Safe Speed Forums

For anyone who's interested in what sort of questions are in part 1 of the theory test, there's a mock version to play with at http://www.dsa.gov.uk/mockpaper/theoryintro.htm#. 35 questions multiple-guess questions, some of which require 2-3 answers all of which have to be right to pass that question. 30 to pass. Some technical questions like when you might overinflate tyres, some very easy road sign questions, one predictably PC question about why trams are eco-friendly (which I could debate but gave the answer they wanted anyway), but many many nana questions that have one sane option and three barking ones.
Frankly I'm disgusted with myself. I've done it three times now and not got 100% yet.

Oops, got 31 (still a pass though)

I have to argue with this one though


I answered a which is what I will continue to do in real life. The "correct" answer was b. Good way to incite road rage if you ask me.

The other two were silly slip-ups, well it is after 4am.

35/35 on car test 2

And 27/35 on Lorry test 1 and I only have a car license.

Well, b is what I do because I'd rather mildly upset the driver following than greatly increase my chances of becoming the filling in a car-smash sandwich. That said, when safe to do so, I'd also perform manoeuvre c because I'd rather have a tailgater in front of me than behind.

_________________
Will

I think the relevant thing here is that you are increasing your braking distance to allow for the following drivers lack of one. In an emergency you then have enough braking distance for both cars allowing you to stop without being shunted from the rear.

Have to say that I agree with the DSA on this one.

I got 31, one less than I got in the real thing. Strikes me that the questions I got wrong were mainly those that I really have no need to know, though!

(If you're yet to do the test, and don't want any spoilers, don't read on)

o are the answers that I chose (- those that I didn't), and the (yes)/(no) at the end of the question is the correct answer.

Motor vehicles can harm the environment. This has resulted in:-
o air pollution (yes)
- damage to buildings (yes)
- reduced health risks (no)
o improved public transport (no)
- less use of electrical vehicles (no)
o using up natural resources (yes)
Firstly, what does this actually have to do with driving? Am I safer on the roads for knowing that cars cause damage to buildings? Secondly, is it not fair to say that public transport has improved (or at least, been increasesd) as a result of growing concerns about the environment? Very dodgy question, if you ask me.

Areas reserved for trams may have:-
- metal studs around them (no)
- white line markings (yes)
o zig zag markings (no)
o a different coloured surface (yes)
- yellow hatch markings (no)
o a different surface texture (yes)
Um. Trams. Great. In all probability, I will not drive through a city that has trams in in the forseeable future. Although this isn't as stupid a question as I first thought, it's still kind of annoying.

The other two that I got wrong were probably less 'dodgy', but another question that annoyed me was the one about towing caravans - I never intend to two a caravan in my life, and if I do I would certainly research into the mechanics of towing it at the time. But to pass my driving test at 17, do I really need to know? Does this mean that the DSA reccommends new drivers go out and tow a caravan straight after they pass their test?

Hmm. Probably getting annoyed about nothing here. But I still think that the theory test was a bit of a waste of time and effort (and money!)

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Wildy Cat 35/35/35 (More insufferable than ever - and she's foreign!) and self 34/35/34

But - the gang did buy the "Pass Your Test" CD-Rom from PC World for the youngsters!

Pollution Question - Politically correct Stasis want to emphasise how bad we are for wanting to drive car!


Trams Mike! What about Manchester, Sheffield, (You may choose to study there ) and Blackpool. (Well, you may wish to go there but they hide scams in the illuminations!)

As for towing - we tow cars, caravans, etc.

Wildy Cat had mechanics and first aid on the German version all those years ago as well!

As for tailgater from hell - we usually do slow down and increase our space as it p155es them up more - it also gives us the view for the crafty planned overtake to ditch him as well -or - lose 'em as soon as possible when we get to faster speed zone - as they are usually crap at both overtake and accelerate anyway. If this is not possible - we try to let them pass asap - though WildCat has been known to hold until she is near a scam, then she slows/pulls in to let him overtake and he usually gets pinged as he throttles hard and is such a numpty that he never noticed PC Gatso at all!

Hi Mad One!

So you got a couple of 34s - slipping pal! (Got 35/35/34 - well - long time since I drove a truck! )

Nothing wrong with theory test - should be a lot harder to keep more numpties off the road!

It's worrying in itself. If you buy the book/CD, you have ALL the possible questions that you will get on the test, and the correct answers. Passing the test would be possible by someone with no common sense but a good memory. I did it (the real thing, about 4-5 months ago) without looking at any of the training material, and still got 32/35. It's all common sense apart from the questions like the pollution question. Knowing the answer to this will not make you a safer driver on the road, and therefore it has no place in the test - imo!



And deny potentially safe drivers the chance to go on the roads because they don't know enough about the environment.




Manchester and Blackpool I have no desire to go to, and I already applied to university and not to Sheffield. (Possibly I'll be visiting friends there, but who knows...)



