BBC View on New Driving Test...
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2268781.stm
quote:SOunds good - how it'll work in practice is anyone's guess, but it's a move in the right direction, I think we'll agree..
New video driving exam put to the test
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online
The driving test is about to get harder, with candidates having to pit their wits against a video simulation. It's tougher than you might think.
Clearly I'm a menace on the roads. My full no-claims bonus, clean licence and years of driving experience count for nothing when it comes to this latest addition to the driving test.
I might be the sort of motorist who would slow down to spare the life of a dozy pigeon, but try telling that to an impassive computer monitor which has just announced your total points score out of 25.
I scored a measly... let's just say I failed. Abysmally.
From November, the new "hazard perception test" will become a compulsory part of the standard driving test. It is designed, according to the Department of Transport, to help new drivers cope with everyday dangers on the road.
Every year, 3,400 people are killed on Britain's roads and many of these accidents are caused by those with little experience behind the wheel. One in five new drivers has an accident within the first 12 months of passing their test.
Attending the launch of the new test, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling expressed his wish that it would help sharpen the awareness skills of those new to the driving seat.
Quite what it will do for any experienced motorist who happens to give it a spin, is another question. In my case, it was a confidence-zapping experience.
The electronic test is taken in front of a normal computer monitor. There are no pedals or steering wheel, just a mouse. The "driver" watches a series of video clips, each about a minute long, filmed on all sorts of roads, from country lanes to suburban high streets to motorways. Candidates need to click the mouse button as soon as they see a hazard.
It sounds easy enough. But as I set out on this virtual test drive, I became increasingly unsure exactly what qualified as a "hazard".
For example, is a woman running along the pavement a hazard or just a woman running along the pavement? I clicked when she started to veer out into the road, but found out later I should have acted as soon as I clapped eyes on her.
What exactly is dangerous?
Other "hazards" include a lollipop lady standing by the side of the road, a class of schoolchildren walking in crocodile, a motorcyclist pulling in and a roadside tree-cutting team.
The problem is that if all these are judged to be potentially dangerous, then isn't just about everything?
Is a parked car not perilous, since its door could suddenly swing open into the road? Is a green traffic light not "hazardous" since it will, at some point, turn to red? And what about a simple bend in the road - dangerous perhaps because you can't see round it?
On that basis, you might as well just merrily click away at everything you see on screen. And that, apparently, is the secret to the whole thing.
While you will be penalised for clicking furiously and completely at random, the basic message - remember this all you learner drivers who have a test booked for after 14 November - is that you can't be too careful.
quote:And since so few people are, if this exercise rams home that single point, then it's worthwhile IMO..
You should always be aware of what is going on around you when driving.
As usual, and as said above, good idea, but how it'll work in practice is anyone's guess..
After all, this government doesn't have a good record with exams, does it now... ?
I'm with the BBC guy. This test is bollocks. The *only* way to be sure that a candidate has identified hazards and prioritised them if for them to watch the video, do a full commentary on what the hazards are and have an examiner listen and mark.
Just clicking the mouse randomly will probably get you through this little farce.
But at least hazard perception is something that has been identified as important - and drivers are supposed to be able to do it. That is, at least, a good thing.
Just clicking the mouse randomly will probably get you through this little farce.
But at least hazard perception is something that has been identified as important - and drivers are supposed to be able to do it. That is, at least, a good thing.
Totally agree with you don, the new test sounds a load of rubbish. The only way to really test someone is to make them do a full commentary, either in a car or to a video.
I just heard a report on the radio, with the reporter saying he took the test looking away from the screen just clicking every couple of seconds. He got full marks....
I just heard a report on the radio, with the reporter saying he took the test looking away from the screen just clicking every couple of seconds. He got full marks....
In the same way that speed cameras are an excuse to raise money and reduce policing on the road, the government seems to have found a way to be able to say they are tacking poor driver training without actually spending any money on it.
No more examiners, no human element assessing judgment, just a series of mouse clicks. How long before every 17 year old in the land knows exactly what the video will present them with and when to click?
Yet another half arsed attempt so as to be seen to be doing something.
No more examiners, no human element assessing judgment, just a series of mouse clicks. How long before every 17 year old in the land knows exactly what the video will present them with and when to click?
Yet another half arsed attempt so as to be seen to be doing something.
