[Closed] Hazard perception test [RANT]

how come you had to take the test?

i blame binners

I just passed mine the other week.

It disqualified me for "cheating" in the first two questions (!), but then I got 5s and 4s for the rest so still passed.

Interestingly enough, around 84% of new drivers pass the test, compared to only 60% of experienced drivers who have to sit the same test before becoming instructors....hmmmmm.

Unfortunately, it seems like all you're being tested on is the technique of how to pass the test!

the hazard perception test was easy. I clicked once for every hazard and got a fairly high percentage.

Also if you are looking to blame something/someone else for your failings then you aren't fit to drive and need to sort your attitude out. So often my friends go "it wasn't my fault the instructor was shit." Well change instructors you dumb **** and if your really good enough to pass teh test why didnt you in the first place?

Learn from your mistakes, do it again and dont cry.

the hazard perception test was easy. I clicked once for every hazard and got a fairly high percentage.

Also if you are looking to blame something/someone else for your failings then you aren't fit to drive and need to sort your attitude out. So often my friends go "it wasn't my fault the instructor was shit." Well change instructors you dumb **** and if your really good enough to pass teh test why didnt you in the first place?

Learn from your mistakes, do it again and dont cry.

bwahahahahahahahahahhahahaha 🙂

Are you telling me that the 40% of would-be driving instructors who fail the test aren't fit to drive because they query why a new driver can pass it but someone who is experienced can't?

bwahahahahahaahahahahahahaha

^ Ladies and Gentlemen, POST OF THE WEEK!
I offer a platitude: "Everyone fails at somepoint. It's how they move on from failure that matters".
(I agree that the test is a load of bollocks. You should take your mildly arrogant 'doesn't apply to me' attitude and use it to compensate for the test being a bit retarded - that's what I did. It actually says in the instructions "Click again shortly after your initial click just incase". Two clicks per hazard won't penalise you, neither will four for the developing hazard)

Unfortunately, it seems like all you're being tested on is the technique of how to pass the test!

exactly. The hazard perception component isnt a problem, its meeting the crap test structure that's a pain.

Also if you are looking to blame something/someone else for your failings then you aren't fit to drive and need to sort your attitude out. blah blah blah

bravo, only took 4 posts.

Its for a motorbike test. Ive been driving with no crashes or points or incidents for 30 years.

Agreed, the hazard perception test is absolute bollocks. Had to do it when getting motorbike licence few years back. Just a pointless game you have to learn how to play. I did pass, but only because the bike school had a PC permanently set up in the office so you could click away for as long as it took to learn how to play it.

Absolutely pointless test that serves no purpose other than to make someone somewhere a lot of money.

[url=

Reading....[/url]

(although you might not like the bike stats, Stoner! 😉

My uncle is a driving instructor & failed the hazard perception test until he learnt what the computer needed you to do. I think he was seeing hazards too early.

Stoner -

So its not your fault yo didn't understand the test structure / how to pass? Other folk do. Its not rocket science

Its for a motorbike test. Ive been driving with no crashes or points or incidents for 30 years.

complacency? Not a good place to start from with riding motorbikes

I did the whole Pass Your Test DVD things and they had example Hazard Perception tests on them. VERY useful to practise as it is a lot about technique as well as just spotting hazards.

From memory, they recommended clicking several times for each hazard, at least once when you first see it, once when it develops, once when you'd have to take avoiding action.

The trouble I found was determining what was actually a "hazard". To me as a learner driver who'd cycled on the roads, [u]everything[/u] was a [i]potential[/i] hazard: bloke walking on pavement (could suddenly decide to cross the road without looking), car ahead (could brake suddenly for no apparent reason), car at junction (might SMIDSY me), bridge (someone could drop something on me) etc etc

cheers - pf. Id concur with his findings.

As for the bike stats I think you'll find that its heavily weighted towards novice learners much like the car test. Only the ADI+ test group are going to be heavily weighted towards experienced drivers.

Unfortunately, it seems like all you're being tested on is the technique of how to pass the test!

complacency? Not a good place to start from with riding motorbikes

Yes go out and crash now that will learn you 😀

TJ have you considered motivational speaking ?

I think he was seeing hazards too early.

