Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

The Hazard Perception Test is Stupid - Here's Why

So I recently failed my Theory Test a few weeks ago but I've booked it for tomorrow. I got 50/50 on the questions but failed the Hazard Perception portion of the test by a few points. This is just a rant towards the faulty system they have in place.

The Hazard Perception is complete bull - I'm not just saying that because I failed; let's look at the facts:

- It is in appalling quality which is in no way representative to how you would see things in an actual car (with more clarity and a wider field of view). "You failed because you didn't see that 8-bit pixelated bike!"

- What is classed as a hazard? The test is simply too ambiguous - shall I click for the wet road conditions? the person on the side of the road? There's simply too many things a driver should take into account.

- You get penalized for click TOO EARLY. I've recently been practicing on the official DVD and my clicks are always registering a tiny amount before the 5 points so I end up with nothing. When clearly the hazard already was in view before the scoring system came up. An example of this is when I clicked when I saw a bike rider in the distance, I got no points as I had to click when i was about 1 meter closer to the rider. I guess that makes me unsafe to be on the roads.

- Around 50% of existing driving instructors (who have been on the roads for years and safely passed tests) fail the Hazard Perception. This alone is proof it doesn't always represent a good and safe driver. It is often due to them again clicking too early.

I could go on forever but I'd leave it at that. In 2013 the DVLA announced that they would implement an animated Hazard Perception Test (in 2013) but that has yet to happen. Either way, they need to sort out this broken test. I spot hazards easily when I drive (as do many experienced drivers who have failed the HP test) - I don't need a test lacking validity to tell me I'm not safe enough.

---------------------------------

Edit: Passed second time with 65/75 but I still think the test is flawed as all you're doing is learning how to do the test, not learning how to spot hazards.

(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

581371

You seem a little mad

Reply 2

Guy Secretan

You have to pass it so even though it is kind of pointless you have to do it. I advise to over click on each clip as it often doesn't pick it up click maybe seven times for each clip.

Reply 3

jjd213

Original post by Guy Secretan

You have to pass it so even though it is kind of pointless you have to do it. I advise to over click on each clip as it often doesn't pick it up click maybe seven times for each clip.

Yeah I was kinda mad when I initially wrote this. But I passed today and got 65/75 and mainly 5s, no lower than 3.

A good tip for everyone reading this is to simply just click a lot, just don't click in a beat or else you'll get detected by the cheat system.

Reply 4

ROG.

Quote from Rosemary Thew of the then DSA at a consultation in Leicester a few years ago - "The HPT is not fit for purpose"

Says it all really especially as nothing has changed since then

Couldn't agree more.

They have actually implemented a few animated HPT clips. I volunteered to test them at the end of my test so I would assume that they will be actually used on the score-able clips soon.

Reply 7

mcgreevy1993

Original post by jjd213

- It is in appalling quality which is in no way representative to how you would see things in an actual car (with more clarity and a wider field of view). "You failed because you didn't see that 8-bit pixelated bike!"

Ahaha its so true. When i did mine i just clicked whenever I sure any sort of plob in the road. I got 65/75 in mine. But i was lucky, i failed the mock the day before. :tongue:

After passing it, I got taken onto this demo one which is so much better. But they haven't released it yet. I did in accidentally thinking it was part of my test. :frown:

Reply 8

tee3096

Original post by jjd213

I completely agree. They expect you to see hazards which aren't even there which is really unfair. The camera angle is also unrealistic to what a real driver would see since the camera is mounted on top of the car/van. The clips in the actual tests are also really out of date, and should be updated. I think the theory test as a whole needs to be revamped. Maybe replaced with a road sign test, since knowing each road sign is far more important to knowing where the catalytic converter is.

The fact that most modern drivers would fail the theory test badly today just goes to show how it's not really serving it's purpose.

Reply 9

Spannyboy10

Completely agree with you, when I have been practising I had the same flaw, biker in the road some distance away, I click but when I review the clip apparently I'm too early, other times I click as soon as I see it but due to the shoddy clips and quality I lose the high points!
Only 2 days ago I read online its cgi, brilliant but the practice disc uses the same 14 clips when it's computer generate images, so yes through practising the same clips over and over again I gain a better score
But today at the official test I was 10 points short of passing my hazard perception

What a **** I felt.