Agree completely, show photographs of a road ahead, ask them to note say 3 out of maybe 5 potential hazards and then prioritise them. The examiner can cross references this with a score sheet to establish whether a pass should be awarded. Simple. Instead of all this arcade game, mouse clicking crap that doesn't assess real driver judgement its just an extension of the Playstation era which doubtless does not mirror real on the road driving conditions.
A seperate test could be devised to measure reactions this can be done using technology and more appropriately utilise a foot pedal. I attended a police open day for the public some 12 years back where my Dad completed an emergency stop simulation through a BBC computer (remember those) it still had a brake pedal though! Reaction time was calculated and printed. Simple, accurate and effective.
I'm inclined to say that some tests especially visual should be compulsory every ten years. How many people on the road need glasses but don't wear them?
A seperate test could be devised to measure reactions this can be done using technology and more appropriately utilise a foot pedal. I attended a police open day for the public some 12 years back where my Dad completed an emergency stop simulation through a BBC computer (remember those) it still had a brake pedal though! Reaction time was calculated and printed. Simple, accurate and effective.
I'm inclined to say that some tests especially visual should be compulsory every ten years. How many people on the road need glasses but don't wear them?
Good idea in principle, but will probably do more in "spin" than actual results. After all, when it fails to have an effect, it'll just reinforce the argument that it's all about speed. I heard one of the developers on the radio yesterday who was saying that the problems with the demo were unrepresentative. Not a good demo, then. Like the product demos that every company does when development isn't keeping up with delivery schedules.
A couple of points, though. What is the pass mark for that test? How many hazards are you allowed to miss and how many are you allowed to imagine?
Secondly, I understand that an actual "drive" is still required in the test?
What confirmation of hazard perception is there in that? Do the instructor fail people if they think they haven't seen a potential hazard? Maybe becouse that would inclove a longer drive/more examiner training/more examiners/not involve a supplier contract to develop some new technology?
I think we're wasting our time if we think this is going to keep dangerous drivers off the raods -- after all, there's enough on there already. And it's not really in the government's interest to in any way reduce the rate that licences are being issued (despite what they may say), after all, every new driver is buying a car (dealers pay tax on profits, even selling used), buying road tax, paying fuel duty, paying congestion charging, adding to the congestion (i.e. justifying even more congestion charging)... [edit: speeding fines
]
edit: I know this has been said before, but how can we allow people on the m/way alone when they've never been on one before in their life (potentially)? Whay isn't it tested? And why isn't night driving tested at all? After all, I know several people who find it more difficult judging speeds/distances at night, so whay isn't is practiced and demonstrated before gaining a licence?
>> Edited by whatever on Friday 20th September 13:09
>> Edited by whatever on Friday 20th September 13:11
A couple of points, though. What is the pass mark for that test? How many hazards are you allowed to miss and how many are you allowed to imagine?
Secondly, I understand that an actual "drive" is still required in the test?
What confirmation of hazard perception is there in that? Do the instructor fail people if they think they haven't seen a potential hazard? Maybe becouse that would inclove a longer drive/more examiner training/more examiners/not involve a supplier contract to develop some new technology? I think we're wasting our time if we think this is going to keep dangerous drivers off the raods -- after all, there's enough on there already. And it's not really in the government's interest to in any way reduce the rate that licences are being issued (despite what they may say), after all, every new driver is buying a car (dealers pay tax on profits, even selling used), buying road tax, paying fuel duty, paying congestion charging, adding to the congestion (i.e. justifying even more congestion charging)... [edit: speeding fines
] edit: I know this has been said before, but how can we allow people on the m/way alone when they've never been on one before in their life (potentially)? Whay isn't it tested? And why isn't night driving tested at all? After all, I know several people who find it more difficult judging speeds/distances at night, so whay isn't is practiced and demonstrated before gaining a licence?
>> Edited by whatever on Friday 20th September 13:09
>> Edited by whatever on Friday 20th September 13:11
quote:
quote:And since so few people are, if this exercise rams home that single point, then it's worthwhile IMO..
You should always be aware of what is going on around you when driving.
As usual, and as said above, good idea, but how it'll work in practice is anyone's guess..
After all, this government doesn't have a good record with exams, does it now... ?
My sperm are taking their A levels next year and I am looking forward to a good crop of well adjusted results. They have all been practising on the 1976 O level papers. The new video game, sorry driving test is a great idea, should prove in by about 2040, by which time I will either be dead or will have grown old disgracefully. I can see the headlines now 80 year old slaughters smellies on anti breathing rally. Assuming breathing bocomes socially unnaceptable by then.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff