ADUK Archive

Thankfully passed and i would recommend to anyone taking theory test to study the book carefully and for the hazard perception ,click for every hazard and aswell when the situation changes, i clicked for every hazard i could see then when the situation changes click again & again and thankfully passed by a clear margin

also there is no limit i could see to how many clicks you can do as i was clicking 11-12 times per clip, hope this helps anyone.

From memory (three and a half years ago...), the way I passed was to click as soon as you see something (most were obvious, like the bloke on his phone, walking along nearly bumping into things), then click again a couple of times as it develops (as soon as he steps into the road)... my ADI told me go "click, click, click" to make sure you're within the scoring range, but not too quick.

I vaguely remember there being a series of red flags that appeared with each click, too many and you failed.

My partner recently took hers so I bought the full practice cd rom and I found I was clicking for too many hazards and often to early and she was the same. As stated its a game which I expect someone had made a fortune out of but ulimtimatly its a game not a test.

With a bit of practice I passed and so did she including her official test but as a proactive driver you consider many hazards not the 1 or 2 two most obvious ones in a dsa video.

For anyone else coming up to taking the HPT, think of it as a game if you wish, but take it seriously you must.

You get bombed out for clicking rythmically, not clicking too often.

Try treating it as close to real life as possible. What would you do in real life as soon as you see something that MAY be a hazard? Check the mirror? OK, so in the HPT click the mouse. As you get closer to the hazard, do things start to change? ie is the hazard developing? Would yo perhaps start thinking about easing off or light braking? OK, so click the mouse again.

In all probability it will be the second click that scores your points, the first click is likely to have been too early, but it making that first click does help to psyche you up ready.

Remember the idea is to click when the hazard developes.

Perhaps it would be better named the HDT - hazard development test.

Nigel

adiNigel wrote:You get bombed out for clicking rythmically, not clicking too often.

Can you clarify that? Suppose you want to go on clicking the whole time in real life you would be monitoring a particular hazard, and off the gas or actually braking, how frequently can you click during this period without being 'bombed out'?

One of my sons considered that he was bombed out on one click 'when I was well on the hazard' (he still passed with a good mark). I don't think you should be bombed out for any amount of clicking while the hazard is present, even if the 'developing' window has not opened yet. This one simple change would make the test much fairer, although it would not stop it being a video game instead of a learning aid and assessment.

waremark wrote:

adiNigel wrote:You get bombed out for clicking rythmically, not clicking too often.

Can you clarify that?

When the clicks are evenly spaced, for example 'click 1,2,3 click 1,2,3 click 1,2,3.

waremark wrote: Suppose you want to go on clicking the whole time in real life you would be monitoring a particular hazard, and off the gas or actually braking, how frequently can you click during this period without being 'bombed out'?

One of my sons considered that he was bombed out on one click 'when I was well on the hazard' (he still passed with a good mark). I don't think you should be bombed out for any amount of clicking while the hazard is present, even if the 'developing' window has not opened yet. This one simple change would make the test much fairer, although it would not stop it being a video game instead of a learning aid and assessment.

As I suggested, it is not the number of clicks but the regularity of those clicks that voids the clip.

Personally I don't consider the HPT a video game. There is a lot of room for improvement, but it is still (all be it slightly) better than nothing.

Nigel