Well, I took and passed my ADI Part 1 today. A two-part theory test involving a series of multiple choice questions answered using a touch screen and the hazard perception test consisting of 14 video clips where the candidate is required to identify developing hazards and click on the mouse as they arise.
As I had been an ADI for five years, but lapsed, I have not undergone the training course I did the first time around. Discussing my training needs with the AA identified what I already knew, that I needed to brush up, but a full course would be over the top for my needs.
When I booked the test, the DSA offered me the opportunity to purchase their practice disks and I did, believing that this would help. However, as it turned out, that benefit was limited. Yes, it did prepare me for the hazard perception test, but the theory questions were those intended for new drivers. Nowhere was there anything more advanced – although some of the new stuff on environmental driving caught me out. Well, did you know that increasing speed from 50mph to 70mph increases fuel consumption by 30%? No, neither did I.
As this was the official disk, I used it to practice and went along to the test believing myself fully prepared. Unfortunately, the questions in the test bore little resemblance to the ones on the practice disk. These were (quite rightly) more advanced. They included topics on how people learn and how to deal with pupils with disabilities. Not to mention automatic cars. I’ve never driven an automatic and have no ambition to do so. Certainly I have no intention of teaching in one. Consequently, my knowledge of this is purely theoretical. I’m sure I dropped some points on this subject and I know I struggled with the disabilities stuff. Discussing this over at the UK Bike Forum, one contributor tells me that there is another disk containing the ADI preparation – it looks like I was sent the wrong one. So all the practice came to naught – it was my previous experience and knowledge that saw me through.
Moving onto the hazard perception part of the test, the idea is fine. I have some doubts about the practice, though. A mouse click is somewhat loose when measuring performance. On one clip, I was disqualified, much to my annoyance, for clicking too quickly in succession. There were several potential developing hazards and I believed that I was responding appropriately. Not so, according to the software. Nil points. I was furious with myself and was convinced that I had failed the test. This was because during practice I was unable to score consistently. Yes, I saw the developing hazard in good time, but even re-running the clip did not always mean a higher score. It all depends on the point at which you click and whether the software identifies it with the relevant developing hazard. So, I figured that if I managed to score either four or five on each clip, as I had been doing in practice, the lowest score would be 60 – some three points above the pass mark. Now I had blown up to five points on one clip. Fortunately, I scored well on the rest.
The hazard perception test is, in my opinion, a good idea in principle but not fully developed. As a tool it is still a little too crude.
Overall, I scored 90/100 on the theory and 60/75 on the hazard perception. Although both are above the pass mark, neither is high enough for my liking. I could and should have performed better.
Next week, I have to book my part 2.
“increasing speed from 50mph to 70mph increases fuel consumption by 30%? No, neither did I.”
I wonder if this is still the case – this is a fact that I recall being touted around in the early seventies – when I was no’but a lad – after the first OPEC price hike. Given the govt’s propensity to keep peddling the same information long after its sell-by date I would be unsurprised to find it’s actually wrong.
I recall when I was working in National Museums Liverpool coming across some material from the local police with highway code-type information including stopping distances. These were identical to those on the back of the contemporary Highway Code (and AFAICR, unchanged now). The document dated from the 1930s. I suspect cars may have improved such safety features as braking systems somewhat in the intervening sixty (as it was then) or seventy years (now).
This would not surprise me in the least. However, to pass the test, that’s the answer you have to give… 😐
I have difficulty with some of the other “official” answers that contradict real life practice. But the DSA is god and god is never wrong. :whistle: