I've been arguing on internet newsgroups and forums for over 20 years, so fairly sure I know how to apply the usual rules of English grammar and comprehension, yet it seems the rules for winning an argument on STW are completely different. I'm fairly certain I've failed for attempting to argue in a logical and coherent fashion.
What a bucket of monkey spunk.
I agree with most people that the hazard perception test is a load of [b]absolute garbage.[/b]
However, [i]if[/i] it actually makes new drivers think about potential hazards [i]at all[/i], then it may have some merit.
In reality, people (including me when I took it for a bike test, 13 years after passing myt car test and a lot of cycling on the road ) just practise the test to be able to pass it.
GrahamS - MemberLOL. You don't think TJ is actually a real person do you?
Real? Define real. Seeing as none of you actually have any physical presence...............
none of you actually have any physical presence
If that's true, Christmas and your Birthday must be really disappointing.
TandemJeremy - Member
If were were all the same the world would be dull.TJ - marching to the beat of a different zylophone ( the one in my head that talks to me)
Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post
FTFY
Seeing as none of you actually have any physical presence
well granted I am not as fat [headed] as you but that is still overstating it somewhat
[img]
[/img]
e
But peterfile I think the site does a sort of theraputic service for the communnity.Maybe Mark and co. could apply for Social services funding?
I dunno, it's only a matter of time before we see something like this in the Daily Mail:
"Cyclist attacks group of disabled war veterans after arguing tirelessly on the internet since it was invented.
Sources suggest the devil worshipping cyclist may also jump red lights and tolerate immigrants"
In fact I wonder if stw is a government experiment to divert the efforts of numerous *wits from properly *ing up their employers' businesses 😉
yet it seems the rules for winning an argument on STW are completely different.
You can never really [i]win[/i] an argument on STW.
You can only stop caring.
I disagree GrahamS
I disagree GrahamS
No you don't!
That's not an argument, it's just contradiction!
xylophone?
[img] 
[/img]
When I did the test, one of the things that crossed my mind was 'what sort of person could possibly fail it?'.
Now I know 😀
So much for hazard perception. Someone should invent a test for self perception.
Lovely!
I was involved in the design and validation of the hazard test. It went through a rigorous pilot process with, novices and experts. Was validated against a series of other similar tests, giving good concurrent validity, was tested in parallel forms over time, giving good reliability, was used as a predictor for driving test performance and incident records giving good predictive validity. It's not something just knocked up by a bunch of folks who thought it looked good. Tell me, is you life littered with a number of tests and assessments on which you should have done well, but failed to do so, because the test had not been calibrated to cope with your awesomeness?
Now that is what I call an argument
*Arms catapult*
It's not something just knocked up by a bunch of folks who thought it looked good. Tell me, is you life littered with a number of tests and assessments on which you should have done well, but failed to do so,
Actually no. It's pretty much the first time Ive failed anything, so yes, a little sore about it.
Was validated against a series of other similar tests, giving good concurrent validity, was tested in parallel forms over time, giving good reliability, was used as a predictor for driving test performance and incident records giving good predictive validity
Im assuming this is published somewhere then?
*keeps stirring*
Give him GRAPHS
LOTS OF THEM
Im assuming this is published somewhere then?
Where's Ben Goldacre when you need him? 🙂
[url= http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=graphs&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=AQXWT87oH8PB0QXbn4T4Aw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CF4Q_AUoAQ&biw=1228&bih=582 ]HERE YOU GO CHAPS - graphs, lots of em![/url]
[img] 
[/img]
In fact the more I think on it, the happier I am in my [i]opinion[/i] that it is a monkey spunk of a test regardless of the sincerity of the methodology the designers insist they used. Not one person in this thread as far as I can see has concluded that the test itself [i]is a good test[/i], the principle of the test is welcomed, yes, but not the test itself - even those who have passed it first time, and even TJ (which is rightly so as he hasnt sat it).
On any google search of forum search you find the same accusations levelled at the mechanics of the test.
How can a test designer be happy with that? It has to work in application, not just in statistical theory.
Im assuming this is published somewhere then?
Love it.
93% of would be bikers pass the test - perhpas because they prepared for it?
Stoner does not - therefore the test is at fault. the fact that other people whinge about it is proof
How can a test designer be happy with that? It has to work in application, not just in statistical theory.
On top of all this, new drivers [b]still[/b] fail to perceive hazards.
Ban this sick filth.
OP
[img] 
[/img]
Im assuming this is published somewhere then?
No, why would it be? This is the real world not some academic tossing off exercise.
Not one person in this thread as far as I can see has concluded that the test itself is a good test
Nope, it's far too easy 😀
No, why would it be?
Something about someone paying someone else's wages? 😆
[i](This isn't a personal jibe, just tacking with the winds of a typical STW argument)[/i]
How can a test designer be happy with that? It has to work in application, not just in statistical theory
What? The statistics was with regard to its practical application. Not some theoretical exercise. The data for the statistical validation was from practical application.
On any google search of forum search you find the same accusations levelled at the mechanics of the test.
of course you do, people like to complain in public. The thousands upon thousands who are quite happy with the test don't feel the need to go to a forum and shout about it.
In fact the more I think on it, the happier I am in my opinion that it is a monkey spunk of a test regardless of the sincerity of the methodology the designers insist they used.
The methodology was not designed for sincerity, it was designed according to assessment design principles. You may be happy in your opinion that the test was no good. That's up to you, but you have too recognise that your opinion and those of people who share similar opinions are contrary to evidence. Now in the past I have read the religious threads where people are banging on about evidence and how if some existed, then they would change their minds. I can't present you with evidence, but I have seen it. You can choose not to believe, that too is your prerogative, and no doubt more comfortable for you. I'm not really here to argue the point. Just to let you know that this test was not some [i]ad hoc[/i] construction. You failed it, your ego defence mechanism will only allow a limited number of reasons for this. I can't really do much about that.
No, why would it be?
Why wouldnt it be? Is it proprietary? Is there a reason why we cant see how the test assessed for meeting it's objectives?
So if you have nothing to fear in the methodology why not publish? Or at least publish the timing criteria for the hazard perception. Is it timed from the first discernible visual cue? Sometime thereafter? Does the timing window begin when the hazard is at some point in the field of view? ANy reason why we cant know these things because the test intro video is a bunch of bollocks on giving any guidance on when youre supposed to start thrashing the mouse button isnt it.
EDIT: OK, i'll accept your argument. But why is it not possible to issue a "marking guide" that accurately reflects how the computer will be testing your perception awareness. No one would publish an A'level exam without a marking guide.
Stoner earlier
TandemJeremy - Member
Love it.93% of would be bikers pass the test - perhpas because they prepared for it?
Stoner does not - therefore the test is at fault. the fact that other people whinge about it is proof
Maybe stoner, not unreasonably, thought the test would have some relevance to the real world, i.e. spot a hazard, respond right away. Not wait for the computers window of acceptance.
Why wouldnt it be? Is it proprietary? Is there a reason why we cant see how the test assessed for meeting it's objectives?
Nope
So if you have nothing to fear in the methodology why not publish?
Because there is nothing new about it, there is no contribution to knowledge. A well established test validation process was used. Would expect item writers for GCSE to publish the findings of the pre-test trials?
Or at least publish the timing criteria for the hazard perception. Is it timed from the first discernible visual cue? Sometime thereafter? Does the timing window begin when the hazard is at some point in the field of view?
You mean tell you the answers??? If you don't know when a hazard is a hazard, then you are the person we want to identify
ANy reason why we cant know these things because the test intro video is a bunch of bollocks on giving any guidance on when youre supposed to start thrashing the mouse button isnt it.
Have you tried the replay function? This might help you to differentiate between specific cases of hazard and non-hazard
You mean tell you the answers??? If you don't know when a hazard is a hazard, then you are the person we want to identify
No I mean show on a demo where the test is calculating the first potential perception of the hazard. Because it's clear that the most common reason people are missing the scoring click is because they have identified a potential hazard before the computer has opened the window for that hazard perception. I can understand it's to minimise capturing people blindly clicking, but it's excluding those with faster hazard perception which is perverse.
