models. And it will look familiar to anyone who has enjoyed a game of Mario Kart, the Nintendo game that allows you to toss items at other road users while you race. XPeng will allow drivers to throw virtual emojis at other cars. Picture: Instagram/em3rging XPeng revealed the feature in the all-new P7. Picture: XPeng MORE: China's RAM ute dupe to land in Aus Video circulating on social media shows the feature being introduced during the unveiling of the P7 which offers a massive 87-inch AR-HUD. During a live demonstration, XPeng showed how drivers can express their frustration by throwing virtual emojis onto the car in front by pressing a button on the steering wheel. XPeng claims the feature offers a safer way to release frustration without engaging in aggressive driving. XPeng's Road Rage Reliever feature. Picture: X/@42how_ MORE: China unveils plan to smash Tesla in Aus However, the idea has received mixed opinions. Users online praised the feature as being the perfect solution for people with road rage, while others worry it could lead to further incidents caused by driver distraction. 'So you tap the screen while driving....I wonder what happens when driving distracted,' one user on Instagram said. 'Ummm does this distract the drivers?,' another said. 'This will not distract the driver in the slightest....,' another user said sarcastically. 'Imagine throwing a bunch, then they crash, and then you crash. Drivers shouldn't be allowed more distractions,' another commented. While there is visible criticism, other users saw the humorous side of things. 'Now add proximity chat at the same time with a timer. Turn the streets into a COD lobby,' One user said. 'Being visible only to you makes it ineffective, but if it was to both it'd end up being a game,' another said. XPeng revealed the feature in the all-new P7. Picture: XPeng Inside the P7. Picture: XPeng MORE: Famous sports car hints at bold EV future According to XPeng, the feature is optional, and drivers must decide when it's safe to use. The XPeng P7 is being considered for the Australian market, but there is no confirmation yet on whether Australians will have the opportunity to see this vehicle on local roads. Additionally, it remains uncertain if the innovative Road Rage Reliever feature will be included if the car does become available. However, if introduced, it could be a surprisingly fitting addition considering the Australia's driving habits. Did somebody say Mario Kart? In September 2024, a survey conducted by the insurer NRMA involving 1,464 drivers from two states highlighted a concerning trend in Australia's driving behaviour. The survey results revealed that 71 per cent of respondents had witnessed tailgating, 67 per cent had observed drivers excessively honking their horns, 60 per cent had noticed the use of hand gestures, and 58 per cent had seen motorists deliberately cutting in front of others. James Chung Digital Content Creator James is a Digital Content Creator at and is part of the News Corp Australia's digital real estate team. His previous experience includes working for Sky News Australia.
The Advertiser
06-08-2025
- The Advertiser
Is this necessary protection for children, or a missed opportunity?
As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely. As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely. As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely. As a learning scientist and rookie YouTube creator, I've seen both the potential and pitfalls of digital video for education. While my research focuses on how students learn best, my content creation experience has given me front-row seats to the chaotic, attention-driven nature of online video, where what rises to the top is seldom what's best for learning. That's why the federal government's move to include YouTube in its under-16s social media ban raises important questions. Is this necessary protection for young people's wellbeing? Or is it a missed opportunity to teach digital literacy? Used well, YouTube can be an outstanding teaching tool. Research shows video-based education can outperform traditional instruction, especially when curated by teachers and integrated into structured activities. I've seen students' eyes light up when abstract ideas come alive through video, animation, and storytelling. YouTube also helps students who benefit from controlling their learning pace and format. Features like subtitles, adjustable playback speed, and auto-translation support students with language or accessibility needs. But here's the catch: this isn't how most young people use YouTube. Outside classrooms, student engagement with YouTube is unstructured, algorithm-driven, and incidental. Content is consumed not as deliberate learning, but because it's served up based on past behaviour, popularity, and watch time. It's passive, endless, and often emotionally charged - rarely a place where meaningful learning happens. Like most social media platforms, YouTube (especially Shorts) is optimised to maximise engagement, not education. The algorithm skilfully keeps users glued to screens but doesn't promote reflection or critical thinking. Flashy, provocative, or emotionally charged content rises. Rage-bait, celebrity drama, and Mr Beast-style spectacles dominate trending pages. Used poorly, it becomes a place where critical thinking goes to die. Real learning - especially deep, meaningful, and lasting learning - isn't sexy. It's often mentally exhausting, requires sustained and repeated effort, and frequently leaves us feeling frustrated by the large chasm between what we do and don't yet understand. It doesn't look like a teenager on a beanbag watching cat videos or listening to gym junkies talk "bro-science". It looks like making meaningful predictions, reflecting, comparing ideas, and linking new information to personal and concrete experiences. YouTube can support this, as with other video platforms, if used deliberately and strategically, combined with effortful study. But we don't know what students are actually watching. YouTube's parent company doesn't release detailed user data. The "education" label is self-assigned and inconsistently applied. Without platform transparency, we're guessing how much content is genuinely educational versus dopamine-fuelled distraction. So, is banning YouTube for under-16s the answer? Not exactly. While concerns about overuse and misuse are valid (sometimes urgent), sweeping bans often backfire. History shows blanket restrictions can drive behaviour underground, reduce adult oversight, and remove teachable moments where parents or teachers might intervene. Students still need help building digital literacy. If we make every decision for them, we risk denying them chances to learn how to navigate digital spaces independently. This decision also deserves to be evidence-informed. Right now, we lack high-quality research on the effects of national social media bans. There have been no large-scale randomised trials where YouTube access was restricted and outcomes like wellbeing, attention, and academic performance were tracked over time. Most existing research is correlational and deeply confounded. And the same can be said of other major social media platforms that will be affected by age-gating their use (e.g., TikTok, X, Instagram). I'm not opposed to action when warning signs are strong. But we haven't done the harder work of designing real-world trials before making high-stakes policy decisions. Ideally, the government would have piloted this policy in select schools by randomly assigning some to restricted access and others to "business as usual". That data could have guided a more balanced, evidence-driven policy rather than the risk of lapsing into policy-driven evidence. Instead, we find ourselves in an unplanned natural experiment - one we need to learn from. Are students more focused and rested? Are they learning more or less? Are they embracing or shirking their responsibilities? Are they turning to healthier habits or just switching screens and using parents' or older siblings' accounts? The stakes are high. We're navigating this digital age in real time, and young people are living on the front lines as the guinea pig generation. Our job isn't just shielding them from harm, it's equipping them with tools to make ethical, critical, and informed choices in a world where algorithms, not adults, are increasingly calling the shots. Let's not just take away their screens. Let's also teach them how to use them wisely.
