Hazard perception test
Discussion
Hi,
I am approaching my motorbike theory test. The multiple choice stuff is no problem, consistently getting 49/50 (the room for improvement being on the intricacies of the various types of crossings -
seriously who in the real world will look at a crossing go ahh thats a pelican crossing so I dont need to watch out for cyclists because they are only allowed to use a toucan crossing..... that type of thing)
Anyway, the hazard perception... Are the examples in the test centres any better than those available on the internet? video compression loses so much detail that its hard to tell what exactly the nature of distant hazards are - which means I end up clicking more, potentially hitting the cheating flag. Also I just did one where thanks to video compression chopping down the amount of colours in the video you could barely see the top of a white high roofed van against a clear sunny sky behind a hedge, resulting in me only scoring 2/5... itd massively frustrate me on the test if I lose marks because of poor quality video.
Current practice has me mostly getting 4/5 on these which should see me with a good pass of 60/75 (44/75 is the pass mark)
Personally I think this computer test is ridiculous. If anything it should be an IAM style observed thing so that if you identify the correct hazard but earlier than it states you dont get penalised.
I am approaching my motorbike theory test. The multiple choice stuff is no problem, consistently getting 49/50 (the room for improvement being on the intricacies of the various types of crossings -
seriously who in the real world will look at a crossing go ahh thats a pelican crossing so I dont need to watch out for cyclists because they are only allowed to use a toucan crossing..... that type of thing)
Anyway, the hazard perception... Are the examples in the test centres any better than those available on the internet? video compression loses so much detail that its hard to tell what exactly the nature of distant hazards are - which means I end up clicking more, potentially hitting the cheating flag. Also I just did one where thanks to video compression chopping down the amount of colours in the video you could barely see the top of a white high roofed van against a clear sunny sky behind a hedge, resulting in me only scoring 2/5... itd massively frustrate me on the test if I lose marks because of poor quality video.
Current practice has me mostly getting 4/5 on these which should see me with a good pass of 60/75 (44/75 is the pass mark)
Personally I think this computer test is ridiculous. If anything it should be an IAM style observed thing so that if you identify the correct hazard but earlier than it states you dont get penalised.
Being "mature", I didn't have this stuff.
Some have described it as a computer game.
Indeed, I've seen references to Advanced Drivers and the highest qualified Police Drivers failing it.
Well, there you go, that's the limitation of modern technology and those who design the applications.
The "virtual" and the "real", not quite indistinguishable yet.
That old Human computer, still more capable in some areas.
Some have described it as a computer game.
Indeed, I've seen references to Advanced Drivers and the highest qualified Police Drivers failing it.
Well, there you go, that's the limitation of modern technology and those who design the applications.
The "virtual" and the "real", not quite indistinguishable yet.
That old Human computer, still more capable in some areas.
I assume the hazard perception part of the motorcycle theory test is pretty much the same as the driving one.
In which case, the video quality is better than that found on t'internet, but it's far from clear. It's sufficient for the purpose, though.
However, I think it's a widespread opinion that it is a pointless part of the test - sitting at a computer for a few minutes clicking away is far different to the reality of observing well, and taking necessary action, when you're actually on the road. I may be young, but I prefer to physically demonstrate on the road that I can deal with hazards, rather than click a mouse to achieve a similar end.
Good luck with it, anyway.
In which case, the video quality is better than that found on t'internet, but it's far from clear. It's sufficient for the purpose, though.
However, I think it's a widespread opinion that it is a pointless part of the test - sitting at a computer for a few minutes clicking away is far different to the reality of observing well, and taking necessary action, when you're actually on the road. I may be young, but I prefer to physically demonstrate on the road that I can deal with hazards, rather than click a mouse to achieve a similar end.
Good luck with it, anyway.
Edited by PeterA on Sunday 6th July 21:25
All our trainers failed the perception test when the DSA took their "roadshow" to our college, it seems that an experienced driver will press for a hazard developing where as a newbie will wait till it's obvious? The machine kept saying they were randomly clicking or guessing! Think this is where an experienced car driver going for their bike test could struggle cos I'm assuming the hazard perception is designed for beginners?
Gary
Gary
jaf01uk said:
All our trainers failed the perception test when the DSA took their "roadshow" to our college, it seems that an experienced driver will press for a hazard developing where as a newbie will wait till it's obvious? The machine kept saying they were randomly clicking or guessing! Think this is where an experienced car driver going for their bike test could struggle cos I'm assuming the hazard perception is designed for beginners?
Gary
YepGary
I have heard that agmonst certain chaps in the government quietly admit the the HP test adds nothing of value to the test. CAn't see them dropping i though.
