Hell Ride Report- 30/12/06 "WELCOME TO FRANKSTON"

[Jono L]

This mornings Hell Ride ride we were greated by two police cars at Black Rock.
Despite first impressions the cops drove sensibly keeping us in the left lane and making room for cars to pass. It was good, no red lights run, everyone was happy.

Unfortunately as we passed through Frankston this all went pear shaped. As we rolled through one set of lights (green btw ) what looked like a normal grey falcon (that actually turned out to be an unmarked cop car) came screaming by the bunch dangerously close to a number of riders. Then as we hit the base of Olivers he started slowing, then just before the sideroad section (which the hell ride does not take simply because it's to narrow for a big bunch) he chucked on the anchors and started flashing lights and blaring sirens. So basically he thought by stopping right in front of the Hell Ride he'd force us up the sideroad (that is actually marked for cyclists to use.)

I don't know how but no one came down, but needless to say he recieved a few choice words. He came back past the front ten or so at the top of the Olivers, parked his car, rolled down the window and yelled

"WELCOME TO FRANKSTON!"



Whether or not you agree with the Hell ride (and I know many of you don't which is fair enough) this is not the way to go about stopping it, what a complete idiot.

BTW, I doubt there's anything that binds us to *have* to use the side road on Olivers... I'll use all the time except when in the Hell Ride, a bunch of 100+ going up that steep little road with speedhumps and wooden poles is just asking for trouble.

 

[scotty72]

I would hope that wilth dozens off witnesses you'll make a complaint against him for dangerous driving. What an idiot! Blue uniforms can take a normal idiot and turn him into a SUPER idiot.

As for forcing you to use a particular route.

No way, unless there is some lawful reason (road closure, accident etc.), you can use which ever road you please (unless bikes are not permitted by a sign post).

Imagine if cops suddenly cut off cars and arbitrarily told motorists to go that way for no reason other than 'because I say so"?

What a ******.

Scotty

This mornings Hell Ride ride we were greated by two police cars at Black Rock.
Despite first impressions the cops drove sensibly keeping us in the left lane and making room for cars to pass. It was good, no red lights run, everyone was happy.

Unfortunately as we passed through Frankston this all went pear shaped. As we rolled through one set of lights (green btw ) what looked like a normal grey falcon (that actually turned out to be an unmarked cop car) came screaming by the bunch dangerously close to a number of riders. Then as we hit the base of Olivers he started slowing, then just before the sideroad section (which the hell ride does not take simply because it's to narrow for a big bunch) he chucked on the anchors and started flashing lights and blaring sirens. So basically he thought by stopping right in front of the Hell Ride he'd force us up the sideroad (that is actually marked for cyclists to use.)

I don't know how but no one came down, but needless to say he recieved a few choice words. He came back past the front ten or so at the top of the Olivers, parked his car, rolled down the window and yelled

"WELCOME TO FRANKSTON!"



Whether or not you agree with the Hell ride (and I know many of you don't which is fair enough) this is not the way to go about stopping it, what a complete idiot.

BTW, I doubt there's anything that binds us to *have* to use the side road on Olivers... I'll use all the time except when in the Hell Ride, a bunch of 100+ going up that steep little road with speedhumps and wooden poles is just asking for trouble.

 

[DaveB]

scotty72 wrote:
> I would hope that wilth dozens off witnesses you'll make a complaint
> against him for dangerous driving. What an idiot! Blue uniforms can
> take a normal idiot and turn him into a SUPER idiot.
>
> As for forcing you to use a particular route.
>
> No way, unless there is some lawful reason (road closure, accident
> etc.), you can use which ever road you please (unless bikes are not
> permitted by a sign post).
>

Even then it's not necessarily legal. I took this up with the Manningham
Council over some signs directing bikes onto the footpath along our
Sunday BR route. The response was that the signs couldn't be enforced
and were "suggestions".

DaveB

 

[cfsmtb]

Whether or not you agree with the Hell ride (and I know many of you don't which is fair enough) this is not the way to go about stopping it, what a complete idiot.

What a cockhead, hopefully someone in the bunch got his rego & description. Make a couple of discreet enquiries to: ethical.standardsATpoliceDOTvicDOTgovDOTau

Don't forget to document & verify what you witnessed and if you feel like it, give them a few pointers about Shared Respect, the Code of Conduct and suitable community policing standards, *cough*, behaviour.

Hey didn't the Fauves pen a song or two about the delights of Frankston, or did they just grow up/live there?

 

[Jono L]

As for forcing you to use a particular route.

No way, unless there is some lawful reason (road closure, accident etc.), you can use which ever road you please (unless bikes are not permitted by a sign post).

Well this route is on the Nepean Highway which is a two lane major arterial road. Basically as you hit this short but steep hill the idea is to move cyclists away from the much faster moving traffic which is a great idea, so the bike lane that is normally there disapears and there is a sign saying all cyclists use something or other drive which then brings you back on to the Highway at the top of the hill and the bike lane re-appears. All of it works really well and is very safe except for with large bunches...

 

[scotty72]

Well this route is on the Nepean Highway which is a two lane major arterial road. Basically as you hit this short but steep hill the idea is to move cyclists away from the much faster moving traffic which is a great idea, so the bike lane that is normally there disapears and there is a sign saying all cyclists use something or other drive which then brings you back on to the Highway at the top of the hill and the bike lane re-appears. All of it works really well and is very safe except for with large bunches...

Not sure of the situation at that point but, from my understanding of the national road rules. The ONLY sign that is ENFORCEABLE is the bike logo with a red line through it. Signs that have a bike logo with an arrow or the words ALL BICYCLES are advisory only.

Is life the same down there?

SCotty

 

[DaveB]

scotty72 wrote:
> Jono L Wrote:
>> Well this route is on the Nepean Highway which is a two lane major
>> arterial road. Basically as you hit this short but steep hill the idea
>> is to move cyclists away from the much faster moving traffic which is a
>> great idea, so the bike lane that is normally there disapears and there
>> is a sign saying all cyclists use something or other drive which then
>> brings you back on to the Highway at the top of the hill and the bike
>> lane re-appears. All of it works really well and is very safe except
>> for with large bunches...Not sure of the situation at that point but, from my understanding of
> the national road rules. The ONLY sign that is ENFORCEABLE is the bike
> logo with a red line through it. Signs that have a bike logo with an
> arrow or the words ALL BICYCLES are advisory only.
>
> Is life the same down there?
>
> SCotty
>
>


Yep that matches my understanding. Unfortunately nobody would expect
that was what it meant, so everytime I'm near one of those signs and not
riding as "suggested" I expect to be abused by motorists. I'd say they
need a new national standard sign that says it is advisory only.

DaveB

 

[TimC]

On 2006-12-30, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Jono L Wrote:
>> Well this route is on the Nepean Highway which is a two lane major
>> arterial road. Basically as you hit this short but steep hill the idea
>> is to move cyclists away from the much faster moving traffic which is a
>> great idea, so the bike lane that is normally there disapears and there
>> is a sign saying all cyclists use something or other drive which then
>> brings you back on to the Highway at the top of the hill and the bike
>> lane re-appears. All of it works really well and is very safe except
>> for with large bunches...
> Not sure of the situation at that point but, from my understanding of
> the national road rules. The ONLY sign that is ENFORCEABLE is the bike
> logo with a red line through it. Signs that have a bike logo with an
> arrow or the words ALL BICYCLES are advisory only.

I was wondering about the bikes crossed out, even.

This town is rather silly -- the highway into the place has a twisty
windey footpath on the left that doesn't have access to being able to
turn right at side streets. Complete with a sign saying "all bikes",
and a sign down the road with a bike with red line.

There are signs all over the town that have the same crossed out logo
-- some of them definitely applying to the footpath, some possible
applying to the footpath, possibly the road (ambiguous placement),
and one on a little one-way lane that definitely doesn't apply to the
footpath, because there is no footpath for it apply to. It's the only
access into some shops, but it has one of these "no bikes" logos.

I really should find out when the council meetings are, and point out
their stupidity to them. In the meantime, I just ignore all of these
signs, having thought they were unlawful and completely unenforcable.
I haven't been pulled up yet, either, so my guess is they are only
enforced against people doing stupid things.

--
TimC
When I'M trying to get somebody fired, I always walk a mile in their
shoes first. That way, when I get them fired and they get all angry
with me, I'm a mile away, and I'VE GOT THEIR SHOES! HAW HAW!
--Beable van Polasm, alt.religion.kibology

 

[rooman]

On 2006-12-30, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>snip
>> Well this route is on the Nepean Highway which is a two lane major
>> arterial road. Basically as you hit this short but steep hill the idea
>> is to move cyclists away from the much faster moving traffic which is a
>> great idea, so the bike lane that is normally there disapears and there
>> is a sign saying all cyclists use something or other drive which then
>> brings you back on to the Highway at the top of the hill and the bike
>> lane re-appears. All of it works really well and is very safe except
>> for with large bunches...
> Not sure of the situation at that point but, from my understanding of
> the national road rules. The ONLY sign that is ENFORCEABLE is the bike
> logo with a red line through it. Signs that have a bike logo with an
> arrow or the words ALL BICYCLES are advisory only.

snip......

The Black Rock ride has used the Olivers Hill road way instead of Hope's Rise since day 1 from what I know and have seen. If the "Boys in Blue" had a plan to divert, then safety, common sense and good public relations would have dictated they make a sensible audible and "carefully explained reason for" announcement at Black Rock prior to the 7am departure...

Brings back the time when Sarg Plod hopped out of his station car one saturday morn at the clock tower and said to all and sundry 'you gotta ride on the bike path cos that's what its for, you cant ride bikes on the road!!" ...well, guffaws all round at this stupidly ludicrous assertion from someone who should know better, and he stood there in the middle of the road while the 7am watch alarms beeped and the riders headed off south (on the road of course).

Seriously, this is stupidity of the highest order and from a member of the police force who would like to earn some support from riders , an act of absolute moronic proportions.

Words will be said and messages will get back to those who need to know...highway patrolman novice plod in his unmarked grey car ( which is weird 'cos its usually a sarg or senior who gets to go unmarked not a cowboy rambo ).... well lately anyway..... will, no doubt have a heap of paper work to keep him away from the steering wheel for a bit...

Hope's Rise is a separate road way, it has a further side path for pedestrians, bollards at the speed humps and is a shared vehicle/bike laneway , thus a tight narrow slow roadway all the way to the stop sign. It is unsuitable for riders climbing in a bunch at speed such as 30+kph (which most of the Black Rock riders will do easily (and some)).
The Nepean Highway at Olivers Hill west of Hope's Rise has no bike lane, (purposefully), and the sign directing riders to Hope's Rise is advisory only, and thus when safety dictates (eg: bigger faster groups, weather, roadworks, traffic blockages, parked vehicles etc on Hope's Rise), thus "Ollies" should and must be used by faster groups.

By way of comment, there is IMHO limited weekend traffic heading south on the Nepean at Oliver's Hill at 7:35-45am on Saturday mornings and the speed limit is 60kph anyway so hardly a danger from volume speeding traffic anyway.

I would not recommend a rider alone use Ollivers Hill road way, use Hope's Rise, but groups like the Black Rock ride need to stay off Hope's Rise for simple safety's sake.

The situation is reinforced by the fact that any descent of Oliver's Hill must be made on the roadway of the Nepean Highway anyway.

 

[rickster]

Jono L wrote:
> This mornings Hell Ride ride we were greated by two police cars at Black
> Rock.
> Despite first impressions the cops drove sensibly keeping us in the
> left lane and making room for cars to pass. It was good, no red lights
> run, everyone was happy.
>
> Unfortunately as we passed through Frankston this all went pear shaped.
> As we rolled through one set of lights (green btw ) what looked like
> a normal grey falcon (that actually turned out to be an unmarked cop
> car) came screaming by the bunch dangerously close to a number of
> riders. Then as we hit the base of Olivers he started slowing, then
> just before the sideroad section (which the hell ride does not take
> simply because it's to narrow for a big bunch) he chucked on the
> anchors and started flashing lights and blaring sirens. So basically
> he thought by stopping right in front of the Hell Ride he'd force us up
> the sideroad (that is actually marked for cyclists to use.)
>
> I don't know how but no one came down, but needless to say he recieved
> a few choice words. He came back past the front ten or so at the top
> of the Olivers, parked his car, rolled down the window and yelled
>
> "WELCOME TO FRANKSTON!"
>
>
>
> Whether or not you agree with the Hell ride (and I know many of you
> don't which is fair enough) this is not the way to go about stopping
> it, what a complete idiot.
>
> BTW, I doubt there's anything that binds us to *have* to use the side
> road on Olivers... I'll use all the time except when in the Hell Ride,
> a bunch of 100+ going up that steep little road with speedhumps and
> wooden poles is just asking for trouble.
>


sounds like a meeting of like minds...(ducks and covers...)

Seriously with all the negative press, most justified it was gunna
happen one day that a knob cop was goind to, well, actually act like a
knob. Kinda like a cyclist thta rides in the hell ride ? I dunno,
perhaps I am too old now and too many responsibilities, but if you join
the hell ride, what do you expect ? Nice kind treatment, a smile and a
wave ?

 

[Jono L]

Jono L wrote:
> This mornings Hell Ride ride we were greated by two police cars at Black
> Rock.
> Despite first impressions the cops drove sensibly keeping us in the
> left lane and making room for cars to pass. It was good, no red lights
> run, everyone was happy.
>
> Unfortunately as we passed through Frankston this all went pear shaped.
> As we rolled through one set of lights (green btw ) what looked like
> a normal grey falcon (that actually turned out to be an unmarked cop
> car) came screaming by the bunch dangerously close to a number of
> riders. Then as we hit the base of Olivers he started slowing, then
> just before the sideroad section (which the hell ride does not take
> simply because it's to narrow for a big bunch) he chucked on the
> anchors and started flashing lights and blaring sirens. So basically
> he thought by stopping right in front of the Hell Ride he'd force us up
> the sideroad (that is actually marked for cyclists to use.)
>
> I don't know how but no one came down, but needless to say he recieved
> a few choice words. He came back past the front ten or so at the top
> of the Olivers, parked his car, rolled down the window and yelled
>
> "WELCOME TO FRANKSTON!"
>
>
>
> Whether or not you agree with the Hell ride (and I know many of you
> don't which is fair enough) this is not the way to go about stopping
> it, what a complete idiot.
>
> BTW, I doubt there's anything that binds us to *have* to use the side
> road on Olivers... I'll use all the time except when in the Hell Ride,
> a bunch of 100+ going up that steep little road with speedhumps and
> wooden poles is just asking for trouble.
>


sounds like a meeting of like minds...(ducks and covers...)

Seriously with all the negative press, most justified it was gunna
happen one day that a knob cop was goind to, well, actually act like a
knob. Kinda like a cyclist thta rides in the hell ride ? I dunno,
perhaps I am too old now and too many responsibilities, but if you join
the hell ride, what do you expect ? Nice kind treatment, a smile and a
wave ?

That's fine but how can the Police then jump on their high horse and get all high and mighty towards the Hell Ride if one of their officers goes and does something as dangerous and stupid as what happened this morning?

And yes a smile and a wave would be great

 

[Euan]

rickster wrote:

> Seriously with all the negative press,

That's a bit ambiguous, negative press about the Hell Ride or the police?

> most justified it was gunna
> happen one day that a knob cop was goind to, well, actually act like a
> knob. Kinda like a cyclist thta rides in the hell ride ? I dunno,
> perhaps I am too old now and too many responsibilities, but if you join
> the hell ride, what do you expect ? Nice kind treatment, a smile and a
> wave ?

I certainly don't expect the police to break the law when it's their job
to uphold it.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Bleve]

Euan wrote:

> rickster wrote:
>
> > Seriously with all the negative press,
>
> That's a bit ambiguous, negative press about the Hell Ride or the police?
>
> > most justified it was gunna
> > happen one day that a knob cop was goind to, well, actually act like a
> > knob. Kinda like a cyclist thta rides in the hell ride ? I dunno,
> > perhaps I am too old now and too many responsibilities, but if you join
> > the hell ride, what do you expect ? Nice kind treatment, a smile and a
> > wave ?
>
> I certainly don't expect the police to break the law when it's their job
> to uphold it.

