I was very worried about it - not about the multiple choice section, because that bit was easy enough, though much harder than any of the mock tests I tried - no, it was the hazard perception bit that I was very anxious about.
I started revising/practising yesterday morning and my clever brain was able to retain enough of the theory to pass the multiple choice, although much of it is fairly obvious if you have a grain of common sense. I found the BSM book very helpful in revising for this and, obviously, the Official Highway Code. All very interesting.
 |
| Theory questions - obviously, you can't look inside unless you're on the Amazon website |
I also used some theory test sites, the most helpful being Driving-Test-Success.Com. The most amusing question I found asked what you would say if one of your drunk friends asked if you would race them to the next set of traffic lights. The correct answer was "Nah, racing's for chavs." Highly amusing and clearly not aimed at intelligent (occasional) Guardian reading learner drivers in their mid 30s.
Anyway, my bug bear is with the hazard perception test. I know some people who have failed this repeatedly - all highly intelligent and verging on genius - and I couldn't understand why when so many less intelligent people are able to pass easily.
For those that cleverly took their test years ago and have no idea what this is, it is a series of video clips where you must click when you see a possible hazard and click whenever you see a sign that increases the risk of this possible hazard becoming an actual hazard. For example, click when you see a car coming from a side road. Click again if it looks like it won't stop and again when it pulls out in front of you. The earlier you identify a possible hazard, the higher the score you get.
All this is fine. My issue is that if you identify hazards that the test designers don't think are hazards, it deducts points and assumes you're cheating. I knew, from a whole day of practicing yesterday, that I have a tendency to notice more hazards than they want me to notice. I am not cheating and in my mind I still maintain that they were possible hazards, but I was penalised for clicking them.
This makes me cross. Perhaps I am too nervous about possible risks and need to chill out - a possibility that I will definitely consider - but I still felt that the test itself was a little unfair. If you could only sit with someone and explain why you clicked and what your thought process was, I feel this would be easier. You pay over £30 for the test and there were at least 10 other people in with me. Surely that is enough to warrant an actual person checking those items where someone seems to click a lot or is just below the pass rate. I understand that maybe there are issues with fairness if you did this, but I really don't think that the way it is done is fair on those who are more sensitive. Even the screen was too bright for me and made my eyes hurt, yet I was told off for adjusting it. Anyway, the best hazard perception practice test I found was one the AA site.
I am sighing. I know this is a long post, but I needed to vent. Vent done, I am deeply grateful that I scraped through and passed. There's no way I'd want to do that again!
Good luck to anyone else taking the theory test!
Hi, i am the author of upcoming novel 'The Demon Road: a Theory Test Novel'. I read your blog post with interest. Congratulations on passing first time, could you elaborate on what hazards you were identifying that had not been classed as hazards by the system? Thanks theorytestnovel.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteVery interesting, thanks for posting. When's the book due out? Will pass the details onto my instructor - he might be interested to check it out.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to know all the hazards that the system didn't agree with because it doesn't give you that much feedback (which would have been helpful), and I do acknowledge that I am rather finely attuned to details, perhaps due to having people in my family on the autistic spectrum and then having had further training as a counsellor. It's always been my job to notice details and be aware. I also have a fabulous imagination, which doesn't help when trying not to notice ALL possible hazards.
It took me a while to work out (from practice videos) that I was meant to be clicking on all potential hazards, then, as they turned into actual hazards, to click again at each change in circumstances that created a greater hazard. What I found difficult to gauge was where the draw the line - what classified as a potential hazard? As a result, I chose too many. Please note that I *was* able to gauge what was turning into an actual hazard.
Anyway, there are two that stick in my mind, that were clearly not accepted as potential hazards. One was a dog sitting on the grass verge to my left, facing the road. I imagined that he was well positioned to run out in front of me, should something startle him or grab his attention. The other was a wheelie bin to my right, piled high on top with rubbish - as it was a windy day I thought that if there was a large gust of wind, it might tip the rubbish into the road and either go as far as my side, or cause traffic to my right to swerve. Anyway, neither seemed to classify as potential hazards. I still don't quite get what would classify as 'potential' though I am clear on what classifies as 'actual'. Hope this helps.
I notice you have a post on aquaplaning. I found this concept really interesting when I read about it as I'd not come across it before. http://findingninki.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/head-down.html
Good luck with all things writing-based! Nina
PS The wheelie bin was on the very edge of the pavement.
ReplyDeletehttp://ukdrivinglicense-org.webs.com
ReplyDeleteAs before, useful link and thank you for posting, but again it would have been nice to have some kind of comment or hello or something too. :-)
ReplyDelete