New DVLA Hazard Perception Tests
Discussion
Have any of the more experienced drivers amongst us had cause to take the 'New Hazard Perception' tests?
(Upgrading their Licence Groups etc)
The reason im asking is that there are a lot of highly trained drivers who are taking this test and failing.....does anyone know why or could 'hazard' a guess?
(Upgrading their Licence Groups etc)
The reason im asking is that there are a lot of highly trained drivers who are taking this test and failing.....does anyone know why or could 'hazard' a guess?
Are these drivers you are testing this on - police drivers by any chance? Only wondering in light of that article in yesterday's paper! 
In my line of work - I research the side-effects of medicines etc. A computer prognosis is not the same as actual effect on person.
Computerised tests are one thing - actual driving is another!
Does anyone remember the old (for numpties only) Krypton Factor Game Show. One of their so-called intelligence tests involved seeing a clip of film, and then being asked observation questions on it. Surprising how many scored badly on this!
Similarly - "eye-witness" accounts of crimes (other than speeding!) - no two accounts are the same - and the cops even say this! Thus no two people will view a video depicting a number of hazards in the same way! Some will perceive one hazard as being more hazardous than another!
Some people may be slow at clicking the mouse (may not be used to using computer - even! Not everyone has one or uses one!) Know of one experienced driver who could not get past lesson one in a Learner Driver DVD game. This was because his mouse clicking was not "good enough! and he always "stopped short of the stop marking on the on-screen road!" Eyes, Hand and finger co-ordination in front of a computer is not the same as actual driving -- concentrating and reacting to real life conscious decision-making. There is probably more spontanaiety and immediate response when actually doing to sat in office clicking a mouse! Some people are better at computer games than others. Kids probably play computer games more frequently than older people as well - and may score better on this - but be pretty naff at spotting actual hazards out there on the road - whereas the non-computer literate chap avoids the real and actual ones but has accidents galore on screen!
One person's idea of hazard may be different to computer game as well! Clip may show more than one hazard - and too many clicks per the programme is "cheating"
Cousin purchased one such item from PC World when his eldest son was learning how to drive! There were lots of different hazards on the film clips - but if you chose anything other than the computer game's version - you were sunk! We all had great fun with it anyway - and concluded that the bloke doing the driving in the films was the real hazard anyway - we were pressing imaginary brake pedals at one stage! A real white knuckle ride - and we hope we never meet that numpty on the road! Film footage was also from passenger seat view - which can confuse some!
No sign of two-second rule knowledge (he nearly ran into the back of the blue Picasso!) and dodgy use of windscreen wipers in one of the clips - and these were not the hazards or driver errors according to the game!
The 17 year old thought so!
(Of course - all the wild cats scored highly - without cheating!)
Just hazarding a few guesses to help you out!
Edited to say - not necessarily knocking the idea of video & hazard perception training - but low scores on this may not necessarily mean straightforward poor hazard perception skills as per above ideas - and the teacher in the family agrees with me! Did note that Cousin's DVD did show quite a lot of Gatsos and talivans in the clips - and these were not the answers per the computer game!!
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 4th March 11:47
In my line of work - I research the side-effects of medicines etc. A computer prognosis is not the same as actual effect on person.
Computerised tests are one thing - actual driving is another!
Does anyone remember the old (for numpties only) Krypton Factor Game Show. One of their so-called intelligence tests involved seeing a clip of film, and then being asked observation questions on it. Surprising how many scored badly on this!
Similarly - "eye-witness" accounts of crimes (other than speeding!
) - no two accounts are the same - and the cops even say this! Thus no two people will view a video depicting a number of hazards in the same way! Some will perceive one hazard as being more hazardous than another! Some people may be slow at clicking the mouse (may not be used to using computer - even! Not everyone has one or uses one!) Know of one experienced driver who could not get past lesson one in a Learner Driver DVD game. This was because his mouse clicking was not "good enough! and he always "stopped short of the stop marking on the on-screen road!" Eyes, Hand and finger co-ordination in front of a computer is not the same as actual driving -- concentrating and reacting to real life conscious decision-making. There is probably more spontanaiety and immediate response when actually doing to sat in office clicking a mouse! Some people are better at computer games than others. Kids probably play computer games more frequently than older people as well - and may score better on this - but be pretty naff at spotting actual hazards out there on the road - whereas the non-computer literate chap avoids the real and actual ones but has accidents galore on screen!
One person's idea of hazard may be different to computer game as well! Clip may show more than one hazard - and too many clicks per the programme is "cheating"
Cousin purchased one such item from PC World when his eldest son was learning how to drive! There were lots of different hazards on the film clips - but if you chose anything other than the computer game's version - you were sunk! We all had great fun with it anyway - and concluded that the bloke doing the driving in the films was the real hazard anyway - we were pressing imaginary brake pedals at one stage!