Yeah, but I still think it might not be the best idea to test everyone on it, as not everyone has the need/desire to tow anything. As I say, if I were to need to tow something, I'd consult with people and read the highway code at the time.



Are such antics really in the interests of road safety?

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Oooh! Good one! More! More!

Got to keep that twazak in his place - Mike! (And that wild wife of his! (My cousin!) Actually - she is a darned good driver! But she likes having her fun - and she would have played it with utmost safety! Tailgaters deserve all they get- and the Gatsos do not get them! Been with her as passenger when she did this once - in Preston. He was on her tail for too long, and she did all the right things, but could not accelerate because we were in Gatso county. Eventually she saw opportunity to pull over safely and let him pass - and it was just before a Gatso and we saw the flash reflect in his rear!

Nothing that wrong in buying the CD-Rom and books to learn theory and hazard perception skills. Bought it for my two youngsters - one now joined us in RoSPA, and the other just got her provisional licence. HELP! We use it as base for our youngsters and usually make sure they really understand the logic behind the questions as opposed to just learning correct answer of 4 to question. Nothing wrong with it - so long as you use it correctlyas base to dig deeper which is what we do with our kids!

But we realise not everyone is as as us

Getting 35/35 now but after a while the questions are repeated, so that might be something to do with it. Still reckon the questions are occasionally too easy.Out of interest Mike, do you reckon the hazard perception part of the theory test is what trips people up? I was initially amazed that anyone could fail when I saw the questions (and 40 mins to complete - loads of time to think 'em through), but then I saw that it's followed by a video to test hazard perception. Since you did it recently I wondered what you thought.Or because they haven't swallowed the eco-BS like good little citizens. The question about trams being environmentally friendly really wound me up, since I don't believe they are. Sussed that the answers they wanted involved less noise pollution, running on electricity and reducing congestion. <Cynical laugh> Personally would not like to live in houses backing onto the Wimbledon-Croydon tram line without earplugs, and presumably they're still burning something to generate the electricty, so that's cr@p too. Reducing congestion may apply if system is well thought out, but in Croydon they seem to have taken part of what used to be road and made it tram only. Might be just the bit I saw, but last time I was in Croydon traffic congestion seemed to be a hell of a lot worse than it was before the trams were brought in. Question about motor vehicles harming environment is a corker too. More carbon emissions from buildings than from traffic, but what's the point in telling us that? That won't make us feel guilty about using cars, which is after all the whole point of the exercise. By putting this stuff in theory tests we get a whole generation brainwashed nice and early.
Nice to hear a BiB saying that out loud. Don't suppose you're in line for a Chief Constable job down south are you? Regardless of what they deserve tailgaters seem to actually get stuff all down here providing they know where the cameras are.

I took the theory test shortly after it came out and found that some questions were *very* easy to misunderstand and understanding the wording of others was critical to answering it correctly. They might have changed it now, but previously the questions seemed to be made deliberately terse, where a couple more words could have helped some slighly "simpler" people to understand what was being asked!

For instance, one I can remember was "what should you check before commencing a long journey? a) oil b) water c) food d) mirrors clean etc... all were perfectly valid answers but they wanted you list the three most *important* answers. In my test there were about six answers that I could see would repeatedly trip up lots of people.

I completed it in 10-15 mins and spent another ten reading through my answers to be 100% sure and passed them all. My sister's friend failed it eight times, I didn't hear whether she passed it in the end!

Gareth

I just got 33/35. I also answered (a) to the tailgaiting one but now I see the reasoning behind (b).

Just passed the second one too. I never had to take one of those when I took my test back in 1986 but I guess I've learned from experience.

Of course the theoretical answer isn't always the one I do in a live situation.

That's not my point though... The test is a farce because it can be passed by memorising answers. Anyone can pass the test if they have the time to learn the answers, whether they understand them or not.



Definitely. I was extremely worried about the hazard perception before the test, mainly because the skills required to pass it seem to be similar to those required to play a computer game. If you can learn the system, i.e. you don't click when you're anticipating a hazard, you anticipate at the exact moment you see it, then you can probably score highly. I had great trouble with it because I often found I'd be saying to myself that something was going to happen (so if I was driving, I'd already have prepared myself for the hazard), and click, but I was too early for the actual 'points scoring' zone.

In my opinion, the hazard perception test doesn't test how good you are at reacting to hazards on the road IRL. The fact that the videos are such awful quality doesn't help, and then some of them are filmed in the rain with bad light and all the camera is able to pick up is glare...

I fortunately scraped through the hazard perception with 2 or 3 marks to spare, however on a 'bad day' I would definitely have failed on it. From what I have seen amongst my friends (a lot of people I know have been recently taking tests - seeing as I'm 17 I guess this is inevitable...), some people scored in the high 50s / 60s; others scored in the 30s first time round and had to resit the theory and still got a low score. But their hazard perception on the road, in the car, doesn't seem to vary as much as these scores would indicate. And of course, there are people who scored highly on the test who aren't particularly good at hazard perception on the road, and vice versa.