Martin
When I did the hazard perception test, I used something called "Driving Test Success". It was pretty useful - I managed to get consistent 4/5's in the scoring.
The actual one is ridiculously obvious. They stage a lot of the hazards, and you find yourself thinking "There's no way that car will pull out in front of me" and then....it does! Don't click more than once or twice per hazard. The easiest ones are country roads (click the moment you see a car). In my experience you just need to click a few times every time you see a zebra crossing, a car coming towards you on a narrow road, or someone pulling out in front of you. Remember that a hazard is anything that will cause you to slow down - only the hazards which result in you slowing down are marked, so just because you see a cyclist/motorcycle/person approaching a junction doesn't mean it's a hazard. Stationary objects (like crossings) are never hazards on their own, only if there's people next to them.
Is it useful? No, not really. It's a complete waste of time TBH. The only reason it exists in the first place is because some company convinced the government that it was a safety feature (and guess what, that company is now making loads of cash because of it).
The actual one is ridiculously obvious. They stage a lot of the hazards, and you find yourself thinking "There's no way that car will pull out in front of me" and then....it does! Don't click more than once or twice per hazard. The easiest ones are country roads (click the moment you see a car). In my experience you just need to click a few times every time you see a zebra crossing, a car coming towards you on a narrow road, or someone pulling out in front of you. Remember that a hazard is anything that will cause you to slow down - only the hazards which result in you slowing down are marked, so just because you see a cyclist/motorcycle/person approaching a junction doesn't mean it's a hazard. Stationary objects (like crossings) are never hazards on their own, only if there's people next to them.
Is it useful? No, not really. It's a complete waste of time TBH. The only reason it exists in the first place is because some company convinced the government that it was a safety feature (and guess what, that company is now making loads of cash because of it).
LeoR said:
Is it useful? No, not really. It's a complete waste of time TBH. The only reason it exists in the first place is because some company convinced the government that it was a safety feature (and guess what, that company is now making loads of cash because of it).
Is this fair? No, not really. The HPT was introduced to try to get instructors to focus more on teaching hazard perception and management, rather than focusing excessively on mechanical vehicle handling skills and traffic rules. I agree that it has not worked very well, because the test was badly designed and is treated like a computer game.This is an extract from the current DSA consultation paper on Learning to Drive (http://learningtodrive.dsa.gov.uk/downloads/DSA%20-%204222%20Consultation%20runout.pdf)?
5.22.We are also proposing a review of the content and
delivery of the hazard perception test. The hazard
perception test has been an important innovation,
but technology is evolving quickly, and we think
there is potential for it to be improved.
5.23.Technology has advanced since we decided at the
start of the decade to use film clips of real driving
on real roads as the basis of the hazard perception
test. In particular, 3D animation has become more
viable, and could offer a better test than existing
technology. We think 3D animation could improve
the hazard perception test and we intend to
research this.
5.24.The hazard perception test was introduced as part
of the overall driving test after extensive research
indicated that:
/ recognising developing hazards was a safety critical
skill;
/ compared to more experienced drivers, learners’
hazard recognition skills were weak; and
/ hazard perception was a skill which could be
reliably assessed using a computer-based
performance test.
5.25.Research also showed that hazard recognition was
a trainable skill, and that classroom learning could
help learners to improve this skill. We want
students to see hazard perception as an important
part of learning to drive more generally, especially
the practical elements of learning to drive.
waremark said:
LeoR said:
Is it useful? No, not really. It's a complete waste of time TBH. The only reason it exists in the first place is because some company convinced the government that it was a safety feature (and guess what, that company is now making loads of cash because of it).
Is this fair? No, not really. The HPT was introduced to try to get instructors to focus more on teaching hazard perception and management, rather than focusing excessively on mechanical vehicle handling skills and traffic rules. I agree that it has not worked very well, because the test was badly designed and is treated like a computer game.This is an extract from the current DSA consultation paper on Learning to Drive (http://learningtodrive.dsa.gov.uk/downloads/DSA%20-%204222%20Consultation%20runout.pdf)?
5.22.We are also proposing a review of the content and
delivery of the hazard perception test. The hazard
perception test has been an important innovation,
but technology is evolving quickly, and we think
there is potential for it to be improved.
5.23.Technology has advanced since we decided at the
start of the decade to use film clips of real driving
on real roads as the basis of the hazard perception
test. In particular, 3D animation has become more
viable, and could offer a better test than existing
technology. We think 3D animation could improve
the hazard perception test and we intend to
research this.
5.24.The hazard perception test was introduced as part
of the overall driving test after extensive research
indicated that:
/ recognising developing hazards was a safety critical
skill;
/ compared to more experienced drivers, learners’
hazard recognition skills were weak; and
/ hazard perception was a skill which could be
reliably assessed using a computer-based
performance test.
