Cheating Success

June 04, 2008

I Passed

The best advice on passing the Hazard Perception Test that I received was to cheat. It's not a dark secret either; it's what the "official" and less-official peripheral money-spinners to the DSA proclaim on their sites.

In a few instances it is difficult to determine when a potential hazard becomes a developing hazard and therefore when the scoring window should start...This is why it is safer to click a few times as you see a hazard develop to make sure you don’t click too early and miss the opening of this window.

From Theory-Test.co.uk(http://www.theory-test.co.uk/asp/hazard_perception_info.asp#tips)

So, with a little practice, I learned I can click for all the hazards I want and when one developed (for which the last time I clicked too early), I just followed the general cry to keep clicking. For some of the clips I managed more than 15-flags - but I passed! Yet, when "playing the game" and genuinely trying to perceive hazards requiring action I failed.

I must be the grumpiest HPT graduate around today; I passed yes, but the test still is employed summatively where it would do more good formatively - like with the CBT. A quick hour in a classroom, or even a few spent with official software followed by such a test on which there would be prompt and appropriate feedback would do far more to assure divers actually achieved the higher-learning outcomes intended by the Government in the first place.

This remains a poorly designed software, which is gratefully received by all in the scheme because of it's business acumen, not the spin that it actually improves road safety. Just think of it, £30 per test, CDs, DVDs, on-line subscriptions for practice videos, books, etc. I've always said, "Education is big busines". That's why I got educated in it.

Why is it stupid?

The official DSA introduction video to the HST advises that practice is good, but to repeat a clip makes the perception of a hazard (already anticipated after the first experience) cannot be assessed after the first viewing of the clip. Yet here the software has been designed along the following line, I'm sure:

And the video commentary would be that the pedestrian crossing the road 200m ahead is now the window score of 5, even though in fact he presents no hazard at all; he'll be well clear by our arrival. Sure, once the camera vehicle draws closer we see the VW the pedestrian has climbed in to has an indicator on, but this is still not a developing hazard, is it? Ah, now it begins to pull out, obviously not having seen our vehicle. But click now and you're in the 1-point zone". Madness. Complete twaddle.

And the validation of these clips? This must have been completed by designers on their 6th or 7th viewing of the clip, which we know invalidates the experience after the first run anyway (according to the DSA). Then they check the window of scores. It's fine; valid. The fact the mini-roundabout had a vehicle on it to which we should have given way, the school crossing sign was timed to school home-time, and the parked car forced us to deviate into the potential path of that bus means nothing, because all the designers' focus were on THAT dramatic moment they felt had "developed" and needed including.

It is pants. I'm sorely tempted to challenge it as promised in my earlier rant in this blog. My Sis', Nikki, beleives the whole set up may change shortly in line with the European shite. A change is always good for business in the software developing world. Maybe I should try and join in and make a bob or two?

PS

A great many of the hazards in my test today were created by emergency vehicles. No wonder we all get out their freaking way so fast.

Shadowfax-ST Blog