On Wed, 07 Apr 2021 16:16:27 +0100, T i m wrote:

snip

The computer generated one makes it obvious what the intended hazards
are.

I'm not sure that's the point ... other than to get people though the
test of course. ;-)

I scored exactly twice as much on the CG test as I did on the video one.

Given how poor the std level of observation / consideration for other
road users is on the roads sometimes I'm sure if they made it too
realistic, very few would pass.

On the test you are meant to click on a "developing hazard" (I think that
was the wording) and in theory the sooner you click the better the score.

I bought a DVD that had dozens of clips and rated your score. I clicked
waaaay to early on a lot of them; I got the correct hazard but I wasn't
supposed to have realised by then.

Example: a cyclist some way in front on the left. Parked cars. Relative
speeds made it obvious that the cyclist was going to be moving out to get
past the parked cars at the same time the video car got there. Click. Zero
points. Apparently the I was supposed to click as the cyclist started
moving out.

Other examples - a car approaching a junction a little too fast;
pedestrians approaching a zebra crossing; brake lights coming off a car
parked on the left.

In addition, all but one clip had just one hazard you were supposed to
click on. If you got the wrong one - a child walking on the pavement next
to the road, for example - you couldn't then click on the intended hazard
later on in that clip.

The CG version was much clearer, both in graphics quality and intention.