Hazard Perception

[James]

I am learning to become a motorcyclist and have recently bought an online Hazard Perception Test clip database.

Now I was worried about this before I saw the clips, but now I am petrified. I am consistently scoring zero but I "think" I have just worked it out.

On the first clip I pressed for an oncoming car, a pedestrian walking, a door closing, a guy crossing the road, the same guy getting into a car and then as I went to click on it when the car started to pul out I was told "too many clicks, must not click more than 5 times". The car then pulled out right in front of me causing a sharp loss of speed.

So on the feedback it scores you 1 - 5, 5 being the best. It basiclly only recognises1 hazard per clip. The clip lasts around 1 minute so it is basiclly luck as to whether the hazard you choose to go for out of all that exist is the same one that develops and is regarded as the "main one" for the purpose of the clip.

The next clip I saved my clicks and ended up using them on a roundabout, but then had none left when a cyclist that was passing a parked car had to swerve as the car went to move off. I am going to now try to save any clicking until I see a hazard "devloping" rather than when I see a hazard. Maybe that is the key, it has to develop into something.

But then, how would I have known in the first clip that the crossing pedestrian was going to get in his car and drive off in front of me. The clip marked 5 at the point he crossed the road and 1 when he gets into the car? It is pot luck, and the ridicule of this test is a good reflection on how ridiculous this country is getting. How can a synthetic computer game like this be used to assess people's perception?

[James]

This just gets better and better - the third clip shows a lollipop lady that steps out in the road with the sign so the car in front and my car slows and a gaggle of kids start crossing. I clicked when I saw the lollipop lady and again when she walked out in the road.

Score : 0

The hazard was a car about 30 seconds earlier that pulled in between some parked cars on its side of the road to let me and the car in front of me through. So it's back to clicking for every hazard now then, but only once. Lets see what happens now...

If anyone else wants a laugh I will happily pm them my username and password for this please, I only paid £5 and it lasts for a about a week.

[James]

This is a screenshot. The hazard signs show where I have clicked to indicate a hazard. The 54321 is the actual hazard marked, and depending on how early you see it depends on whether you get a 5 or a 1... Doesnt help that the playing screen is so small but it is possible. So you need to click once for each hazard, but you only get one shot at it.

Could this be it - am I getting the grip?

[James]

Here I will show you point 5 - the point at which the hazard starts.










This example is a bit unfair to me. The layby is obviously a hazard, but not a developing one. The car that emerges at the end of the hazard and cuts in front of you at point 1, is surely the hazard being assessed. So why does point 5 come at a time when the hazard is physically not visible? Here is the hazard at point 1 just as it starts to cut in...

[James]

Best example though is this one: This is point 5 - the point at which the hazard first appears. It is not the car... Scroll all the way doen to reveal the answer.







-



-



-



-



-




And this is at around 2 which is where on my screen the hazard is just visible enough to decipher - you can for the first time see kids walking towards a crossing, and also a yellow beacon on the right. I have circled these for you as well as the point of play in the clip - which shows 1.5.

[MGF]

This is silly. I think the DSA provide loads of clips for sites like these and they add their own HPT to it.

It isn't realistic to only give you 5 clicks. I found the online practice ones difficult but the real thing was much easier.

[The Thinker]

I agree it is a bit silly for experienced drivers. However you do get the hang of it. Indicator lights, brake lights, fast cars, people at zebra crossings, cranes and horses are the ususal suspects.

I did the nmotorcycle version of this and found the real clips to be that bit more obvious and better thought out than the practive ones I have seen.

One issue you have to take acount of is that you click when you would slow the car, if you spot this earlier than the person in the clip, then I found myself clicking to brake faster.

[Rick]

The HPT is a load of rubbish if you ask me. The reasoning behind it is sound, but the way it is administered is very poor in my opinion. I have done it twice in the last couple of years (LGV register and ADI) and passed ok but i found it to be nothing more than a poor computer game. I think some form of commentry based test with an adjudicator would work better, but the cost would no doubt make this prohibitive. Or even a car simulator type (as in PC game) where the student would have to brake/steer etc would be a vast improvement. At least that way it would show how you would deal with a potential hazard rather than just click a mouse and then shut your eyes!