Euan, how old are you again?

 

[flyingdutch]

You have no obligation to 'have' to use Hope's Rise. The only reason I do (and i suspect others, especially if in small group or alone...) is cos visibility for a southbound car/rider ain't great due to the curb and wall combo.The location has seen over a dozen incidents over the last 10 years, 'luckily' only one serious.

 

[microsnot]

>I would hope that wilth dozens off witnesses you'll make a complaint
>against him for dangerous driving. What an idiot! Blue uniforms can
>take a normal idiot and turn him into a SUPER idiot.
>
>As for forcing you to use a particular route.
>
>No way, unless there is some lawful reason (road closure, accident
>etc.), you can use which ever road you please (unless bikes are not
>permitted by a sign post).

Not defending the actions but offering an alternative view.

It is an abuse of power by this particular Police Officer but doesn't
Vic Roads state that:

"You must always follow instructions from a member of the Police Force
or authorised person rather than any other traffic control signal or
rule"

I'm sure this Police Officer would just justify his actions by saying
he did it for the safety of the riders and the other vehicles.

>Imagine if cops suddenly cut off cars and arbitrarily told motorists to
>go that way for no reason other than 'because I say so"?
>
>What a ******.

 

[scotty72]

That would be a lawful instruction...

>I would hope that wilth dozens off witnesses you'll make a complaint
>against him for dangerous driving. What an idiot! Blue uniforms can
>take a normal idiot and turn him into a SUPER idiot.
>
>As for forcing you to use a particular route.
>
>No way, unless there is some lawful reason (road closure, accident
>etc.), you can use which ever road you please (unless bikes are not
>permitted by a sign post).

Not defending the actions but offering an alternative view.

It is an abuse of power by this particular Police Officer but doesn't
Vic Roads state that:

"You must always follow instructions from a member of the Police Force
or authorised person rather than any other traffic control signal or
rule"

I'm sure this Police Officer would just justify his actions by saying
he did it for the safety of the riders and the other vehicles.

>Imagine if cops suddenly cut off cars and arbitrarily told motorists to
>go that way for no reason other than 'because I say so"?
>
>What a ******.

 

[rooman]

That would be a lawful instruction...

The rule is:

304. ​

​

Direction by a police officer or authorised person​

​

(1) A person must obey any reasonable direction for the safe and efficient


​

regulation of traffic given to the person by a police officer or authorised​

person, whether or not the person may contravene another provision of the​

Road Rules by obeying the direction.​

Penalty: 3 penalty units.​

Note ​

​

Authorised person and police officer are defined in the dictionary.


​

(2) It is a defence to the prosecution of a person for an offence against a provision of the Road Rules if, at the time of the offence, the person was obeying a direction given to the person under subrule (1).


​

So the key words are "reasonable direction for the safe and efficient​

regulation of traffic"...dubious that constable clot would get away with it in this instance in view of (among other things like gross stupidity and moronic behaviour):​

1) of his dangerous driving just before,​

2) no prior warning along the ride by constable clot​

3) other police cars present not involved in his direction or gave any prior indication of a direction to be given.​

4) no apparent obstruction or traffic hazard ahead on the road necessitating direction to be given.​

5) low traffic volume at that time of day and weather conditions not onerous.​

6) relative high speed of cycling group difficult to bring to sudden safe stop or diversion without clear safe and efficient warning.​

7) gross danger to a large number of people to make an emergency stop without prior warning on a hill and a curve in a dangerous and irresponsible manner​

8) unreasonable direction given in an unsafe and inefficient manner.​

In all the circumstances as elaborated by the riders at the scene, if this group had come down or a rider swerved into the right lane and was hit by a vehicle or swerved across the road and hit oncoming vehicles the police officer could IMV be facing serious disciplinary charges and possibly defending manslaughter on his own (police may disown his actions).​

idiocy is an all too common human expression .... this incident is a sad example​

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 6) relative high speed of cycling group difficult to bring to
> sudden safe stop or diversion without clear safe and efficient
> warning.

