Theory Test - Hazard Perception

facade

forgotmyname wrote: »

An experienced driver will usually fail the first time they try it, having clicked far too early for the hazards.

I did , also you don't even think of some of them as "hazards" because anticipation/avoidance have become second nature.

bod1467

forgotmyname wrote: »

An experienced driver will usually fail the first time they try it, having clicked far too early for the hazards.

That's exactly what my driving instructor neighbour said ... the test is geared towards new drivers, so experienced drivers see the hazards too early (as far as the test is concerned).

Rain_Shadow

EdGasket wrote: »

Well it ain't that easy. I failed everyone I did on some practice DVD. My children have failed on this only. Some of it is quite random and its just luck if you pass. It is not always obvious what the particular hazard is that they want you to flag; is it passing a parked car, or approaching a junction ?? That sort of choice. I have never had an accident in 40 years of motoring so not sure what the hazard perception thing is trying to prove but its a good money maker for the gov. with all the retest fees you rack up.

Seen a few in your mirrors though?;)

hutman

I passed theory test yesterday in my second attempt after HP threw me off first time.

The clips were the same as the first test. My score was marginally better after failing first time. After my second attempt I can conclude nobody has any idea how this test is scored.

I've scoured the net over 'potential' and 'developing' hazards, I'd prepared myself for the timing of the clicks - too soon, too late & too many clicks.

In the end, I tried a reasonable approach of clicking whenever I saw any potential hazard and clicking successively on developing hazards - the latter I was 100% sure I had observed, anticipated and reacted. I still ended up scoring 0 on four clips! Retracing my steps I have no idea how i scored zilch on these clips - considering my result; these naughts were awfully close to giving me another fail, at which point I would have probably slapped one the staff at the center.

If you're taking the theory you might as well do no preparation for Hazard perception as it literally a spin on the wheel without any methodology. Complete utter waste.

Strider590

Oddly enough, something that helps with hazard perception is FPS video gaming, a scientific study showed that FPS gamers can track multiple targets to a far greater extent than non-gamers, if I can find the info i'll post something to back this up. The BBC vaguely covered it, but didn't really put their heart into it as the BBC is mostly anti-gaming.

It was really interesting stuff. More interesting was what happened after they got non-gamers to played video games for 2 weeks, the improvement was astonishing.

They don't tend to fall into a state of "target fixation", that's basically focusing entirely on one single thing happening the field of view, which in the real world transfers really well into hazard perception when driving.
Normally hazards are missed because the person becomes fixated on what they think is going to be a hazard, for example a car pulling out of a junction may look like a hazard, you focus on that and then some kid runs out from behind a wall on the other side of the road and the driver doesn't see it until it's far too late.