[waremark]

Surely this particular online test is just a very poor piece of software, which does not help you to prepare for the real HPT?

The real HPT certainly has its problems. Particular problems are not acknowledging that you have 'got' a hazard if you click it too early, and scoring zero if you click too rapidly even when the hazard is present on the screen. However, it does not limit you to 5 clicks, nor does it expect you to click before a hazard is recognisable. I am afraid you have just been ripped off for £5.

The purpose of the HPT is to force instructors to teach learners to scan well ahead for hazards, rather than just watching the road a few yards in front of the car. It may be doing that job and so saving lives in spite of all its weaknesses as a test. Does anyone have any views or evidence on this aspect? It has no useful role for an experienced motorist like James taking a test to obtain a different license type.

[ROG]

The purpose of the HPT is to force instructors to teach learners to scan well ahead for hazards, rather than just watching the road a few yards in front of the car. It may be doing that job and so saving lives in spite of all its weaknesses as a test. Does anyone have any views or evidence on this aspect?

I have questioned a number of new drivers on exactly this point and the resounding answer was that the HPT was treated as a game and it made no diference in raising vision as the same basic learner traits are still present, ie looking down at gearstick, concentrating on the controls rather than the road & remembering to put in the DSA procedures.
The young people I spoke to also stated that they did not expand their vision until they had been drivng for about a month and by that time they had dropped the DSA procedures in favour of expanded vision.
I know this was a limited "survey" but it does raise questions about the DSA format.
IMHO there should be a second test within a short period after the DSA test based on "real driving", perhaps based loosley on the Roadcraft style.

[GS]

James I had lots of problems with the HPT when I had to take it to retain my ADI qualification. The best advice I can give is to click when you see something which could cause you to alter speed or direction, ie when you would look in the mirror. I would not worry about clicking too much but do not click regularly or quickly once after the other. This advice was given to me by the DSA after I had failed the test a couple of times and it got me through the next one.

Good luck with your test.

[Horse]

I am learning to become a motorcyclist and have recently bought an online Hazard Perception Test clip database.

Now I was worried about this before I saw the clips, but now I am petrified. I am consistently scoring zero but I "think" I have just worked it out.

How can a synthetic computer game like this be used to assess people's perception?

The idea is that the test is set at the level of a driver with one year's experience on road.

I also heard someone (who was closely involved with taking it from 'academic research' into hazard perception to 'testing') that "Driving instructors don't like the test because they keep failing it!



Some while ago DSA sent out to trainers a DVD that usually goes to all candidates. I managed to get the sprog away from the TV one Saturday morning and slotted in the disk.

Sprog (aged 5 or 6 at the time) came over after a few minutes to watch, and asked what it was all about?

I explained about looking for hazards etc. important for drivers yada yada yada . . .

This was during a 'demo' where all hazards were being tagged with circles.

Sprog says "Lorries can be dangerous" as an HGV was heading towards us in the video clip.

Did it get tagged as a potential hazard?

Well, children, what do you think?

[ROG]

Is it the concensus of opinion on this site that the HPT is "a game to be passed"?

[Horse]

Is it the concensus of opinion on this site that the HPT is "a game to be passed"?

Serious answer?

I see it as a laudable idea lamentably executed.

Develop hazard perception? Wonderful.

Test for it, and reward people who show good hazard perception and reaction? Great.

"OK then, let's implement a test that gets condidates to watch a video clip, ignore loads of hazards, then only react at the point where action is needed."

So out of the window goes 'proactive', instead reward for 'reactive' . . .

[ROG]

It is my opinion that most treat the HPT as "just a test" and in no way teaches hazard perception - other opinions invited.
I am suprised the DSA are'nt embarrased about this