Reply 10

blossomx

Have this next week and I'm dreading it. :frown:

I'm fine with the multiple choice questions but not HP

Reply 11

Kill the HP

Agreed this test is irrelevant people pick hazard up in real life situation not on a pc no one can prepare for what's on the test as it's a way of fleecing people there's far to much money involved in one getting on the road never mind having to Sit this test time and time again untill ur trial and error is no longer.

Reply 12

Nanitoe

jjD213 is spot on when he/she says about the Hazard Perception Test ....' I still think the test is flawed as all you're doing is learning how to do the test, not learning how to spot hazards.' ......I pass this test but the scoring seems to more about whether you click when they want you to than your ability to see and respond safely to hazards. It's also poorly and confusingly explained to learners. Also, feedback on your performance on each individual clip would greatly assist the learning process.The visual presentation is also inadequate in many cases.

The Theory Test is a pretty good way to learn as you can revisit the questions and learn why you got some wrong. The Hazard Test, on the other hand, must be a nightmare for many learners ready to spend time preparing themselves and I cannot understand how such an important test could have been published in such a poor state.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 13

bj27

Really the Hazard perception test isn't that hard. Look at any potential hazard and click. You can click more than once and if you see a hazard click it even if it is not classified as the main hazard.

Reply 14

Nanitoe

Original post by bammy jastard 27

The question is when should you click on a hazard to achieve the maximum test score. I score 95 to 100% on most of the multiple choice question Theory tests but a lower % on the Hazard tests not withstanding that I pass these tests and I'm trying to figure out why this is.

Reply 15

Dan Milik

I don't understand why we are allowed to drive with instructors or parents while we are learning when we may not be 'safe' under the hazard perception test? Surely if it was that important we'd have to take and pass it before we start physically driving on the roads?
Stupid test, haven't taken it yet but completely agree with everything you've said

Reply 16

Nanitoe

I completely agree with the opinions expressed on this web page thatthe Hazard Perception test needs revising. Using the Practise part of the DVSAHazard Perception video where you can see your score on individual hazards [andhow you could improve these scores] tells you the following things:

You get the maximum score by clicking on a Hazard as early as thepeople who wrote this test think you should. If you click before this point,notwithstanding that the hazard is visible, you score 0% . So, if you clickedonly once on each hazard you could have spotted every hazard and score 0% !

This conflicts with the instructions in the ‘About the hazard test’section where it says that the earlier you spot a hazard the higher yourscore.So the natural reaction of people who have practiced using the video isto click several times to try to ensure that their clicking overlaps the pointwhen the writers think you should start to click.

But if you click too much you get disqualified and score 0%. On thePractice videos, and presumably in the actual test, it appears that you areallowed 10 clicks per hazard after which you are disqualified and score 0%.Confusingly the number of clicks allowed is not explained to users. Most of theHazard clips contain 1 hazard and you are disqualified after 10 clicks but in 1or 2 clips there are 2 hazards and you are allowed 20 clicks before you getdisqualified. Presumably this also applies to the real test. So it is a hazard onthis test that you click on the 1 or 2 hazards in the clip before the writershave decided you should.

The fact that they do not tell you in advance how many hazards a clipcontains and how many times you can click a hazard before you score 0% forclicking too much increases the uncertainty of users as to how many times theyshould click.

As stated by other users another unfair aspect of it is that the poorvisual clarity of some of the videos means that you see the hazard later thanyou would if you were on the road e.g. indicators or pedestrians entering zebracrossings.

The above must be some of the reasons why a lower % score of 59% isacceptable on the hazard perception test compared to the 86% on the multiplechoice test. I think that peoplewho have not used the practice video [assuming the rules are the same as in theactual test] would be subject to the biggest risk of failure of this test forall the wrong reasons. Passing this test is as much about your ability tounderstand how to do it as your ability to drive safely.