Bit daft, reckon you could scrape a pass by randomly clicking, should pause the vid when you click and then get you to ID exactly where you thought the hazard was. Clck to pause then use mouse to highlight the hazard, DQ for clicking then not highlighting a valid hazard within a few seconds, should be easy to do I'd have thought

So its not your fault yo didn't understand the test structure / how to pass? Other folk do. Its not rocket science

That's the point though TJ.

Why have a test you need a certain technique to pass, rather than just focusing on the skill it's trying to assess - being able to identify hazards.

I passed, but that's only because I practised the technique required. It's quite a funny wee system that disqualified me on two questions because I was apparently clicking "rhythmically".

FWIW I reckon the principal of the test is good (checking observation skills) but it would be [u]MUCH[/u] better if it could be done by showing people videos and getting them to give the examiner a running commentary on what they are looking out for. Sadly that requires more personnel, training and expense than the automated "game" test.

exactly. The hazard perception component isnt a problem, its meeting the crap test structure that's a pain.

Also if you are looking to blame something/someone else for your failings then you aren't fit to drive and need to sort your attitude out. blah blah blah

bravo, only took 4 posts.

Its for a motorbike test. Ive been driving with no crashes or points or incidents for 30 years.

I managed to pass my motrobike one (and the car one before that).

Agree though that it is a bit of a 'game'. It's a pretty simple one though, not everything is a hazard, e.g. pedestrian walking isn't a hazard, them looking over their shoulder or approachign a pedestrian crossing is. If you clicked to early you weren't identifying hazards. The scenes are all scripted so there's always 10 (I think, it was 2 years ago that I did my last one) seconds between the hazard starting (ped reaching a crossing, car indicating) and them requiring you to do something. The way my instructor explained it was you're not clincking at everything you notice and would keep an eye on (otherwise you'd click for every road user coming into your field of vision), you're clicking at the point in time you'd come off the throttle/change down a gear and be hovering over the brake pedal anticipating that somethings about to happen.

It's a game, but a really simple one!

blah blah, Nanny TJ comes sashaying in.

My uncle is a driving instructor & failed the hazard perception test until he learnt what the computer needed you to do. I think he was seeing hazards too early.

That is the problem, not hazard identification.

Since you've obviously not done the test TJ (I assume youve had your bike licence since 1943 or thereabouts) you cant know that there is no feedback in the intro vid or during the test to give any indication of when the hazard timing is being recorded from, so its very easy for experienced drivers to identify a hazard and concluded it is developing before the test has defined it as such. And in fact nearly all the posts on other threads Ive seen about problems with the test indicate experienced drivers identifying developing hazards before the test is programmed too.

EDIT Typo: for 20 [s]30[/s] years.

I am shitting my pants now as I will be taking the theory test on Friday ...

I have a non-EU driving licence since I was 17 yr old so not sure what to expect now apart from clicking the monitor.

I am also taking lessons to drive here as I have not driven for a while.

What's the fascination with roundabout? Double roundabouts ... big, small, multiple ... merry go round ... it's rubbish! Yes, it's rubbish! Pointless roundabouts.

What's with the fluctuating speed limit? It's rubbish!

It's a game of beating the test set by bureaucrats and pen pushers.

A couple of years back when the missus was doing her car test I had a go on the practise system she had on a DVD. Again, I failed repeatedly until I waited a second or 2 after spotting the hazard before reacting to it.

If I rode my bike with that level of alertness I'd have been squished years ago!

Driving for 30 years Stoner?

You should be winding down towards a bus pass at your age, not getting a mid life crisis dead mobile licence.

Enjoy the bike 😉

Edit: of course editing for typos indicates an inability to get things right first time. And the red mist reaction to the test is concerning too. 😈

Stoner after the test >>> 👿

I'll be getting an angry phone call if I keep this up, so I'll stop now.

Stoner - claiming you are safe to ride a bike because of years in a car show complacency IMO

Seriously - be safe not complacent

Actually stoner - I did a dummy hazard perception test and passed first time - did it out of interest. I assume the dummy was similar to the real thing. the technique required seemed fairly obvious.

Have you had training? Passing this test should be apart of your training

claiming you are safe to ride a bike because of years in a car show complacency IMO

and where did I say that?

I draw no conclusions on my safety to ride a bike from my safety in a car, only that my hazard perception is not as bad as could be concluded from failing a poorly constructed test. You're trying too hard to be an arse. Take a time out.

