Hazard Perception TRICK

[Taps]

On the actual test as soon as the video starts count 2.5 seconds and give it a click, then at every 2.5 seconds interval thereafter but not more than 14 times on one video clip.

This is only a trick to pass the test but you should know how to anticipate a hazard though to be safe on the roads so would say just do it to pass the test if you want

[MickyBoy]

Late reply to this but I was told after taking theory test by one of the test centre folks that it is not the amount of times you press, it is if the system detects a pattern. If this is true then pressing every 2.5 seconds would set off it's "anti pattern" thing.

I'm not saying this is true but it is what I was told after my test (which I passed). Just thought I would say as there do seemto be a few rumours about the hazard perception part of the test.

[Taps]

Dont know but it did work for me just over a year ago. Unless if there has been updates

[Gray]

I would have thought it more beneficial to click at a hazard.

After all it's a hazard perception test not guitar hero!

[Taps]

To be honest on some of those clips anything could be a hazard

[Bogof]

To be honest on some of those clips anything could be a hazard

 

Correct. But on all bar the "double" clip, they have just a single DEVELOPING hazard.

Had you taken the test properly, you would have known this.

It's a shame when people feel the need to cheat rather than accepting that tests are, generally, designed the way they are for good reason.

[Taps]

To be honest on some of those clips anything could be a hazard

 

Had you taken the test properly, you would have known this.

It's a shame when people feel the need to cheat rather than accepting that tests are, generally, designed the way they are for good reason.

 

Well wouldn't say it was cheating since I knew what I was doing and knew what a hazard would be but it was just making sure. As i pointed earlier with those clips you can never be 100% sure e.g. that clip where the sun was the hazard, i bet not many had realised that before being told.

Also, its like on your practical test when you do shoulder checks, sometimes you exaggerate them to make the examiner see you are doing them, its not cheating but just making sure he/she sees you're doing them, well in my case at least

[G-TT600]

As an advanced motorist, having completed advanced driving tests in cars and 7.5 tonners, both under blue lights...

(shit rider, but no one's perfect right? lol)

... I feel that the hazard perception test is absolute crap, some of the hazards are a simple reaction test, (Blue lights in the distance) whereas some hazards are developing (cyclist doing a shoulder check) it is a very difficult test to pass just by winging it and really needs a lot of practice until you understand exactly what the test wants from you.. thus not testing your 'hazard perception' but how well you understand their clicking system.

I feel that anyone with enough free time and a computer can probably get to a point where they ace that test 100% almost every time... but It won't help them on the big bad road

[Glorian]

Doing this is never going to make you perfect. But it's a good start of things to look for that you might not think to check. making a "pattern" to get through the test seems pointless, it's testing your knowledge and you perception, being able to tell when something might become a hazard could save your life one day.

[Lumor_uk]

I clicked when a hazard was developing and then again when the hazard appeared/happened. I got one wrong doing this.

[Psychybikey]

it ... really needs a lot of practice until you understand exactly what the test wants from you...I feel that anyone with enough free time and a computer can probably get to a point where they ace that test 100% almost every time... but It won't help them on the big bad road

 

That is rather the impression I've formed. I've had a go at a few and upset myself because I've clicked at things that apparently are not hazards, because I'm so anxious not to miss anything, and then tried to avoid that and not clicked enough - haven't failed as such but certainly haven't left myself a margin of error. When I come to do the real thing I will need to be much better, as I'm bound to drop a few points because of nerves.

It does seem to be very much about working out how to pass the test, as much as actually being able to pass the test.

[Penny]

it ... really needs a lot of practice until you understand exactly what the test wants from you...I feel that anyone with enough free time and a computer can probably get to a point where they ace that test 100% almost every time... but It won't help them on the big bad road

 

That is rather the impression I've formed. I've had a go at a few and upset myself because I've clicked at things that apparently are not hazards, because I'm so anxious not to miss anything, and then tried to avoid that and not clicked enough - haven't failed as such but certainly haven't left myself a margin of error. When I come to do the real thing I will need to be much better, as I'm bound to drop a few points because of nerves.

It does seem to be very much about working out how to pass the test, as much as actually being able to pass the test.

 

I agree, I've done the test and it's all about how to "play the game". If you could sit with an actual person and talk them through the hazards you perceive, you would get a different score than the one given by a computer program.

Best thing to do is get a CD-ROM of the test (sounds a bit old school now, not sure what format they now come in) and learn how and when the program is expecting you to click.

[Joe85]

Last time I failed it was because I spotted the hazard before the scoring window, well according the the training CD.

Apparently you can be too perceptive...

[dannybee]

it ... really needs a lot of practice until you understand exactly what the test wants from you...I feel that anyone with enough free time and a computer can probably get to a point where they ace that test 100% almost every time... but It won't help them on the big bad road

 

That is rather the impression I've formed. I've had a go at a few and upset myself because I've clicked at things that apparently are not hazards, because I'm so anxious not to miss anything, and then tried to avoid that and not clicked enough - haven't failed as such but certainly haven't left myself a margin of error. When I come to do the real thing I will need to be much better, as I'm bound to drop a few points because of nerves.