I fail to see what the hazard perception element of the theory tests that is not already perfectly well tested in your practical driving test. Most people have already been on the roads (with an instructor, etc) before they take the theory test, so it's not as though it's something you're required to be able to do before you can go on the roads. And a driving examiner can assess how well you spot hazards by seeing when/how you react to them. Or maybe the test could be modified so you have to talk your way through what you're doing - I believe this is the way the system works for some police tests, and I think it would be beneficial to have a similar thing (although perhaps less demanding!) in place for regular tests.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Yes Mike - the test is a bit like a Pavlov dog reaction test. Bit like the "brake for the scamera" game If you practice - you pass! German version asks for short essay - I believe, which is more testing.

We also think you are spot on with your take on the hazard perception test. There was a thread on Pistonheads whereby one of the BiBs there asked for opinions. He said it took him several takes to work out how to pass it. In Gear was the same. (If you want to keep him in check folks - just bring J-walking into your retort to him as he got fined for this in Switzerland! )

However, we come to conclusion that the hazard test is indeed a computer game - which youngsters who are used to this sort of game outperfom the old fogies such as ourselves!

The running commentary is indeed a Police thing, and RoSPA thing as well. IAM used to insist on the running talk-through commentary - but do not require this in their test these days. However, you still do it if you train via IAM branches and it is darned useful sometimes as it really focuses you.

Mike - I think you would pass with flying colours - look into it!

The hazard perception video sounded like a good idea when I first saw it on the DSA site, but from what's been said, especially Mike{F]'s comments now I'm not so sure. Did some more reading and found out that if you clcik the hazard button too often you get penalised. Presumably this is to prevent someone just constantly clicking the button all the way through the video and picking up every hazard that way. It sounds like you only get a point if you click the button at the right time. Does that mean people who are good at spotting hazards well in advance might actually fail?

If Mad Moggie is right about the IAM test not involving a running commentary anymore I might go and do it now. I'm one of those people who find it very difficult to do something and explain what I'm doing at the same time, whether it's driving, cooking, PC repairs, whatever. Having to drive and talk about it at the same time has put me off IAM for years. If they've changed it I'll go and check it out now.

Not at the moment, I have A levels coming up and I'm also skint... Maybe towards the end of summer when I've got some cash and a bit of free time.



Not really, you'll only score 0 for clicking too much if you click quite a large number of times (15 or so) in one clip. As for the spotting hazards in advance - well, yes, kind of. If you've anticipated a hazard before it's actually visible, and clicked at that point, you'll get no credit. The test basically tests your reactions to visual stimuli, in a very similar manner to how a computer game might. So I think Mad Moggie is right, it's very much suited to younger people who are well used to this sort of challenge from too much time at the Playstation/Xbox/PC...

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Just a quick one for gatsobait - good handle by the way!

I can confirm the IAM does not now insist upon a commentary when you are driving although it is sometimes encouraged by your "observer" who will help you to reach pass level. I think the program entitled "skills for life" costs around £85 for the over 25's, this will give you your first years membership to the IAM, the cost of your test and membership of your local group to help you acheive full member status. I believe there is a £10 discount is you are under 25 or if you bought a brand new Jaguar - if you buy a brand new Daiwoo you get it for free!!!

It's a course which is well worth doing. Although it does demand some self disipline after you pass the course to keep your concentration and remain focused on the road I do believe it to be a huge benefit to road safety. Much more so than the anonymous grey robots who are policing our roads at the moment.

Hi Littlegoozle!

Just what I was going to confirm. Gatsobait - you can get loads of info from the IAM websites. Check it out - great social life too. Our lot arrange Track Days here and abroad as well!

Mike - your views on the hazard thing! Good luck in the approaching exams by the way - I remember taking mine - not that long ago Went to St. Andrews - great for golf! Then down to Manchest for the clinical side. Great pub and club life - and lots of nursies!

We bought the version from PC World for the kids around this family (In Gear's daughter is currently using it )

The reaction from some of the petrol heads: they were braking on the floor - they thought the numpty was gonna rear-end the blue Picasso.

Then we had the bad use of wipers and my old Ma's comment:
"this driver is the hazard, coupled with glare from the video lens - and at this point the numpty in the film almost drove into the car transporter parked outside the garage. We stopped playing at this point and just watched open-mouthed as he hurtled around the roundabout, dashed around above 30mph, got pinged by a Gatso (we saw it flash !) Obviously unaware of a hazard there then!

Best comedy we have watched for ages! Can recommend it! How not to drive a car - which is probably the aim of the test! Perhaps?

Littlegoozle and Mad Moggie, thanks for the info. I'll have a goosey at the IAM site tomorrow.
Welcome to the Crash Bandicoot School of Motoring. Today we will be avoiding falling logs and wishing Lara Croft was an examiner.