I have to retake the test with the explicit intention of delaying clicking when I identify a hazard - that's nuts.
PMSL at that one - absolute proof is obtained by the number of people whinging? Absolutely awesome mega bullshittery going on there.the fact that other people whinge about it is proof
http://www.theory-test.co.uk/asp/hazard_perception_info.asp#hazard_score
No I mean show on a demo where the test is calculating the first potential perception of the hazard.
That is on the review function on the demo test.
Because it is not yet a hazard. There are hundreds of [i]potential [/i]hazards in the video, only some of them are actual hazards.Because it's clear that the most common reason people are missing the scoring click is because they have identified a potential hazard before the computer has opened the window for that hazard perception.
I can understand it's to minimise capturing people blindly clicking, but it's excluding those with faster hazard perception which is perverse.
No, it's excluding those with an over-sensitive hazard perception
I have to retake the test with the explicit intention of delaying clicking when I identify a hazard - that's nuts.
no, you have to retake the test and learn to differentiate between seeing something and identifying it as a hazard.
If you don't know when a hazard is a hazard, then you are the person we want to identify
No, it's excluding those with an over-sensitive hazard perception
Looking at the example clips mentioned earlier: I identified several hazards that were not apparently [i]the[/i] hazard, even though I would have taken avoiding action or at least eased off the throttle and covered the brake.
So does the test also seek to identify me, perhaps as over-cautious/sensitive?
If it does then it failed, because I passed it first time 😀
Bigbutslimmerbloke - I agree - but that seems to be stoners position 🙂
In fact the more I think on it, the happier I am in my opinion that it is a monkey spunk of a test regardless of the sincerity of the methodology the designers insist they used. Not one person in this thread as far as I can see has concluded that the test itself is a good test, the principle of the test is welcomed, yes, but not the test itself - even those who have passed it first time, and even TJ (which is rightly so as he hasnt sat it).On any google search of forum search you find the same accusations levelled at the mechanics of the test.
[stoner logic]the test must be shit because he - a driver with decades of experience failed and the proof the test is shit is loads of folk whinge about it.[/stoner logic]
Stoner logic. Is this 2012's answer to TJ law?
Cards on the table;
Advanced driver.
Blue light ticket for rapid response cars.
Keen motorcyclist.
Practiced at recognising and differentiating hazards at high speed under pressure.
Unblemished accident record over many years of response driving (touching a big ass chunk of wood as I type)
My opinion; the test is too simplistic, and a bit pants. It has laudable intentions, but can't replace decent instruction and practice. I had to do it for my motorcycle test and although I passed, I was disqualified on a particularly busy segment through a town centre for 'cheating', which I resent. I wasn't cheating, I was following the advise to click when you spot the hazard, click when it develops, and click when you would take evasive action. There were a lot of potential hazards.
no, you have to retake the test and learn to differentiate between seeing something and identifying it as a hazard.
Firstly you have to decide which of the potential hazards is the hazard that the test is testing you on.
So does the test also seek to identify me, perhaps as over-cautious/sensitive?If it does then it failed, because I passed it first time
It's built on a probabilistic model. It is difficult to speak of individual cases, but it would seem to indicate that you at least identified the real hazards when they were there. Where stoner did not, unless you were under the threshold of click happiness and he was not.
No assessment system is perfect, but the statistical approach is used to say that the balance of probability is that Stoner is not of the required standard and you were. What is not available is how much you passed or failed by.
the more I think on it, the happier I am in my opinion that it is a monkey spunk of a test regardless of the sincerity of the methodology the designers insist they used.
So what you're saying is, you think they intentionally designed it to be simian semen?
Because it is not yet a hazard. There are hundreds of potential hazards in the video, only some of them are actual hazards.
What practical benefit do we get from testing candidates' ability to recognise actual hazards [i]after [/i]they've become, er, hazardous? It's too late by then. Surely the ability to spot potential hazards is precisely what you should be testing for? Are we really teaching behaviour which says "ignore potential hazards, just react to things"? Really?
Wow.