A real white knuckle ride - and we hope we never meet that numpty on the road! Film footage was also from passenger seat view - which can confuse some! No sign of two-second rule knowledge (he nearly ran into the back of the blue Picasso!) and dodgy use of windscreen wipers in one of the clips - and these were not the hazards or driver errors according to the game!
The 17 year old thought so!
(Of course - all the wild cats scored highly - without cheating!
) Just hazarding a few guesses to help you out!
Edited to say - not necessarily knocking the idea of video & hazard perception training - but low scores on this may not necessarily mean straightforward poor hazard perception skills as per above ideas - and the teacher in the family agrees with me! Did note that Cousin's DVD did show quite a lot of Gatsos and talivans in the clips - and these were not the answers per the computer game!!
>> Edited by WildCat on Thursday 4th March 11:47
Good reply......
Some were Police Officers and some werent.
To give an example, the car was driving down a straight road in a residential area.
About 200yds ahead i could see a vehicle starting to reverse out of a driveway on the right. I clicked the mouse as this was obviously a developing hazard. As i approached, the car kept coming out, across the path so i clicked again. The car eventually came out onto the road in front of the imaginery car so i clicked again........the result was 1 point
I can see what they were/are getting at but it is nothing more than a game. Once you have practised and LOWERED your vision then you are seriously in the points and tend to 'hit their ballon' every time.
I can imagine that its good for learner drivers with little experience about to take their Drivning Tests, but experienced drivers taking this test (when upgrading to Cat C/D) its nothing more than a game/insult because of instead of improving your driving standards, you have to lower them to a very basic level which in todays world cant be a good thing.
Some were Police Officers and some werent.
To give an example, the car was driving down a straight road in a residential area.
About 200yds ahead i could see a vehicle starting to reverse out of a driveway on the right. I clicked the mouse as this was obviously a developing hazard. As i approached, the car kept coming out, across the path so i clicked again. The car eventually came out onto the road in front of the imaginery car so i clicked again........the result was 1 point
I can see what they were/are getting at but it is nothing more than a game. Once you have practised and LOWERED your vision then you are seriously in the points and tend to 'hit their ballon' every time.
I can imagine that its good for learner drivers with little experience about to take their Drivning Tests, but experienced drivers taking this test (when upgrading to Cat C/D) its nothing more than a game/insult because of instead of improving your driving standards, you have to lower them to a very basic level which in todays world cant be a good thing.
Hmm, my dad had a go at this and he was having lots of trouble, even though he's had lots of training.
I borrowed his 'Hazard Perception' CD-ROM for the day and had a look at what was going on 'inside' the programme. After some noseying around I found that each hazard has a number of points associated with it for how far ahead you successfully manage to spot it. The problem for us advanced drivers is that we tend to spot the hazard a moment before they were intended to be seen, meaning that we click a moment before there is any scoring. So in most occasion only our 'second' click would register, meaning that looking too far ahead would loose points.
I hope that made some sense.
I borrowed his 'Hazard Perception' CD-ROM for the day and had a look at what was going on 'inside' the programme. After some noseying around I found that each hazard has a number of points associated with it for how far ahead you successfully manage to spot it. The problem for us advanced drivers is that we tend to spot the hazard a moment before they were intended to be seen, meaning that we click a moment before there is any scoring. So in most occasion only our 'second' click would register, meaning that looking too far ahead would loose points.
I hope that made some sense.
Took mine yesterday in order to take my motorbike test. Had my licence for 10 years, no accidents etc. plenty of near misses where one was avoided due to me predicting actions of other drivers or reading the road ahead - standard stuff.
45 out of 75 on the hazard element, one mark clear of the pass mark at 44.
I suspect that the reason is experienced drivers will tend to be able to anticipate the actions of others on the road and change position/speed in plenty of time so that they rarely get close to an accident. In the test you have to monitor potential hazards and click when they start to turn into actuals - e.g. a car about to change lanes on a motorway due to a slower moving vehicle ahead - most of us would slow or change lanes in plenty time to let the car out but in the video the driver appears not to notice and has to slow down and change lanes when the car starts pulling out. ou have to click as soon as the car starts indicating.
Hence it is not a normal situation for an experienced driver as we would not leave it so late. Most clips would have you worried about the skills of the driver.
It's a great idea as I can see how it will help new drivers to look out for hazards but it is not thought out as a way of testing experienced drivers. Maybe it's another revenue generator at £20.50 a time:-)
45 out of 75 on the hazard element, one mark clear of the pass mark at 44.
I suspect that the reason is experienced drivers will tend to be able to anticipate the actions of others on the road and change position/speed in plenty of time so that they rarely get close to an accident. In the test you have to monitor potential hazards and click when they start to turn into actuals - e.g. a car about to change lanes on a motorway due to a slower moving vehicle ahead - most of us would slow or change lanes in plenty time to let the car out but in the video the driver appears not to notice and has to slow down and change lanes when the car starts pulling out. ou have to click as soon as the car starts indicating.
