Hazard Perception Test???

[grimly4]

Hehe. My examiner clonked his nut during my emergency stop.

[grimly4]

More likely a combination of factors. Back then, bike brakes were quite shit, examiners got a bit fed up being run over, stepping out too late risked the rider locking up the front [1] and sliding into the examiner/parked car, kiddy, etc.

[1] Which doesn't necessarily conflict with the first point.

[The Medway Handyman]

Many years ago, when God was a boy, my sales manager was an ex police pursuit driver. When we went out to see major accounts, I drove & he taught me the police commentary driving method.

In answer to the question "how far ahead should you be looking" he used to "as far as you can see".

When my daughters learned to drive I tried the hazard perception CD & failed miserably many times.

What I regarded as a potential hazard was regarded as over clicking.

You only need to click the glaringly obvious hazards IME.

[Phil W Lee]

Steve Walker considered Sat,

04 Feb 2012 01:05:18 +0000 the perfect time to write:

I had a genuine emergency stop on my car test - which the examiner hadn't seen until AFTER I'd come to a standstill. Better than the artificial ones, but then it's hard to simulate any emergency as the mind knows perfectly well how life-or-death the situation is. I'm sure the examiner decided to pass me at the moment he realised that I'd shown better anticipation than he had.

[Phil W Lee]

"Dave Plowman (News)" considered Sat, 04 Feb

2012 12:33:39 +0000 (GMT) the perfect time to write:

Why would they show any more regard than any other motorist?

Well, of course in reality they usually do, but I'm curious as to why you think that may not be the case.

[JNugent]

So let's unpick what you said, and get it straight...

You said (whether you knew you were saying it or not) that over 83% of motorists have more regard for the Highway Code than "other motorists".

Is that what what you meant to say? 'Cos it's what you said.

[Jules Richardson]

That's the thing, I think - the name's a bit misleading, and maybe "hazard avoidance" would be more accurate; from what I've read here, it sounds like they expect you to just click on immediate dangers, rather than "stuff in the distance that I need to keep my eye on in case it develops into something serious" (the latter being what I'd term as perception).

Maybe it's a good thing in a way because it's encouraging people not to slam on the anchors at every little thing that might possibly become a danger.

I took the UK road test sometime around 1997 (after relying on trains for years) - IIRC there was a "written" (I think it was multiple-choice) theory test, but no computer-based test then; I think that came in a year or two later.

I took a US test last year too (although I'd been driving here on my UK licence for a few years) and that was incredibly easy in comparison; I'm in a rural location so saw all of about ten vehicles, the roads are really wide with good visibility etc. and you use your own vehicle here. No emergency stop or three point turn to worry about, either (just parallel park, reversing into a spot, and hill park/start). I think my test was the first time I'd actually parallel-parked a vehicle in over a decade.

cheers

Jules

[Terry Fields]

As a biker I'd have to say that IMHO if one waits until a potential hazard becomes an emerging hazard, one's motorcycle career is likely to be shorter than longer.

Terry Fields

[Nightjar]

I'm not sure what, if anything, would be considered irrelevant by the regulars on uk.d-i-y. It is a very eclectic group.

Colin Bignell

[The Medway Handyman]

I thinks that's also why the police have that view - chasing a scrote in a stolen Astra at 100mph means you have to look ahead & anticipate.

Always makes me laugh on that Police Interceptors show on telly. Untrained scrote is Astra trys to out run highly trained police driver in a Mitsubishi Evo or Subaru Impreza.

Not going to work is it?

[charles]

except that the 'scrote' will take risks that police daren't. Someone crossing the raod will slow the police bu not the scrote, for instance.

[D.M.Chapman]

Indeed. Sometimes we even discuss DIY

Darren

[The Natural Philosopher]

they key is that it has to be about how YoU can make something different, not about how you can get someone else to do it on your behalf.

[Mark O'Knee]

Did you subsequently have to do the emergency stop part of the test, or did the examiner decide that was enough?

[JNugent]

I'd already done the "Stop as quickly as you can after I lower the clipboard" part.

[Phil W Lee]

"Dave Plowman (News)" considered Sat, 04 Feb

2012 14:35:12 +0000 (GMT) the perfect time to write:

Yes you are - most motorists break the law, never mind the highway code, almost every time they drive. Cyclists are, by comparison, very law abiding.

[JNugent]

Bzzzt!

Logic breach!

If 83% of "motorists" [I hate that word] are cyclists, and if 83% of cyclists are "motorists" and if "most motorists" break the law, most of them must be cyclists.

You can't get out of that no matter how violently you wriggle (but you're just the one to try).

See whether *you* can work out where your "logic" went so wrong.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Probably the same reason drivers don't think they apply to them.

Rules 124 and 125, for example... Guy

[dennis]

Ahh, that would be the super humans that think they can see well enough to drive at 70 in a 30 limit in the small hours.

[Steve Firth]

It doesn't matter how many years roll by, Crapman can't get over his favourite fallacy, tu quoque.

Mind you, someone who has to create fake websites claiming to be impartial references that he can refer back to to prop up his flaccid arguments really has a problem that is bigger than just fallacious argument.