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)
I see your problem. You're too complacent.
STW can be edumacational, who knew.
Why is a computer, which can only work in 1s and 0s, assessing something that is by its very nature, not so black and white?
Computer says you were 0.001 seconds too fast in spotting that child.
Computer says you clicked too rhythmically and are therefore cheating.
If hazard perception is so important (which I doubt anyone will deny), then why just not assess it as part of the practical test where it is REAL world, with a real and objective assessor who can use discretion? Which it surely is anyway? In which case why on earth have we bothered to include it as a wee interactive movie screening in the theory test?
Are we really teaching behaviour which says "ignore potential hazards, just react to things"? Really?Wow.
Which is pretty much the allegation here
• Does not realistically measure the candidates skill in scanning and
hazard perception
• Encourages reactive behaviour which is in direct contrast to the aims of
the exercise to encourage better scanning and anticipation, and;
• More important and worrying than all, scores awarded in this test do
not, in any way, help separate ‘safe drivers’ from those who could turn
out to be unsafe drivers.
I see your problem. You're too complacent.
STW can be edumacational, who knew.
LOL. Can you test for that? I mean, [i]statistically[/i]?
Are we really teaching behaviour which says "ignore potential hazards,
Well, we are saying not everything is hazardous, yet everything is a potential hazard. After all, there are lots of things in the videos, every one of them could become hazardous, we don't want constant clicking.
One doesnt get tested for that, TJ passes judgement.
Stoner - what prep did you do for this? Did you do any with professional training bodies?
Well, we are saying not everything is hazardous, yet everything is a potential hazard. After all, there are lots of things in the videos, every one of them could become hazardous, we don't want constant clicking.
Ah. So the candidate's clicking technique when interacting with the test is of higher importance to the test's creators than the candidate's hazard perception skills?
It's a good job you're here to clear these things up. Up until this point I was thinking Stoner was simply a buffoon who went into a test without proper preparation; now it transpires that he's probably right and the test simply isn't very good.
Stoner - what prep did you do for this? Did you do any with professional training bodies?
You've got to love the technique... 😆
Well, we are saying not everything is hazardous, yet everything is a potential hazard. After all, there are lots of things in the videos, every one of them could become hazardous, we don't want constant clicking.
This is what I don't get from the sample page. Do I win or lose points for identifying all the hazards and extra points for identifying the hazard that I'm being tested for as it develops? Or will I be disqualified for rhythmically identifying all the hazards?
Ah. So the candidate's clicking technique when interacting with the test is of higher importance to the test's creators than the candidate's hazard perception skills?
The test needs some way of differentiating between constant undifferentiated clicking and clicking associated with identification of a hazard. i hadn't said it was of higher importance, only that it is a source of information. You could carry out a similar assessment but instead of using a computer simulation, you sat in a car with the candidate. You need to make some judgement on whether or not they were able to identify hazards, so you ask them to shout each time they saw one. If they just shouted all the time, you would have to surmise that they didn't really know a hazard when they saw one.
So when i say we don't want constant clicking, what I really mean is that we don't want to pass people who just click constantly.
Less satirically,
there are lots of things in the videos, every one of them could become hazardous
When the test was being created, did no-one think this might perhaps slightly relevant? Or indeed, y'know, the entire crux of observation and situational awareness? There are a lot of potential hazards on the road [i]which is the reason we're testing people [/i]and the test designers figured, gosh, that's hard to test for on a button click, lets penalise anyone who spots them instead?
I think it's my lack of natural rhythm that must have saved me.
Up until this point I was thinking Stoner was simply a buffoon who went into a test without proper preparation; now it transpires that he's probably right and the test simply isn't very good.
A little from column A, a little from column B.
Do I win or lose points for identifying all the hazards and extra points for identifying the hazard that I'm being tested for as it develops
What other hazards did you identify? on which test?
There are a lot of potential hazards on the road which is the reason we're testing people and the test designers figured, gosh, that's hard to test for on a button click, lets penalise anyone who spots them instead?
The art is in identifying when a potential hazard becomes a real one
So when i say we don't want constant clicking, what I really mean is that we don't want to pass people who just click constantly.
but the mechanism you're using to eliminate constant clicking is also eliminating those that identify hazards early - not just "ped on pavement" but "ped turning slightly as they walk past car." That's enough to make someone who is observant click as a developing hazard, but the test doesnt open the "developing hazard window" until later.
On any number of other threads, there's talk of gaming the test, from non-rhythmic non-stop clicking to the one scuzz suggests: wait an extra second or two for the computer to wake up then fire off a handful of random timed clicks. Isnt it a sign of a failure of the test when you have to modify what is ostensibly a safe behaviour into a less safe one just to pass?
What other hazards did you identify? on which test?
The two I've looked at have a cyclist coming out of the side street and the VW Beetle picking up the passenger then pulling out.
On each video there are pedestrians who could potentially be hazards if they decided to run into the road. The cyclist video lost sight of a car at the mini roundabout which could be a potential hazard if it decides to turn right, another video had a car coming out of a driveway. These, and any car coming in the opposite direction, are potential hazards.
I would find a test that allows you to explain your actions much more beneficial.
The art is in identifying when a potential hazard becomes a real one
So it's not like real life then.
The test needs some way of differentiating between constant undifferentiated clicking and clicking associated with identification of a hazard.
Sure, but in my position as a mere layman observer it'd seem to me that redefining "hazard" to conveniently fit the test you've created isn't really the best solution.
I don't mean to pick on you incidentally, Sam, and I genuinely appreciate you coming along to help explain. But it does seem to me (based on discussion here and the linked practice tests) that the test is flawed. And it sounds from what you're suggesting that the reason it's flawed centres around the fact that reliable computer-based testing is a little bit tricky. Which makes me want to type furiously on the Internet.
but the mechanism you're using to eliminate constant clicking is also eliminating those that identify hazards early - not just "ped on pavement" but "ped turning slightly as they walk past car." That's enough to make someone who is observant click as a developing hazard, but the test doesnt open the "developing hazard window" until later.
and yet it is very good at predicting safe drivers, differentiates well between expert and novice drivers, and correlates well with other driving skills tests.
It might be that the test agency don't think that a pedestrian turning slightly is particularly hazardous
The art is in identifying when a potential hazard becomes a real one
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?
On each video there are pedestrians who could potentially be hazards if they decided to run into the road
sure, but did you click for the apparently parked cars which might pull out in front of you? or the cars on the other side of the road who might decide to drive into you?
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?
Yes, it is a hazard perception test, not a potential hazard perception test
It might be that the test agency don't think that a pedestrian turning slightly is particularly hazardous
How can they know? It will, after all, not have developed, unless they've seen the video a couple of times... 😕
why just not assess it as part of the practical test where it is REAL world, with a real and objective assessor who can use discretion?
Hazards may not occur in a real life test? Some people sit the test in central London, others on Skye. Having a standardised video makes sense in that respect.
What other hazards did you identify? on which test?
On the sample Clip 1, linked to earlier, in the first 15 seconds or so you are driving down what appears to be a narrow street with cars parked both sides - there is a van with the passenger door open, an oncoming car, and a recently parked car.
I'd probably adjust my speed or at least cover a pedal for the first two (I'd keep an eye on the third) so doesn't that qualify them as hazards - i.e. an obstacle requiring some action from the driver?
It might be that the test agency don't think that a pedestrian turning slightly is particularly hazardous
On the review of the sample clip, the 5 point window opens while the pedestrian is still on the pavement, turning slightly.
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
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
