Roadcode questions

[cheshirecat]

Some one please clarify this, it seems a bit stupid to me.

Q. You are riding on a suburban street and a large piece of timber is immediately in front of you and there is NO ALTERNATIVE but to ride over it. To keep control you should:

a) stand up slightly on the footrests and keep a straight course. (the correct answer right)

b) accelerate quickly over the obstacle.

c) swerve and go around the obstacle "HOW CAN YOU THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO GO OVER IT... which means this is obviously not the answer... there are so many like this...

There's a whole heap of them like "no parking on the right hand side of the road" like whoose right?
Oh and did you know you can't park on the road if you are able park off it.
I think they should be taking the tests

[Tink]

Have you never done multi choice? There are always one or two questions obviously wrong,and two very possibly correct.You really only have to choose between the right one,and the one that sounds plausible.

I have sat tests that make it plausible to sit them, but I rate this up there with the old real estate papers... even a dummy could pass... !

There's a whole heap of them like "no parking on the right hand side of the road" like whoose right?

touche... this is just one of many... I was bought up driving english... the courtesy and skill method of driving in NZ is shocking...

[Tink]

There's a whole heap of them like "no parking on the right hand side of the road" like whoose right?
Oh and did you know you can't park on the road if you are able park off it.
I think they should be taking the tests

That surely is a little prejudice ... IT should be mandatory that all drivers sit a defensive driving/riding test... and I mean when sitting your car licence, you sit a theory test for bikes... as well... I didn't know a lot about bikes before I read the road code... even though I always gave way to the smaller vehicle... eg: bikes...

[FJRider]

Some one please clarify this, it seems a bit stupid to me.

Q. You are riding on a suburban street and a large piece of timber is immediately in front of you and there is NO ALTERNATIVE but to ride over it. To keep control you should:

a) stand up slightly on the footrests and keep a straight course. (the correct answer right)

b) accelerate quickly over the obstacle.

c) swerve and go around the obstacle "HOW CAN YOU THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO GO OVER IT... which means this is obviously not the answer... there are so many like this...

I would write a letter to the minister of transport ... and get him to define "large".

I would go A also, but as the law requires us to travel at such a speed as to be able to stop within half the clear distance of roadway ahead of us. This situation will (should) never occur.

[hospitalfood]

the question assumes i have control............

[varminter]

Not enough information, what type of timber, hardwood/softwood, planed or rough sawn, plywood sheet? tanalised? sorry, was bored.

[FJRider]

the question assumes i have control............

You may have control ... but she on the back is in charge ...

[Conquiztador]

I would go A also, but as the law requires us to travel at such a speed as to be able to stop within half the clear distance of roadway ahead of us. This situation will (should) never occur.

I was riding at 100k/h following a car at approx 2 seconds behind. The car passed over a piece of timber. There was no way I knew that the piece of timber was gonna pop up. I had under 2 seconds to do something about it. Did not manage to go around so had to go straight over. Luckily there was no nails.

So yep, can happen.

[monkeymcbean]

I'm not sure, everyone's going for A.
I just reckon if your looking up the road far enough, travelling at a good safe distance behind any vehicle infront of you, you should be able to see that bit of wood in the distance even if it means turning off on any side road before hand.
It doesnt matter if it adds kilometres to your trip the best way to survive is knowing how to avoid trouble.

[Tink]

I would write a letter to the minister of transport ... and get him to define "large".

haha yes I agree!

Not enough information, what type of timber, hardwood/softwood, planed or rough sawn, plywood sheet? tanalised? sorry, was bored.

I see you were bored! lets say its a 4x4 off the back of a builders truck approx 3 meters long, thwack...

You may have control ... but she on the back is in charge ...

Now ya talking!

[jetboy]

You can find the answer (and the others to the scratchie test) here

[BMWST?]

Of course the answer (they want) is A.
In real terms, you should employ A with a small dose of B to lighten the front and allow more suspension travel to absorb the shock.

wot e said

[sunhuntin]

Immediately in front of you?? that would indicated that either your not looking up the road,view maybe be obstructed by rush hour traffic so your speed will be slower than normal and riding over it will be the safer option....or....the bugger infront of you has a insecure load, and you have no option except to ride over it anyway...there is oncomming traffic to contend with

the worst thing you can do is brake suddenly...

Another option is if its a insecure load and you have been looking for a new bike hmmm well .............

ive come up on a street name sign in the middle of my lane at night. it was only cos it was white that i saw it at all, and it wasnt till i was almost on top of it that i saw what it actually was. i had thought it was cardboard or something. must have only just happened, cos there were people coming out of their houses when i went back to move it.

[Usarka]

He-he-he the test says wood. He-he-he-he.

[marty]

Yep. A it is. Take the rule re animals on road. You should not brake/swerve for them but drive/ride over them. (As long as it is not a cow or a horse...)Logic here is that if you drive/ride over them there will be no disruption to the traffic and it is a calculated decision so you are prepared for it.

this is what happens when you swerve instead of ride over>>>