FWIW, that sounds more like an argument that the cyclists were riding in
an unsafe manner. How do they stop if there's an accident in front that
doesn't give "clear safe and efficient warning"?

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 6) relative high speed of cycling group difficult to bring to
> sudden safe stop or diversion without clear safe and efficient
> warning.

FWIW, that sounds more like an argument that the cyclists were riding in
an unsafe manner. How do they stop if there's an accident in front that
doesn't give "clear safe and efficient warning"?

--
Shane Stanley

 

[rooman]

In article <[email protected]>,
rooman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 6) relative high speed of cycling group difficult to bring to
> sudden safe stop or diversion without clear safe and efficient
> warning.

FWIW, that sounds more like an argument that the cyclists were riding in
an unsafe manner. How do they stop if there's an accident in front that
doesn't give "clear safe and efficient warning"?

--
Shane Stanley

the word is RELATIVE , no suggestion of riding unsafe, as you put it whatsoever!!

Was this group acting unsafe?

Do you think they were? If you do say so and why!

Would riding up Olivers quickly be unsafe?.

I would suggest NO, riding up slowly yes! that would be unsafe. You would go ride Hopes Rise if you have to do that hill at a slow pace. As FD suggests. For obvious reasons.

That's the point, this group (like others eg: North Road Group on its rides to Mordialloc some days) moves along at a pace between 35-45kph on the flats probably closer to 50-55 in the long stretches away from lights, still well below the speed limit, maybe way too fast for most weekend riders to keep up anyway,... so the word is relative...relative to other weekend riders at the lower end of the speed range , relative to cars which generally sit at the top end of the speed limit, and relative to using Hopes Rise at 10-15kph as opposed to using Olivers Hill at 30-35kph or higher.

This group would have been doing about 35-38kph at the point the police guy suggested they divert, a rate of movement well below the 60kph limit, but as a group, a relatively safe higher speed ... higher than most rece riders might enter Hopes Rise. You may not, but many I see and ride with, enter Hope's Rise at around 25kph or less and slow to between 10 & 15kph.

This group, on this day did not have an accident...of course they did what all bunches do, and what they did here, when idiot constable clot stepped out without, clear safe and efficient warning ,it seems from the reports, they signalled to one another, they called slowing, stopping, whatever was appropriate and avoided constable clot, rode around him, missed him and one another - regrouped and moved on...safely it seems despite the police guys efforts to cause havoc.

I would think on reflection most of the riders in that bunch would have considered they displayed skill and bike handling and communication at a level which justifed them continuing to ride the Black Rock ride while they have a breath in their bodies and unless they receive "reasonable direction for the safe and efficient regulation of traffic" from an authorised person or police officer they will continue to ride Olivers Hill's Nepean Highway Roadway and not Hopes Rise.
*******************************
OK here is another one...

how many of you as single riders, or in a group,or in bunches use Nepean Highway instead of Station Street from Mordialloc to Patterson River ?(riding south).

if so why?

Station Street has a bike lane right, do you think it safer than the Nepean?

Observations:

Station Street has
lots of parked cars along the bike lane,
broken bottles,
nails,
rough edges,
lots of lights,
cars turning left at most streets,
one shopping strip centre with cars reversing into the bike lane
lights with short cycles and
lights seemingly out of synch compared with nepean and
other restrictions on the free flow of the bike lane...
(these are comments and feedback I have about Station Street)

Generally Nepean :
flows well,
cars drivers dont seem to get annoyed,
the bunches move along faster and
the flow is smoother than Station Street.

What is your experience here
Maybe this could go into a sep. topic, but lets see what the thinking is out there. (if someone want to post a new topic eg: "Station Street Vs Nepean Highway" cool ...


my preference: if I'm on my own, just creeping along or with one other rider, I would choose Station Street, If I'm in a small group or larger bunch (and we all agree beforehand) then I'd choose to ride Nepean.
Whatchathink?...go for it!

My thinking is more so the size of the group, than experience within the group.
So larger group, ride Nepean, smaller group, ride Station, experience would be a factor, to consider but probably less dangerous on Nepean for a more even ride at a steadier rate than Station street, stopping and squishing.