It does seem to be very much about working out how to pass the test, as much as actually being able to pass the test.

 

I agree, I've done the test and it's all about how to "play the game". If you could sit with an actual person and talk them through the hazards you perceive, you would get a different score than the one given by a computer program.

Best thing to do is get a CD-ROM of the test (sounds a bit old school now, not sure what format they now come in) and learn how and when the program is expecting you to click.

Couldn't agree more, I have done it 3 times now car, hgv, bike and found it more frustrating each time.

The bike ones first clip showed a bus pulling up so I clicked (potential hazard) then kids getting off... Click then walked around the front of bus..

Click now there in road.. click first video and I get a message telling me I've clicked too much so will get no score, luckily the nerves settled down and I did o.k with the rest lol

I passed all three first time but for me it's the worst part of the tests

[Joe85]

Doesn't work Btw.

[Dav3y]

When I did my test last year, I practised with.a P.C. program and found myself clicking too early too many times. As soon as I understood it's not just any and every potential hazard but only a developing hazard, it made things far easier. After all, it's about driving safely and being aware of a potential hazard and then being ready to react if it develops to a point you may have to react. Think I dropped about 8 points in total on the real test which meant I'd noticed all hazards including the double one.

Trying to circumvent the test and get a fake pass is only cheating yourself at the end of the day. I'd want to be sure in my mind that I'm as safe and clued up and observant as I can be without being a hindrance to other road users.

[Joe85]

Kind of irrelevant if you have to practice for it, though.

Either your gonna spot hazard early or your not. I've been driving ten years and I still have to practice for this damn test. That might be a damming indictment of my own driving ability, but considering I passed it 10 years ago and still have to practice to pass it again for the bike, renders it utterly useless.

[Dav3y]

No, no it's not. There is an element of gaining experience of taking the test to understand what they are looking for as it's easy to click before the developing hazard window opens on each clip and getting no points because you effectively reacted too early but equally the window is fairly small for each hazard so you can also miss the window if you are too slow.

I had over 25 years of experience and didn't find it bad at all considering I didn't have to go through all this when I took my car test all those years ago.

[Bogof]

Kind of irrelevant if you have to practice for it, though.

Either your gonna spot hazard early or your not. I've been driving ten years and I still have to practice for this damn test. That might be a damming indictment of my own driving ability, but considering I passed it 10 years ago and still have to practice to pass it again for the bike, renders it utterly useless.

 

If you were right, the same could easily apply to any aspect of the test. As in "I can do it in a car, making me practice roundabouts/controlled stop/junctions/et al is therefore pointless".

Luckily, you're not right, so all elements of the test are valid.

And if you have to practice it simply means you're not up to the required standard yet, so keep practicing till you're good enough to keep yourself (and US!) safe when you're on the roads

[Joe85]

No. You've missed the point. My point is, I was up to your "standard" as I passed the poxy thing. Yet once again I have to practice for it in order to pass, which means as soon as I'm out the door of the test centre with a pass, it'll be the last thing I think of when some bird on horse strolls out in front of my bike.

[Bogof]

No. You've missed the point. My point is, I was up to your "standard" as I passed the poxy thing. Yet once again I have to practice for it in order to pass, which means as soon as I'm out the door of the test centre with a pass, it'll be the last thing I think of when some bird on horse strolls out in front of my bike.

 

No. You've missed or perhaps misunderstood my point.

It matters not that one may have passed 10 years ago. If the test is today, one needs to demonstrate their ability today.

As for the test itself, I shall carry on teaching the subtle but very important difference between potential and developing hazards as that is what the test is designed to highlight in a graphical context. And I will do so in the knowledge that some candidates will quite deliberately ignore what they have learnt once the test is passed for reasons best known to themselves.

[Joe85]

It's not about ignoring it. It's the validity of it. Does it teach anything? No, it's to test your awareness on suicidal horseback riders and mobility scooters. If you don't have the awareness, yet can practise enough to pass, then essentially you have come away none the wiser and no better at driving.

[Dav3y]

Does it teach anything? No, it's to test your awareness on suicidal horseback riders and mobility scooters. If you don't have the awareness, yet can practise enough to pass, then essentially you have come away none the wiser and no better at driving.

 

Disagree here matey, it clearly taught me the difference between a plain old potential hazard and a developing one. That's the breakthrough that's going to make most get a better score on the test.

[Joe85]

Fair enough mate. So do you react differently to a potential hazard then you would to a developing one? Or is it something you practised just for the sake of the test?

Generally speaking, there's enough tossers on the road that when on the bike, a potential hazard means I'm covering the brakes getting ready for it to develop. That's not something the test has taught me as on the bike, clicking a button won't save me. Reaction times sitting in a quite room and reaction times sitting on a bike vastly differ, and regardless of the test, people react differently and slower. So essentially, you could go ace that test as you've trained your finger to hit the button but irl, things don't happen that way.

Or am I over analysing?

[Dav3y]

Or am I over analysing?

 

I think maybe we all are

End of the day I thought it useful, you think otherwise. I'm sure we both learnt more from taking it than those that might like to aimlessly try this clicking 'Trick'.