Is the Theory Test pointless?

Scroll to see replies

My concentration level are ridiculous to be honest. i know it sounds silly that i can't just keep concentrated for 15 or so minutes but i can't i just drift away and start thinking about things and working myself up knowing that if i fail it's delaying my test even more but next time i'm passing i assure you :biggrin:

Reply 21

FXX

It would only be pointless if everyone passed it. Seeing as people do fail it, they must therefore lack basic driving knowledge and common sense, and shouldn't be allowed on the roads on their own.

Reply 22

FXX

Original post by ScottChalmers

Good luck on your 37 minute driving test then.

Reply 23

ScottChalmers

Original post by FXX

Good luck on your 37 minute driving test then.

I don't think you can read again i said i can't keep my concentration when im sitting infront of a screen clicking a mouse(hazard perception). IT'S NOT THE SAME AS DRIVING :angry:

Reply 24

Emma:-)

Entertainment Forum Helper

Original post by rmhumphries

I think it is quite expensive for what it is, but I agree with both parts of the theory test being needed.

I agree

Reply 25

CalmDownMrRooney

Original post by ScottChalmers

In my opinion the Theory Test is just another way to get money out of people because they know that we will pay anything to have the freedom to jump in a car and go wherever we feel.

I've failed mines 2 times now and it's pissing me off. First time i got 49/50 and 42/75 and second time i got 48/50 and 43/75. So really if i clicked like 0.5 seconds earlier i would have saved myself £31 (which is a ridiculous price btw).

I was speaking to my Mum and Dad after i failed the 2nd time and they agreed that it was silly or at least the hazard perception is. It DOESN'T make you a better driver. Your reactions are different when your sitting infront of a screen clicking a mouse wheras when your driving if you need to take action then you will.

I'm ready to take my practical but i seem to be stuck on the hazard perception and feel as if i will never pass it. My driving is exceptionally good and i make very few mistakes when i'm out.

How does everyone else feel about Theory Tests?

Sorry for rambling and Cool Story Bro Comments are no longer funny so don't waste your time typing it :L

i did my test this morning, scoring 61/75 in the hazard perception test was easy as. i agree with you in that in itself the theory test (h.p part) doesnt make you a good driver, but to fail it 2 times, given that some of the hazards are so blatently obvious that you'd need to be blind not to score 4 or 5 shows you need to practice a bit more before you do your practical :biggrin:

Reply 26

n65uk

It is overpriced, but needed.

Reply 27

spyka

Original post by ScottChalmers

I agree a Theory test is needed but only the questions. The hazard perception as i've said a million times does nothing for your driving sitting infront of a screen with a mouse is nothing like being in a car.

It's not meant to be like being in a card, it's meant to be easier.

If you can't react by clicking a button in a timely matter to a situation you KNOW is about to present itself, how on earth can you react to a situation which could happen at anytime and requires more complex reactions (breaking, clutch, mirrors, signals, etc)

Reply 28

Hazular

Don't worry, I agree with you, hazard perception tests are a load of balls. And I passed mine first time.
It's ridiculous though- I very nearly didn't pass, just because I recognise the hazards before they develop. Just as an example, a pedestrian looking likely to cross the road. You don't actually get the mark for clicking until they step onto the road- what the hell?! It was little things like that which nearly made me fail-.- Surely if you click before the hazard actually becomes a hazard you should be getting more marks?! Absolutely stupid.

And no-one pays attention to road signs. Ever.

Reply 29

Jamstar

Original post by Hazular

In the test instructions, it actually says you should click when you see a potential hazard (as you did), and then again when the hazard develops. Makes sense to me.

Also, I don't agree with the OP. I thought the Hazard Perception test was very relevant to real driving, and I think it's an important part of the test. Then again, I both liked it and did well in it, so I'm more likely to think that :p:

Reply 30

yougotitlikethat

Original post by ScottChalmers

Erm, Can't you read I blitzed the questions on both Theory tests. Hazard Perception i failed both times but infront of a computer screen clicking a mouse i just can't keep my concentration up. It's that simple. I am a perfectly safe driver that can drive with no help whatsoever and the Hazard Perception is killing me.

If you can't keep concentration just by staring at a screen and clicking a few times when you see a potential hazard, how the hell do you expect to fare in real driving?

Not being funny but I see a lot of these learner drivers going on about how amazing their driving is but I think that you only real start learning to drive 'amazing' after you have passed your test.

I wouldn't say so.

Original post by yougotitlikethat

I'm definetly not an "amazing" driving but i am comfortable driving with no help and make very few mistakes. The odd time i don't check my mirrors and silly little things like that are the only real mistakes i make now.

Reply 33

MovingOn

It just sounds as though you hate it because you aren't very good at it to be honest. And I wouldn't call any learner driver 'exceptionally good', that takes experience of being on the road alone for many years.

Reply 34

WelshBluebird

Original post by ScottChalmers

i just can't keep my concentration up.

Surely that would be a huge problem in a car though!

Reply 35

Hanvyj

Original post by Advisor

I see threads about the practical test saying exactly the same thing... usually posted by people who have failed.

'nuff said.

Everybody knows that sitting in front of a screen with a finger on a mouse is nothing like real driving. Real driving involves a whole different set of coordinated thought processes and actions. The hazard perception test is a very basic test to establish whether you even recognise a developing road hazard that slaps you in the face - and let's face it, those staged clips are almost slapstick in that the situations are more predictable than a Mr Bean movie. The point is to prove whether a learner can at least understand "ooh, something's happening", then set the process into motion. In the theory test, it's a twitch of your index finger. In real driving, it's an MSM procedure with infinite variables.

Rather than moaning about how high the bar is, simply learn to jump higher. It's not rocket science.

The hazard test is stupid though - simply because you can't class a hazard as that defined.

I remember on one of my practices I clicked a fraction of a second before the computers defined "here is a hazard" time, in response to the right hazard. In other words I was too good at it.

Other example: on one, there was a fire-engine with lights on coming towards me. That wasn't a hazard, what was? An old lady "looked like she might want to cross the road" ... that's right, you have to read the minds of pedestrians!

Some things are stupid, one hazard was some parked cars - on every other one there were parked cars in just he same way, but in that case the designated "hazard" was somewhere else.

I am not bitter about the test or anything, I passed first time with a near-perfect score. Its just not very valuable as at testing anything imo

Reply 36

JC.

Well as someone who actually has a licence I do see the point of the theory test.

It's pretty easy if you know all the answers. Since most of them are common sense questions along with identify the roadsign questions. The theory test is there to weed out the idiots who don't deserve a licence. Let's face it, if you can't be arsed to open a copy of the highway code to see what all these brightly coloured signs actually mean you really don't need to be in controll of a deadly weapon.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 37

Hazular

Original post by Jamstar

In the test instructions, it actually says you should click when you see a potential hazard (as you did), and then again when the hazard develops. Makes sense to me.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but even though you're meant to click before the hazard develops, I always used to click before the computer would register the potential hazard. So I'd always click like 1 or 2 seconds before the timefrime began. It was so annoying :mad:

Reply 38

tieyourmotherdown

No. I learned a fair few things that although not essential, are fairly useful when revising for it, even if they didn't come up in the test.

Reply 39

Sazzle4

Original post by ScottChalmers

The odd time i don't check my mirrors and silly little things like that are the only real mistakes i make now.

Um, not meaning to be too harsh but not checking your mirrors before you do something is a little bit like playing russian roulette. Although I do accept that it depends a bit on what you are about to do as to whether it's a big or small mistake!