Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hi so ive revised my highway code and the other stuff....getting high passes now

    but when it comes to hazard perception, will the video be really ****ty 1990s quality video? will the videos also take up the whole video screen for someone to see clearly on a computer?

    also what do you think of the difficulty of this questions:
    http://www.wimbledondrivingschool.co...eption-test-1/
    isnt it too easy? or is that the level of difficulty encountered because i did the whole test and got 71/75
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hello,

    I think most people were worried about the quality being poor but it is actually fine quality and it's definitely good enough to make you be able to see the hazards.

    The video will also take up the whole computer screen, yes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I recently had my theory driving test, and the hazard perception had been changed. Instead of the old blurry videos, it was a nice high definition CGI-type camera recording it. Hopefully your centre also uses this new updated software
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    They're re-doing the videos. My ones were 1990's ones but that's still not excuse.

    Just make sure you click as soon as you see the hazard occurring.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hello,

    No, whoever told you that is wrong. The clips will be old but not that old, like early 2000's.

    They don't take up the whole screen, there's a 1-1.5 inch black border around the video but it's hardly going to affect your ability to pass this test.

    The hazard perception test is backed by flawed logic so don't be surprised if you fail it first time around. If you click every time you see a potential hazard like I did then you get 0 points for that particular clip as you're apparently cheating. I was clicking every time I saw a female driver as they are potential hazards but I got 0 points because their scoring system is wrong, they design each clip so that there's only 1 hazard and they have a specific time based scoring system, if you don't click within their timeline then you get 0 points, if you're like me and spot the hazard ages beforehand then you get no points as you're apparently supposed to wait 5-10 seconds after you spot the hazard to click, somehow in real life I don't think I'd react that slowly to a real hazard.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGhostz)
    The hazard perception test is backed by flawed logic ...

    If you click every time you see a potential hazard like I did then you get 0 points for that particular clip as you're apparently cheating

    ...

    if you're like me and spot the hazard ages beforehand then you get no points as you're apparently supposed to wait 5-10 seconds after you spot the hazard to click
    No wonder people are failing this test. You are supposed to click when you see a developing hazard, not a potential one. If you're clicking away at potential hazards, you'd be clicking for every tree on the horizon just in case you "might" crash into it, but that's not the point of the test.

    somehow in real life I don't think I'd react that slowly to a real hazard.
    So think about real life, then. Click on the real hazards that are developing and you will pass.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Advisor)
    No wonder people are failing this test. You are supposed to click when you see a developing hazard, not a potential one. If you're clicking away at potential hazards, you'd be clicking for every tree on the horizon just in case you "might" crash into it, but that's not the point of the test.

    So think about real life, then. Click on the real hazards that are developing and you will pass.
    You misunderstood my post, by potential hazards I meant developing hazards, I simply didn't make it clear enough, I realize there is a difference but I didn't think of that at the time, you're correct.

    However, when I did my hazard perception test there were lots of developing hazards, e.g. biker with a van in front of them so they are about to pull out in front of me, sheep at the side of the road, female drivers, etc.

    As you say, think about real life. If I see sheep at the side of the road straight away and act early by reducing speed rather than waiting 5 seconds after I've seen it so that it falls in the timeline to score points, isn't that better? Or in real life should I do the latter as that's what scored me the highest amount of points on the hazard perception test?

    I somehow passed this flawed test first time, it was a fluke I'm not going to lie, however it was flawed. I got 50/50 on the multiple choice questions part, so it goes to show that this part of the test is a load of b*llocks!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    DUDES I PASSED IN THE END (2 days revision)

    48/50 multiple choice

    55/75 hazard (I was disqualified because I clicked into pattern for one clip lol)
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGhostz)
    As you say, think about real life. If I see sheep at the side of the road straight away and act early by reducing speed rather than waiting 5 seconds after I've seen it so that it falls in the timeline to score points, isn't that better? Or in real life should I do the latter as that's what scored me the highest amount of points on the hazard perception test?
    If I saw sheep at the side of the road, I'd assess how far away from the road they are and what they're doing. If they're a significant distance away from the road walking away from me, I'd be aware of it, but no action would be taken. If they're closer to the road, but grazing happily, I'd be aware of that too and may consider a marginal easing off of the accelerator. That would not be worthy of a click in the HPT.

    Now if one of the sheep looked up from grazing, looking across the road, alarm bells would ring in my head. When the sheep turns and starts to walk towards the road, now we have a developing hazard and it's time to click. This corresponds with the time a driver would move his foot from accelerator and start covering the brake.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Female drivers are not potential hazards you sexist ****
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by solarplexus)
    Hi so ive revised my highway code and the other stuff....getting high passes now

    but when it comes to hazard perception, will the video be really ****ty 1990s quality video? will the videos also take up the whole video screen for someone to see clearly on a computer?

    also what do you think of the difficulty of this questions:
    http://www.wimbledondrivingschool.co...eption-test-1/
    isnt it too easy? or is that the level of difficulty encountered because i did the whole test and got 71/75
    The videos for the hazard perception test is completely modern and clear - it is photorealistic CGI.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selina.arlington)
    Female drivers are not potential hazards you sexist ****
    I'd have to disagree, the statistics speak for themselves. We should implement the Saudi Arabian driving laws
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 2, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.