You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Lets face it ,its a simple test that a 17 year old novice is expected to pass its easy the OP is pissed off at failing it and wasting 30 quid
Yes, it is a hazard perception test, not a potential hazard perception test
But the introduction video says you have to click every potential hazard, and THEN click when it becomes a developing one. If you havent clicked when it was a potential one, your fist click when it's a developing one doesnt count, you need to click twice. No?
How can they know? It will, after all, not have developed
Well, they have their definitions of hazard, not my scope, but the test response characteristics seem to bear them out. But until it develops it is not a hazard.
its the Schrödinger's cat of car driving.
Potential hazard or hazard developing?
it is very good at predicting safe drivers
How is this measured?
I can't see how it can be extrapolation. Presumably, [i]everyone[/i] obtaining a full licence in the last few years will have passed the hazard test, so there's no baseline data. So even if we define "unsafe" drivers as those who go on to have accidents, they've all still passed the test. Every last one of them.
Are you differentiating between 'passed well' and 'passed barely'? If so then that's a pretty valuable dataset you've got there. If there is a direct correlation between the results of the tests and subsequent driving behaviour then a) perhaps we should be using that in some sort of way that prevents these unsafe drivers from getting licences, and b) the insurance companies are going to be ripping your arm off.
I haven't done one of these video hazard tests, but I do have colleagues (ones with high driving qualifications) who've had a shot and failed for spotting things too early. So I was of the view that it's a bit shite.
However, what SamCooke says does make a lot of sense, regarding the difference between potential hazards and actual hazards. After all, I don't adjust my speed and course every time I see a pedestrian walking nicely along the pavement, despite the potential hazard.
And if you read the DVLA's brief guide to the hazard perception test...
[url= http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/TheoryTest/DG_4022534 ]http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/TheoryTest/DG_4022534[/url]
...it is quite clear that the test requires you to identify developing hazards rather than every potential hazard. It does also add that, while you don't score any points for spotting and clicking on a potential hazard that is not yet an actual hazard, nor are you penalised for doing so.
It seems that a lack of appreciation of what is expected is sometimes the problem, rather than poor hazard perception. But the information as to what it's looking for is quite easy to find.
Look, the test is simple, all you have to do is spot the car:
[img] 
[/img]
Oh, hang on.....
the intro video simply says click when you identify a potential hazard (say, ped on pavement), it shows an orange ring around ped. Then its says if there's a development in the hazard, AT THE POINT IN TIME THAT THE TEST DECLARES ITS NOW DEVELOPING the 5 second clock starts for you to click again (and it puts a red dring around the ped). If you conclude that the hazard is developing BEFORE the computer things so, then your click falls outside of the score window because you're too observant. that's madness.
perhaps we should be using that in some sort of way that prevents these unsafe drivers from getting licences
We do, but they come on web forums and complain about it
[b]How does this help improve my driving? Can I safely ignore undeveloped potential hazards until they're actually hazardous? That's what the test rewards, apparently?[/b]Yes, it is a hazard perception test, not a potential hazard perception test
I had to re-read your reply here because it made me boggle, but on reflection I think you may have misunderstood the question. I'm not asking if I can "safely ignore undeveloped potential hazards until they're actually hazardous" in order to pass the test, I'm asking if I can do it on the road.
We do, but they come on web forums and complain about it
Touché (-:
I think I'm starting to understand it a bit better now. It is all a bit new to me.
You can click on every [i]potential[/i] hazard then click a couple of times on the [i]real[/i] hazard as it develops.
Scored 5 on both. Am I a driving god?
We do, but they come on web forums and complain about it
ahthangyow.
Is there any research other than the stuff implied in
regarding ADI drivers/experienced driver pass rates.
because much like Darwin awards cant be won if you've already reproduced, "perhaps we should be using that in some sort of way that prevents these unsafe drivers from getting licences" cant apply if I already have a driving licence 😛
"safely ignore undeveloped potential hazards until they're actually hazardous
no you don't ignore them, but you treat them differently to developing hazards.
Scored 5 on both. Am I a driving god?
as did I, but the real test version has a longer delay before the scoring timer kicks in, so if you're too fast to identify (correctly I might add) a developing hazard, your click wont count. So the tactic appears to be to thrash the mouse button for a few seconds to adjust your approach to match the limitations of the test.
Look, the test is simple, all you have to do is spot the car:
In truth the only hazard you really need to be wary of is Dave Hazard.
appropriate action is drive away quickly
identify (correctly I might add) a developing hazard
well, this is one of the drawbacks of the test. People had a tendency to be 'test-smart' identify which of a range of potential hazards was likely to develop. Not sure of the mechanics of this but it was little to do with the behaviours of the hazards. May be some sort of priming effect which we were unaware of.
as did I, but the real test version has a longer delay before the scoring timer kicks in, so if you're too fast to identify (correctly I might add) a developing hazard, your click wont count. So the tactic appears to be to thrash the mouse button for a few seconds to adjust your approach to match the limitations of the test.
Hence my suggestion of human interaction to discuss the reasons why you did or didn't click.
I can see the reasons behind the test being done this way.
I am a driving god BTW. 😀
Hence my suggestion of human interaction to discuss the reasons why you did or didn't click.
This would take too long, and would then be more prone to inter-rater-unreliability. The driving part is already subject to this. But as always there is a conflict between validity and reliability. Test designers need to agree on some balance point
This would take too long,
How so? Didn't TJ state that 93% of would be bikers pass the test, so there would only be a small percentage that would need the interaction time.
Clearly having a simple pass/fail and retake is the cheapest model, but not the most efficient really, is it?
Clearly having a simple pass/fail and retake is the cheapest model, but not the most efficient really, is it?
seems to work well enough. No evidence that explanations would make it any better. Taking TJ's data, would give us 7% who would need further testing. But the time per person is the inefficiency, and realistically, some of those 7% would still fail, so by instituting a back up system, with all the associated admin, we end up gaining 1%-say 3% of the people on the border line.
People had a tendency to be 'test-smart' identify which of a range of potential hazards was likely to develop. Not sure of the mechanics of this but it was little to do with the behaviours of the hazards. May be some sort of priming effect which we were unaware of
Its certainly not test priming causing it, but much more likely experience priming. That is surely a place for some more research and it's suggested in the ADI pass rate data too.
seems to work well enough.
That's got me convinced. 😕
That's got me convinced.
well, what do you want? all the evidence seems to say that it does OK. Test development can't be based on opinion.
Nothing more, you've already said it's not a perfect system, and that it seems to work and does ok is clearly the way forward.
Perhaps more people should strive to be ok... 😉
Perhaps more people should strive to be ok..
In terms of assessment systems, this is very true.
It might be that the test agency don't think that a pedestrian turning slightly is particularly hazardous
Like the one who, on hearing my bell, then turned sharply and walked straight in front of me, resulting in both of us on the ground, her with the phone she was yakking on smashed on the ground, me with a badly grazed knee and bruising.
Like the one who, on hearing my bell, then turned sharply and walked straight in front of me, resulting in both of us on the ground, her with the phone she was yakking on smashed on the ground, me with a badly grazed knee and bruising.
No comment (too expensive).
It might be that the test agency don't think that [b]a pedestrian turning slightly[/b] is particularly hazardousLike the one who, on hearing my bell, then [b]turned sharply and walked straight in front of me,[/b] resulting in both of us on the ground, [b]her with the phone she was yakking on[/b] smashed on the ground, me with a badly grazed knee and bruising.
Clearly not
turning slightly is the first part of turning sharply...
That's proper hazard perception right there! 🙂
Did anyone score the rant in the OP?
I'd give it a 2/10
That's proper hazard perception right there!
Clearly not
I'd give it a 2/10
With [i]my [/i]immaculate grammar?
That's at least a 1.5/10
0.5 for feeling that you were too sharp for the test. 🙂
If sense of superiority is quantifiable, then It's a 9/10 I think you'll find.
I'm not superior. It's just that everyone else happens to be inferior.
well nyaaa nyaa nya nya nyaaaa.
Passed now. Gaming it and clicking for England.
Interestingly I had a chat with the nice guy administering the test centre who was a former police driving instructor. He had nothing good to say about the Hazard Perception test, and anecdotally at least, knew of many ADIs/colleagues who'd failed or not not done nearly as well as their experience/training/skills would normally suggest. It's still a shit test.
Anyway, I can now mow down children with the righteous complacency now...
Dammit I failed my driving theory test so will be resitting this Friday ... Multiple choice got 38 out of 50 (43 to pass) but passed hazard perception at 59/70 (45 to pass) ...
I based my revision on one of the tiny book ... arrgghhhh ... should have revised using the thick book for multiple choice questions since they were exactly the same ... arrghhh h... 😡
well nyaaa nyaa nya nya nyaaaa.
Passed now. Gaming it and clicking for England.
Yes! I don't have to buy you a drink now! 😀
I shall happily buy my own beers tonight 🙂
Well I hope you won't be driving after. You're complaceny alone is a danger on teh roads!
😉
Well done on your moving on from failure. Enjoy your beer.
What's next? Intensive course and direct access, or CBT and a 125 for a bit?
Nahhh.
I reckon my reaction times after 10 pints will still be faster than the lag on that stupid test 😉
Ive been on CBT and twist & go 125cc since the beginning of the year.
Next stop is review session with my CBT instructor and one of his geared bikes and then sort out what needs work on before the DA. No rush, am happy to take 12 months over it.
Ahh. Forgot you could do your CBT before the theory. Did my theory last year, and coming to the end of a DA course (fingers crossed) on Tuesday next week. I want to get it done and passed while the training's all fresh, I don't have a bike at them mo, so I can't keep practicing in my own time.
Just "enjoying" the fantastic pricing on offer for fully comp. on a Street Triple. £2.5K? zomg, as I beleive the kids are saying these days.
Re "12 months": Rules are changing at the beginning of next year. Not sure if any of them affect you though, certainly some of them are about age restrictions at 21 / 24. Your instructor will know though.
I thought they were going to effect me, but Im an oldie, so it actually doesnt. so no rush now
No-one I know has failed the hazard perception to date, and I know some shocking drivers. But I do think you don't have to over-think things as the tests are designed for the lowest common denominator.
PErsonally I've no idea, I passed decades ago where hazard perception was not tested, only the basic 35? questions on the theory. Really I think hazard perception would be better off being tutored rather than tested - it's a hard thing to test reliably and it'd be beneficial to spend more time and expense learning. Maybe a day or two on a bike would help.