I think somebody didn't practise. 🙄

😉

Not a good place to start from with riding motorbikes

Far better to go around blasting the whatsits out of the national speed limit instead.

If you've never tried it have a go here:

Hit the "Review" button to see how you scored and whether you clicked too early. (5 points on both clips here 🙂 but 5 other "non-hazards" clicked on each clip too 🙁 )

And Stoner, buy this DVD. That's what everyone does 🙂

Stoner - my point is you did not train / practice for the test and are blaming the structure of the test rather than your lack of preparation.

You did claim decades of experience in a car as if this made some point about your safety on a bike.

Best thing I ever did was a Police Motorcycle Course - it was 95% hazard awareness all done with video and then instructed riding 1:1 with a Police biker - learnt so much in such a short time, shame not all police forces run them.

Practised here:

2x 5 pointers on this one ^

But I doubt that they use the same timing criteria as the Pearson/DVLA one.

Stoner, do you have an iphone?

If so, download "Hazard Perception Test" app, that's all I used and it taught me enough to know that you have to click when the computer wants you to, rather than be 100% on the ball with spotting hazards.

Its funny isn't it - I just did that one again - scored the two five pointers but actually identified about 30 hazards on each clip.

ts funny isn't it - I just did that one again - scored the two five pointers but actually identified about 30 hazards on each clip.

Yep and if you clicked all those in the real test you'd fail for clicking too much. 😕

(30 though? Really? Looking at my review I clicked 5 or 6 "additional" hazards on each clip. Your eyes must have been spinning in your head!)

Yup - but its easy to see what they intend you to see and to click on them when they are obvious. I didn't click on the hazards they don't have down as hazards

Edit - yes 30 or so on each clip. ( roughly) Any pedestrian, any vehicle at a junction, any parked car with someone in it. any unusual object at the roadside, anything creating a blindspot like a van parked at the roadside or a tree.

Stoner - my point is you did not train / practice for the test and are blaming the structure of the test rather than your lack of preparation.

Best thing I ever did was a Police Motorcycle Course - it was 95% hazard awareness all done with video and then instructed riding 1:1 with a Police biker - learnt so much in such a short time, shame not all police forces run them.

You did claim decades of experience in a car as if this made some point about your safety on a bike.

I said "Ive been driving with no crashes or points or incidents for 30 years" in response to some idiot's post that "... then you aren't fit to drive "

Stop projecting.

but actually identified about 30 hazards on each clip.

and as Graham says, youd have thought yourself jolly smart, but have failed the test.

I passed. No prep or practice.

Can't see the hassle myself. Thank goodness Stoner's not on the roads yet. 😀

The problem I had was not with the test, it was with the piss poor DSA guidance DVD. Using all the free online tests which actually reviewed your performance (showing you a banded bar approaching each hazard, when you clicked and how many points it was worth) I was passinge very time, then I tried the DSA DVD and failed consistently, even after I'd cheated and watched the clip to identify the hazard beforehand.

Ignore the DSA DVD, it WON'T help.

Overall though, I found myself a much better driver for having done the hazard perception, it basically 'turned on' my perception whereas before I was missing most stuff until my instructor prompted me.

Only time I've been told to speed by the Police - 'use all the bike's acceleration to over take, then roll back to the speed limit'.

If the test was about hazard perception, you'd be right, but it's not, so you're wrong. The test is about your ability to respond in the manner the computer wants you to and is just a pointless test that does not in any way measure your ability to identify hazards.

Which is why you need to practise and train and understand what the test is about

and as Graham says, youd have thought yourself jolly smart, but have failed the test.

I wouldn't have clicked the 25 subtle ones that they would not count - only the ones they would

I said "Ive been driving with no crashes or points or incidents for 30 years" in response to some idiot's post that "... then you aren't fit to drive "

Wooosh - complacency. 🙄

use [b]all[/b] the bike's acceleration to over take, then roll back to the speed limit

Unless you're on a Hayabusa? 😉

but its easy to see what they intend you to see and to click on them when they are obvious

How do you know in the 1st clip that the open van door, the oncoming car in a narrow street, and the newly parked car are not the "obvious" hazards?

If you're safe, just you just, well, y'know, [b][i]know[/i][/b]!