Hence it is not a normal situation for an experienced driver as we would not leave it so late. Most clips would have you worried about the skills of the driver.
It's a great idea as I can see how it will help new drivers to look out for hazards but it is not thought out as a way of testing experienced drivers. Maybe it's another revenue generator at £20.50 a time:-)
In the same vein as WildCat, driving a computer game (no matter how good the physics model is) is never the same as driving for real. The "feel" you get for a car and its reactions whilst sitting in it and driving it can never be replicated with current technology IMO.
There are plenty of execellent drivers out there who would probably struggle with a simulation.
For myself, I spend a lot of time in front of a PC (comes from being a software developer, I suppose!) and am a fiarly dab hand at some kinds of games (e.g. 1st person shooters). I like to think (but, then so does everyone!) that I'm above the numpty level as a real-world driver and can punt a cart around a track as fast as my on-board weight penalty will allow , but struggle to get a computer car around a track without spinning or richocheting off the armco! Without the "feel" of the car and how its handling, it just doesn't make sense to my brain I guess...
I'd imagine that a similar thing would apply to the hazzard perception test; seeing the world on a screen rather than through a windscreen is a very different experience.
There are plenty of execellent drivers out there who would probably struggle with a simulation.
For myself, I spend a lot of time in front of a PC (comes from being a software developer, I suppose!) and am a fiarly dab hand at some kinds of games (e.g. 1st person shooters). I like to think (but, then so does everyone!
) that I'm above the numpty level as a real-world driver and can punt a cart around a track as fast as my on-board weight penalty will allow , but struggle to get a computer car around a track without spinning or richocheting off the armco! Without the "feel" of the car and how its handling, it just doesn't make sense to my brain I guess... I'd imagine that a similar thing would apply to the hazzard perception test; seeing the world on a screen rather than through a windscreen is a very different experience.
Tony,
I would have thought that police drivers still have to do the running commentary while driving for training/pursuit purposes, in order to show the trainer / controller that they know exactly what is going on around them.
I fail to see how a computer game would improve on this, particularly for an experienced driver.
i can remember having to do this for the Rospa test.
I would have thought that police drivers still have to do the running commentary while driving for training/pursuit purposes, in order to show the trainer / controller that they know exactly what is going on around them.
I fail to see how a computer game would improve on this, particularly for an experienced driver.
i can remember having to do this for the Rospa test.
I think the main reason is the difference between sitting at a computer seeing a 17" corner to corner of the road in front and having the all round view of a car. It's like driving around with your windows covered in a sheet of black card bar a square cut out in front of you. Its totally different.
If the Hazard Perception was done in a proper car simulator I think those experienced drivers would get on much better as they would have all the sources of information they are used to.
Also I think that the new system benefits the 'computer generation' becasuse this is what the young generation are used to, playing games on a small box
If the Hazard Perception was done in a proper car simulator I think those experienced drivers would get on much better as they would have all the sources of information they are used to.
Also I think that the new system benefits the 'computer generation' becasuse this is what the young generation are used to, playing games on a small box
Did mine last July - no problem.
One concern is that you are warned that 'clicking' too often can make you lose marks.
You may click when you see a situation, which you think needs watching - and again as the a hazard develops but you are afraid to click again in case you lose marks over this.
If you're not careful you can click at almost every driveway, road junction etc..
Could novice drivers, not as aware of every hazard, pass and then the more experienced of us fail through over clicking?
One concern is that you are warned that 'clicking' too often can make you lose marks.
You may click when you see a situation, which you think needs watching - and again as the a hazard develops but you are afraid to click again in case you lose marks over this.
If you're not careful you can click at almost every driveway, road junction etc..
Could novice drivers, not as aware of every hazard, pass and then the more experienced of us fail through over clicking?
stackmonkey said:
Tony,
I would have thought that police drivers still have to do the running commentary while driving for training/pursuit purposes, in order to show the trainer / controller that they know exactly what is going on around them.
I fail to see how a computer game would improve on this, particularly for an experienced driver.
i can remember having to do this for the Rospa test.
Yes, Police drivers have to do the commentary but when you take this Hazard perception test its done through the DVLA.I certainly had to do this test when i undertook class C+D training before i hit the roads even though iam a Police driver.
Pass mark was 50 out of 75....i scored 48. After i got hold of the example discs i scored over 70 on the other 2 tests that i had to take.
It was quite strange that i picked on 1 particular example and tried it 6 or 7 times. Each time i varied my clicking and i certainly didnt agree with the 'areas' that would have given me max points.
The point that i was trying to make is that the more experience that you have, the harder it is to pass first time. Your vision and thought have to go down to a level which is the basic level required to pass your initial Driving Test.
Once you get hold of the example discs then you know what is required and the chance of passing is greatly enhanced.
It did make me laugh though because in most of the examples, i would say that there are at least 5 or 6 hazards....not just the one.
Anyone with a high level of training that thinks they can pass first time without any 'practice' is/are misleading themselves and in for a nasty shock.
It was quite strange that i picked on 1 particular example and tried it 6 or 7 times. Each time i varied my clicking and i certainly didnt agree with the 'areas' that would have given me max points.
The point that i was trying to make is that the more experience that you have, the harder it is to pass first time. Your vision and thought have to go down to a level which is the basic level required to pass your initial Driving Test.
Once you get hold of the example discs then you know what is required and the chance of passing is greatly enhanced.
It did make me laugh though because in most of the examples, i would say that there are at least 5 or 6 hazards....not just the one.
Anyone with a high level of training that thinks they can pass first time without any 'practice' is/are misleading themselves and in for a nasty shock.
Yup! You really do have to suss out how to click on the hazard per the program to score the points before you can "score!" Not a reasonable test of hazard perception on that basis - and this sort of program certainly contradicts COAST !!
It is very much a "Pavlow dog" type of game - you learn by trial and error how to click for required result - and get the "reward" in the pass points.
General view across this family was - OK as means to show learner how a hazard can develop and promote initial hazard awareness - but pretty naff as means of teaching how to deal with it when actually behind the wheel!
Apart from the fact that the guy behind the wheel in the film is a "hazard unaware" numpty, and if you click on with "experienced eye for danger" - it nobbles you for "cheating!" You have to click just as you are about to collide with the car transporter outside the garage to get maximum points! This is why, once sussed out, we had such fun! Never "driven" like that before in our lives! We were all a bit pale afterwards! Never driven in the rain without using wipers before! 
(The damned thing did actually accuse one of us of "cheating" when she clicked on that as hazard besides the so-called real one!)
The intended "victim" of this game (available from any retail outlet) - 17 year old - found it more useful to pass comment on the clips he saw rather than click - but needed to practise the click technique for his test! (He actually learned more on the road with his Dad and the driving school!)
As said earlier - useful to a point, but would think its use as part of a driving test questionable on all points raised throughout the thread here!
Not a reasonable test of hazard perception on that basis - and this sort of program certainly contradicts COAST !! It is very much a "Pavlow dog" type of game - you learn by trial and error how to click for required result - and get the "reward" in the pass points.
General view across this family was - OK as means to show learner how a hazard can develop and promote initial hazard awareness - but pretty naff as means of teaching how to deal with it when actually behind the wheel!
Apart from the fact that the guy behind the wheel in the film is a "hazard unaware" numpty, and if you click on with "experienced eye for danger" - it nobbles you for "cheating!" You have to click just as you are about to collide with the car transporter outside the garage to get maximum points! This is why, once sussed out, we had such fun! Never "driven" like that before in our lives!
We were all a bit pale afterwards! Never driven in the rain without using wipers before! (The damned thing did actually accuse one of us of "cheating" when she clicked on that as hazard besides the so-called real one!) The intended "victim" of this game (available from any retail outlet) - 17 year old - found it more useful to pass comment on the clips he saw rather than click - but needed to practise the click technique for his test! (He actually learned more on the road with his Dad and the driving school!)
As said earlier - useful to a point, but would think its use as part of a driving test questionable on all points raised throughout the thread here!
tonyrec said:Or to put it another way. If you pass one of these first time with no practice then you need a damn site more training
Anyone with a high level of training that thinks they can pass first time without any 'practice' is/are misleading themselves and in for a nasty shock.
.I had a go a couple of months ago on a disc someone was looking at re their motorcycle test and did quite well, but disagreed with some of the "hazards".
I'm not a professional driver, but have been driving for a few years - there is no way I can see that one or two of the so-called hazards could be seen as such.
I'm not a professional driver, but have been driving for a few years - there is no way I can see that one or two of the so-called hazards could be seen as such.
Phew, it's not just me then!
My wife takes the test the week after next. I've tried the tests on her CD ROM and failed for seeing too many hazards.
The first one I tried involved coming up to a blind bend on a narrow country road with hedgerows going into a wooded area. I clicked once for that, once for the oncoming car, once for the loose surface at the edge of the road where you would have had put your passenger side wheels and then once going into the dark wooded area. The test was only aware of one hazard on that section.
My wife takes the test the week after next. I've tried the tests on her CD ROM and failed for seeing too many hazards.
The first one I tried involved coming up to a blind bend on a narrow country road with hedgerows going into a wooded area. I clicked once for that, once for the oncoming car, once for the loose surface at the edge of the road where you would have had put your passenger side wheels and then once going into the dark wooded area. The test was only aware of one hazard on that section.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff