Driving Instructors Scottish Council
D.I.S.C.
Continuous Professional Development
With this in mind we have developed a programme, which will include talks at meetings, starting with check-test preparation, and going on to cover other aspects of giving instruction. We have engaged the services of Aeneas MacRitchie who offers instructor re-training. Members are able to contact him for individual in-car consultation between seminars. We also want to see the scope of the development programme widened to include topics such as fleet driver training, legal aspects and business management and the Cardington Advanced driving test.
SCOTAIDE INSTRUCTOR TRAINING
4 BURNSIDE ROAD, UPHALL BROXBURN
WEST LOTHIAN
EH52 5DE
TEL : 01506 855682
TRAINER -
AENEAS MacRITCHIE
E-mail address - scotaide@tiscali.co.uk
Former Supervising Examiner A.D.I.
HPT Test
Compiled by Aneas MacRitchie Former Supervising Examiner A.D.I.
Letter to Trevor Wedge DCDE
CD-Rom - DSA THEORY TEST - REVISED HAZARD PERCEPTION INTRODUCTORY VIDEO
With reference to the above mentioned CD-Rom which was received along with my latest copy of DESPATCH, I would like to make the following comments:
Within Despatch in response to the question: “What are the main misunderstandings?” You have stated that “It seems that some candidates are ignoring potential hazards and only responding after a hazard starts to develop.” You then went on to state that “This reduces their score as hazard perception is linked to anticipating danger rather than reacting to it.”
I totally agree with your comment that Hazard Perception should be linked to anticipating danger, rather than reacting to it. However, this is where the main the problem arises, as in the two examples shown within the clip on the CD-Rom, a candidate reacting to the situation will at least score some marks, whereas the candidate who anticipates the developing hazard will actually score NIL. Having studied the clip from the CD-Rom, I cannot see how you can possibly justify such a statement. My first point being that if the candidate does respond to the potential hazard in the manner which I have demonstrated below, they will not score any marks whatsoever, which leads me to the second point, how on earth can this action reduce their score, when it is already NIL.
My main concerns over this current marking system are as follows, I have always been under the impression that a developing hazard, would involve any situation where the picture will become clearer, as you get nearer to the hazard, NOT the opposite, where you are now so close to the hazard, that any evasive action which may be taken, is obviously going to be far too late.
I
would therefore ask that you give serious consideration to the fact that DSA
at this point in time, have developed a marking system, which operates the
wrong way round, where candidates are penalised for anticipating potential
hazards and are awarded marks for having late reactions.
Personal Response received from Trevor Wedge DCDE
Methodology behind the scoring system :
The coloured circles are used merely as an illustration and explanation of the principal of how the test works, also to help the candidate to understand that it is not realistic to just respond only once when they see a hazard but to seek out clues that it may change and respond again if necessary.
They would not respond once to each developing hazard if behind the wheel of a car but as many times as would be dictated by the circumstances prevailing at the time.
The Hazard Perception Test is no different, with scenes structured to elicit response in the same way as if actually driving.
The scoring windows are set to establish the point at which a candidate responds to clues that result in a situation developing. Therefore it tests their ability to scan for clues that may require them to take some form of action.
Consequently the earlier they respond the higher the score will be.
They will not be penalised for responding to a hazard that ultimately does not develop Training should focus on developing a strategy to identify potential hazards at the earliest opportunity (and formulate a plan to reduce the risk) and to continue to monitor them in case the situation changes necessitating re-planning. Candidates should respond every time they as a driver would plan or re-plan for potential danger.
Using this approach neither instructors nor candidates need concern themselves unduly as to when the scoring window opens.
The Hazard Perception Test was developed through a robust research project by TRL to test the hazard perception ability of all drivers. Indeed the rationale is based on the principal that the more experienced the driver the earlier they would recognise and respond to clues that indicate potential dangerous situations.
During its development the newly constructed tests also underwent extensive trials using drivers of all levels of ability, including ADI's, Police and MOD personnel. Therefore we are confident that the test is robust and gives a measurement of a candidate's ability, irrespective of their driving experience or background, to perceive potential danger.
Comments
These comments were made by Peter Rees who is a Part One PDI from Middlesex.
I have 20 years driving experience of both driving and riding, when recently sitting the DSA ADI Theory Examination, having studied the various Publications, I found no problem with the multiple-choice Questions, I passed this part and managed to achieve a 100% marking.
In preparation for the Hazard Perception element of the examination, I have been practising with the DSA's Roadsense DVD, However, I only managed to achieve a score of 45 on this part, where I required a minimum of 57 marks, or more to Pass.
The main problem with the Hazard Perception Test, was that I scored ZERO on four out of the fourteen clips shown, It was stated that I had been penalised for inappropriate clicking. This however, was not my experience when practising with DSA's own DVD.
Inappropriate clicking, also has a suggestion of cheating about it, and I would absolutely refute any such suggestion.
What concerns me, is that I appear to have been penalised for being too safe, for my part to score ZERO for identifying what I know to be potentially real hazards appears inequitable.
These comments were made by Ken Sweet a qualified ADI who is an ex-police Class One driver
I have been trained to a very high standard of hazard perception and had the opportunity along with a number of other Class One drivers to take the Hazard Perception Test.
We were all seeing the hazards too soon, the problem being that the window of opportunity to be able to score maximum points on the test is far too late , in some cases dangerously so, because if I taught my pupils to be so late in responding to a situation, then I would forever be using the dual controls.
Personal Opinion
Hazard Perception should be linked to anticipating danger, rather than reacting to it. However, this is where the main the problem arises, as in the two examples shown within the clip on the CD-Rom, anyone reacting to the situation will at least score some marks, whereas someone who anticipates the developing hazard will actually score NIL.
My main concern over this current scoring system are as follows, I have always been under the impression that a developing hazard, would involve any situation where the picture will become clearer, as you get nearer to the hazard, NOT the opposite, where you are now so close to the hazard, that any evasive action which may be taken, is obviously going to be far too late.
It is my considered opinion, that DSA have got the marking system operating the wrong way round, where anyone anticipating potential hazards early, will be penalised for doing so, and will not receive any marks, whereas anyone who is late in reacting to the hazard, will actually be awarded marks for doing so.
Link to images of DSA CD Rom
Let
us take a look at the DSA