5.25.Research also showed that hazard recognition was
a trainable skill, and that classroom learning could
help learners to improve this skill. We want
students to see hazard perception as an important
part of learning to drive more generally, especially
the practical elements of learning to drive.
I don't argue with you that hazard perception is an important part of learning to drive, however IMO the HPT is not the best way of doing it, and in reality has little effect. The drastically scripted hazards don't help matters - hazards in the real world are never so obvious.
LeoR said:
I don't argue with you that hazard perception is an important part of learning to drive, however IMO the HPT is not the best way of doing it, and in reality has little effect. The drastically scripted hazards don't help matters - hazards in the real world are never so obvious.
Welcome to the forum - and to the world of qualified drivers. Congratulations.I agree the existing HPT does not achieve much. I was defending the motivation for it, and pointing out that they do intend to try to improve it (in other words, they seem to recognise that it is rather weak).
Since you are here, I guess you already know that passing your driving test is only one step on the way to learning to be a decent driver. Do be careful while you practice on your own, and plan on getting further training, whether through one or more of Pass Plus, IAM/Rospa, or a professional advanced driving coach.
WhoseGeneration said:
Oh so simple.
The principles of AD should be part of initial training and the DSA test.
Forget the virtual nonsense.
Instructors, for beginners, who understand what it is really about.
I agree. Although the driving test is a daunting thing which is seen as a massive hurdle for learners (understandably so), I find it scary to know that some people 'scrape' through their tests and are then allowed to drive on their own amongst hundreds of other motorists, travelling 70mph in up to four lanes of traffic with possibly no knowledge or understanding how things work. It should be ensured that drivers can 'drive' before the test, without the possibility of some people passing, and THEN learning how to drive.The principles of AD should be part of initial training and the DSA test.
Forget the virtual nonsense.
Instructors, for beginners, who understand what it is really about.
Regards,
Peter
PS. Congratulations LeoR. Please note, I'm not suggesting you are not a good driver; I'm just pointing out that there are a number of people out there who pass before they are competent at driving.
vonhosen said:
WhoseGeneration said:
Oh so simple.
The principles of AD should be part of initial training and the DSA test.
Forget the virtual nonsense.
Instructors, for beginners, who understand what it is really about.
There is currently no requirement for candidates to spend any time with an ADI.The principles of AD should be part of initial training and the DSA test.
Forget the virtual nonsense.
Instructors, for beginners, who understand what it is really about.
Can we find some who have passed solely with instruction by a non ADI?.
Of course, some here might be more capable than an ADI.
You, as a prime example.
So, have you ever taken someone from Provisional to obtaining their full licence?.
Outwith your employ I mean.
WhoseGeneration said:
vonhosen said:
WhoseGeneration said:
Oh so simple.
The principles of AD should be part of initial training and the DSA test.
Forget the virtual nonsense.
Instructors, for beginners, who understand what it is really about.
There is currently no requirement for candidates to spend any time with an ADI.The principles of AD should be part of initial training and the DSA test.
Forget the virtual nonsense.
Instructors, for beginners, who understand what it is really about.
Can we find some who have passed solely with instruction by a non ADI?.
Of course, some here might be more capable than an ADI.
You, as a prime example.
So, have you ever taken someone from Provisional to obtaining their full licence?.
Outwith your employ I mean.
WhoseGeneration said:
vonhosen said:
I am an ADI.
I then, apologise.I now know that you have it all, in terms of this driving stuff.
I would like to meet you and for us to each drive the other.
That, I suspect, will not be possible.
LeoR said:
Do you have to talk in verse? You don't need to start a new line for every sentence.
So, we have Spelling Police, Grammar Police and now, Posting Style Police.Well, to ensure you can live happily in your little world, I'll not post here anymore.
You are just like the current Government, "Do as I say".
Idiot.
WhoseGeneration said:
LeoR said:
Do you have to talk in verse? You don't need to start a new line for every sentence.
So, we have Spelling Police, Grammar Police and now, Posting Style Police.Well, to ensure you can live happily in your little world, I'll not post here anymore.
You are just like the current Government, "Do as I say".
Idiot.
LeoR said:
WhoseGeneration said:
LeoR said:
Do you have to talk in verse? You don't need to start a new line for every sentence.
So, we have Spelling Police, Grammar Police and now, Posting Style Police.Well, to ensure you can live happily in your little world, I'll not post here anymore.
You are just like the current Government, "Do as I say".
Idiot.
Anyrode, whats this got to do with Hazard perception???
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff