Riding up Oliver's Hill to be barred



In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:30:18 +1100
matagi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Although agree none of the arguments put forward thus far offer an
> overwhelming reason to send cyclists exclusively up Hope's Rise.
> Surely the police would be better off enforcing existing speed limits
> and concentrating on encouraging safe driving.


Probably.

But then from their point of view, what gives best bang for buck?

Trying to get people to drive safely hasn't worked yet....

Zebee
 
On 2007-03-19, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:30:18 +1100
> matagi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Although agree none of the arguments put forward thus far offer an
>> overwhelming reason to send cyclists exclusively up Hope's Rise.
>> Surely the police would be better off enforcing existing speed limits
>> and concentrating on encouraging safe driving.

>
> Probably.
>
> But then from their point of view, what gives best bang for buck?
>
> Trying to get people to drive safely hasn't worked yet....


I'm not going to stop riding on roads I feel I am legally entitled to.
The local council has a no bikes sign on the only road north out of
town, and I hardly obey that.

So good luck to 'em, I say! Might find it easier to force drivers to
obey already existing laws, eh?

--
TimC
Is it because do me reconcile my life that I say perhaps your plans
could have caused this that you are going through all this that you
came to me? --emacs doctor to TimC
 
PartA

been doing some digging.... here be-eth a snippet in scandalous terms:-

let no one kid them selves that this "initiative" allegedly by Frankston Plod Stn is about safety...it isnt.

it is aimed purely at the Black Rock Ride, no one else .

The BRR is generally escorted by Police (not from Frankston) and is followed by a marked car especially up the Hill, and the probability of the BRR being rear ended by a speeding motorist whilst ascending the hill is nil, nadda, zip... they know that ...we know that....

here entereth the person with most to gain if the BRR is stopped for good...and people who know stuff have tossed this off the truck and its seems to have landed near someone's java.....

Scenario: believe it if you will, credible YES, publicly verifiable on evidence that will stand up to scrutiny...probably not...

There is notion ( source says it's fact) that someone in the decision making area of VP (and most assurredly this is not an Asst Comm), has their nose out of joint, and their nuts on the line over other issues and (thus that person is now) resorting to clutching at straws.... and adopted a bullying approach in the hope that knowing their anger management is not controlled all that well, is trying to use a possibly ( dubious) legal device to get the BRR to end and be the hero in the eyes of a political ally.

This said "out of control" public servant is hoping to say "I succeeded in ridding the SEast of the scourge of the so called "hell ride" when all others have failed."


makes sense...will said devious person succeed, probably not...hopefully said deviate will get nuts frimly squashed in nut cracker at christmas nut crushing time and all will be well in the land of snowless beachside rides.


The BRR will get around this bump, it will not go away and it will be around long after said "irrriot" has left the force.

Ride on brothers and sisters, ride safe, ride hard, ride legal...but ride!

*******************************************
PartB

I have offered a suggestion to some folks who matter, and it is this...

if there is a perceived danger on Olivers ( or anywhwere in Victoria for that matter) about fast traffic stiking a slow vehicle, then manage traffic speed potential, not by removing slow vehicles, but by slowing and curtailing dangerous speeding driving.... and at said location how is that achieved...

suggestion1 :
place a fixed speed radar camera at the (section near the service station at the northern side) approach (to Olivers Hill)-thus for traffic heading south out of Frankston and UP towards Ollivers Hill.
Make it the type they use on the highways in NSW, a HUGE box thing that is so enormous if you miss it you are so blind drunk it wouldnt matter.... every driver would approach the hill at below 60kph and with such trepidation that accidents ( which rarely if ever happen on the southwards journey up the hill at this time anyway) would dissappear off the stats book for the duration of time.

Example of similar situation and management thereof: If you know Sexton's Hill at South Tweed Heads in Far North NSW, this is what they have there, speed camera for traffic approaching and heading UP hill, yes uphill....a formerly notoriously accident prone serious of bends on a hill ( cars running into head on traffic, cars flipping from speeding around turns going up hill, trucks running into cars...you know the usual bogan activity that cars and motorised vehicles get up to!)

that rise has been reduced to a nicely managed well behaved road section ( which bikes ride up every day and it is every bit as nasty to a rider as Olivers could ever be, worse in fact, a bit higher and a wee bit longer and curving (a double S curve).

so we will see what happens down on the peninsula in the fullness of time... but don't hold your breath
****************************************
PartC

There are always solutions to problems, they are not arrived at by exclusion , but by rational, sensible, apolitical assessment, measure, reasoning, and judgment, and a little bit of psychology, cunning and knowing that hip pocket nerve is a very good deterrant to redknecks, revheads, hoons and doodlepits.

If a serious outcome results one day, it was going to happen anyway and no amount of manegement or preventative action would prevent it...

goodnight....

catcha in BrisVegas if you are up ther eover the next weekish... hopefully get in a few BRs and some nice hills around Tambourine and Tomewin

cheers all
 
TimC wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote


>> Trying to get people to drive safely hasn't worked yet....


> I'm not going to stop riding on roads I feel I am legally entitled to.
> The local council has a no bikes sign on the only road north out of
> town, and I hardly obey that.
>
> So good luck to 'em, I say! Might find it easier to force drivers to
> obey already existing laws, eh?


ROTFL. You want the local council to force drivers to obey already existing
laws whilst you ignore the 'no bikes' sign.

Hehehe.

Theo
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I notice the number of people riding without lid on head (some with it
> on the bars, some without it visible at all) is increasing, wonder
> what that does to stats... If cyclist head injury stats are being
> kept in Oz, is helmet use noted? It is in motorcycling crashes.


Another question would be "did the helmet fit and was the helmet being worn
and fastened correctly".
From my observation, except for the serious commuters I see, the fitment and
attachment of helmet to heads is so poor that they may as well be on the
handlebar.

Theo
 
In aus.bicycle on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:00:45 +0900
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Another question would be "did the helmet fit and was the helmet being worn
> and fastened correctly".
> From my observation, except for the serious commuters I see, the fitment and
> attachment of helmet to heads is so poor that they may as well be on the
> handlebar.


While wandering around a bikeshop the other day I tried on a new lid
with a different fitment and was impressed how much more comfortable
it was.

I suspect my old one will be about as much help as a bucket, so I
suppose I might as well get a new one that is easier to fit securely.

But then I'm beginning to think mine will live on the handlebar too!

Zebee
 
On Mar 19, 9:17 pm, rooman <rooman.2no...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

> catcha in BrisVegas if you are up ther eover the next weekish...
> hopefully get in a few BRs and some nice hills around Tambourine and
> Tomewin


You are coming to Brissie? Staying where?

Donga
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> While wandering around a bikeshop the other day I tried on a new lid
> with a different fitment and was impressed how much more comfortable
> it was.
>
> I suspect my old one will be about as much help as a bucket, so I
> suppose I might as well get a new one that is easier to fit securely.
>
> But then I'm beginning to think mine will live on the handlebar too!


I still like the comfort and fit of my (pre AS and therefore not legal)
hard-shell Bell V1-Pro.

Theo
 
>> Don't know of any accidents, injuries or lives lost to cyclists. I
>> suspect
>> that most cyclists use Hopes Rise anyway ...

>
> So when talking about people running out of fuel and nasty accidents
> being the consequence you weren't talking about cyclists?


Correct. I don't know of any cyclist accidents up the hill. Never meant to
imply that.

> I don't beleive that riding on Oliver's hill is particularly dangerous.
> Granted it's a blind corner but traffic does not travel quickly enough
> around that corner to make a collision likely. All that happens is
> that the motorist has to apply the brakes.


If they can apply the brakes in time all's well and good then isn't it?
If they can't, then I'd rather not be the one to pick myself up off the road
and ask them what the problem was.

> OppyLock Wrote:
>> As far as making it illegal
>> .... well it's sorta like helmet laws isn't it. We humans need
>> protecting
>> from ourselves on occasion. Not too sure about whether this is one of
>> those
>> occasions or not. I'm not a big fan of unnecessary legaleeze.

>
> That's not a very good arguement. Without wishing to spark off another
> helmet thread there is no population level data to support the
> compulsion of helmets, quite the reverse in fact.


Too late ... Helmet thread sparked. I don't want to go there either ...
'tis old ground.
To clarify my position: I'm not a fan of helmet laws either, nor of most
other laws designed to protect individuals from themselves. Bring on
natural selection I say. I love the annual darwin awards. I'd like to be
warned of an impending act of stupidity, but I appreciate being free to
choose to continue on regardless.

I see this (helmet laws) as a common sense thing, where the law has been
applied for the benefit of those without any (common sense).
i.e. If I'm tootling around with the kids on a bike path doing little more
than walking pace ... why wear a helmet. The kids, that fall off often
enough, since they're fresh off training wheels, should wear a helmet until
they too can assess the risks for themselves and ideally don't fall off
quite so much. But should there be a law enforcing any of that? I think
not.

I believe that a similar thing should apply with Olivers Hill. Sufficient
warning and incentive given to riders to help them choose the safer choice,
that they may not be aware of. If you wish to ride up the dangerous side
then so be it too. Perhaps a sign warning motorists of the potential for
cyclists would encourage a little extra care on their behalf?

As stated elsewhere in the thread, official events up the hill are usually
signed and/or given police escort. They're covered. Should the average joe
wishing to tackle the hill be given the choice as to which path to take, or
should it be governed by law?
 
Theo Bekkers said:
From my observation, except for the serious commuters I see, the fitment and attachment of helmet to heads is so poor that they may as well be on the handlebar.

Theo
From my obervations, many of them are indeed on the handlebar! I always assumed they were being used to protect the knuckles.
 
OppyLock said:
> I don't beleive that riding on Oliver's hill is particularly dangerous.
> Granted it's a blind corner but traffic does not travel quickly enough
> around that corner to make a collision likely. All that happens is
> that the motorist has to apply the brakes.


If they can apply the brakes in time all's well and good then isn't it?
If they can't, then I'd rather not be the one to pick myself up off the road
and ask them what the problem was.

To the best of my knowledge that's not happened yet. What's changed? Nothing. If safety's the goal, lower the speed limit.


OppyLock said:
I believe that a similar thing should apply with Olivers Hill. Sufficient
warning and incentive given to riders to help them choose the safer choice,
that they may not be aware of. If you wish to ride up the dangerous side
then so be it too. Perhaps a sign warning motorists of the potential for
cyclists would encourage a little extra care on their behalf?

I disagree. If there really is a safety problem, I don't believe there is, then lowering the speed limit is a much more equitable solution. That improves the safety for cyclists AND motorists. From what you're telling me motorists keep pranging one another on that hill so why should they not benefit from _safety_ improvements?
 
On Mar 20, 1:17 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 19 Mar 2007 18:06:24 -0700
>
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I hardly notice my helmets at all, like seatbelts ... it's just a
> > habit. The only time I don't like them is when it rains and the salty
> > crud from the pads runs into my eyes.

>
> I'd have said the same, until I forgot the thing the other day.
>
> I really noticed how much nicer it was without.
>
> Without a seatbelt I feel vulnerable, without a bicycle helmet I feel
> better and definitely not vulnerable.
>
> I may well buy a newie, this one's dated 2000 so probably is getting a
> bit arthritic.
>
> Just have to find one that has good vents but does't have a wedge out
> the back, as the vestigal wedge on my Giro hangs up a bit on the
> headrest sometimes.


have a look at the louis garneau's, they're quite cheap and have round
backs.


>
> Zebee
 
Donga said:
On Mar 19, 9:17 pm, rooman <rooman.2no...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

> catcha in BrisVegas if you are up ther eover the next weekish...
> hopefully get in a few BRs and some nice hills around Tambourine and
> Tomewin


You are coming to Brissie? Staying where?

Donga
on the GC thurs fri- could be in city at Stamford Plza on 27 (& 30..)

but trying to base on Southern GC till 2 Apr at mo and will take roadie.
 
>> If they can apply the brakes in time all's well and good then isn't it?
>> If they can't, then I'd rather not be the one to pick myself up off the
>> road
>> and ask them what the problem was.

>
> To the best of my knowledge that's not happened yet. What's changed?
> Nothing. If safety's the goal, lower the speed limit.


Fair point. Nothing has magically changed overnight.
I don't think lowering the speed limit will help much either.
80km/h is a common speed travelled up there, despite the limit being 60.
Many ways of combating that too ... it's just another part of the problem.
You can enforce 60 or 40 ... but not forever and not effectively.
A permanent speed camera at the bottom, would only slow those intent on
speeding as they go past the camera. Worse, it'd potentially take their
eyes away from the road ahead and the potential, Giant riding, hood ornament
she's about to meet.

I see elsewhere that a part of cyclists concerns is the speed humps on Hopes
Rise.
At the speed I go up there under my own power, speed humps aren't an issue.
If the speed humps were replaced with a flatter speed restriction device,
would that change opinions?
What if the planter boxes on the left of the speed humps were removed and a
bike lane put in their place?
The cars are still slowed ascending the residential, Hopes Rise. Cyclists
have a dedicated path to take. Win/Win?

> OppyLock Wrote:
>> I believe that a similar thing should apply with Olivers Hill.
>> Sufficient
>> warning and incentive given to riders to help them choose the safer
>> choice,
>> that they may not be aware of. If you wish to ride up the dangerous
>> side
>> then so be it too. Perhaps a sign warning motorists of the potential
>> for
>> cyclists would encourage a little extra care on their behalf?

>
> I disagree. If there really is a safety problem, I don't believe there
> is, then lowering the speed limit is a much more equitable solution.
> That improves the safety for cyclists AND motorists. From what you're
> telling me motorists keep pranging one another on that hill so why
> should they not benefit from _safety_ improvements?


Given that there are few accidents now, I can't see further restrictions
being applied. There'd need to be proof that speed was a large contributing
factor. Not just speed difference with respect to cycles.
The needs of the many (drivers in their thousands each day) outweighing the
needs of the few (cyclists in their hundreds (optimistically)).
Especially when the cyclists have a viable alternative in Hopes Rise.

Even if there is no real safety problem there is a perceived safety problem
(or a hidden agenda). Whether either of us like it, or even care, well
meaning folk in cardigans and the evil puppets from the Frankston council
are plotting methods to protect us from ourselves for all manner of
illogical reasons to the rest of us complacent folk. If you don't want
Olivers Hill closed to cycle traffic then you'd best find the appropraite
place to vote 'Nay' cos there's already a group lobbying for 'Yay' - whoever
they are.
I'm on the side of 'Nay', purely as I don't see the need for a vote at all.
The status quo is just fine by me. I'm not compelled to stand up and vote
'Nay' either as I don't much care either way. I do like to see folk playing
nicely together though, so what'd it take for that to happen?

For the sake of argument, lets remove safety as a factor altogether.
Hopes Rise and Olivers Hill are equal. They both start at A and end at B
and are more or less get there the same way.
Why not take Hopes Rise? You have free will to choose either.
Whether racing or sightseeing I'd still recommend Hopes Rise as the better
alternative heading southbound.

Hopes Rise Plusses:
* Better view and the ability to stop and enjoy it.
* Less traffic, a welcome respite from the rest of Nepean Hwy. Although
Frankston to Mt. Eliza is pretty good.
* Turns into a dedicated bike lane at the top of the hill without
needing to do a head check.
* Steeper and thus more of a challenge. (Had to have a plus for the
racers)

But by all means take Olivers Hill ...
* Narrower provision for cyclists. There is no shoulder.
* No escape route should you wish to take it. You must climb to the top
before a breather.
* You miss a great view, although you can catch it on the way back.
* A hundred times the motor vehicle traffic rate. Although since it's
safe, there won't be a safety issue. You'll still need to soak up all that
Diesel smoke and enjoy it too!

I must be missing something ... but I can't see the attraction of taking the
path frequented by 50 unpredictable rhino's, just because you can.
Granted it's your right though. I'm not arguing with you about cyclists
rights. I'm not arguing with you about the need for a law either.
 
On Mar 20, 12:17 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just have to find one that has good vents but does't have a wedge out
> the back, as the vestigal wedge on my Giro hangs up a bit on the
> headrest sometimes.


Just do as the gumby I saw this morning - put it on backwards!

Donga
 
On Mar 20, 12:49 pm, rooman <rooman.2nq...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Donga Wrote:> On Mar 19, 9:17 pm, rooman <rooman.2no...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

>
> > > catcha in BrisVegas if you are up ther eover the next weekish...
> > > hopefully get in a few BRs and some nice hills around Tambourine and
> > > Tomewin

>
> > You are coming to Brissie? Staying where?

>
> > Donga

>
> on the GC thurs fri- could be in city at Stamford Plza on 27 (& 30..)
>
> but trying to base on Southern GC till 2 Apr at mo and will take
> roadie.
>
> --
> rooman


OK. Let us know if you are riding in Brisbane and can join you.

Donga
 
Donga said:
On Mar 20, 12:49 pm, rooman <rooman.2nq...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Donga Wrote:> On Mar 19, 9:17 pm, rooman <rooman.2no...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

>
> > > catcha in BrisVegas if you are up ther eover the next weekish...
> > > hopefully get in a few BRs and some nice hills around Tambourine and
> > > Tomewin

>
> > You are coming to Brissie? Staying where?

>
> > Donga

>
> on the GC thurs fri- could be in city at Stamford Plza on 27 (& 30..)
>
> but trying to base on Southern GC till 2 Apr at mo and will take
> roadie.
>
> --
> rooman


OK. Let us know if you are riding in Brisbane and can join you.

Donga
cool..
 
OppyLock said:
I must be missing something ... but I can't see the attraction of taking the path frequented by 50 unpredictable rhino's, just because you can. Granted it's your right though. I'm not arguing with you about cyclist rights. I'm not arguing with you about the need for a law either.

If you are in a large, fast, group neither hopes rise or the bike path at the top is wide enough. This means the bunch must merge back into the left hand car lane, which as mentioned before is statistically unsafe. Also if you are riding in such a bunch you are very unlikely to be planning on stopping to either admire the view or take a breather.

For 90% of cyclists that use that route, hopes rise is the better option. For those that ride it in large fast groups however, it is neither safer nor more enjoyable.
 
OppyLock said:
I must be missing something ... but I can't see the attraction of taking the
path frequented by 50 unpredictable rhino's, just because you can.

You're kidding, right? If ind cars far more predictable than cyclists and pedestrians. And it's not `just because we can', it's because there's a good reason for doing so.
 
On 2007-03-20, OppyLock (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> The needs of the many (drivers in their thousands each day) outweighing the
> needs of the few (cyclists in their hundreds (optimistically)).
> Especially when the cyclists have a viable alternative in Hopes Rise.


Um. /Actually/. We are talking nominally about Saturday morning
here. Try moving one of the zeros between the two sets there.

> For the sake of argument, lets remove safety as a factor altogether.
> Hopes Rise and Olivers Hill are equal. They both start at A and end at B
> and are more or less get there the same way.


Where some are more equal than others.

> Why not take Hopes Rise?


Some people have enough trouble getting up Oliver's hill without being
given the steeper climb over a shorter distance that Hopes rise
represents.

> You have free will to choose either.


Absolutely. Currently.

> * Turns into a dedicated bike lane at the top of the hill without
> needing to do a head check.


I don't recall that part (not having been there for 9 months). I
recall doing a head check because you can never ensure there is no car
just meandering about out of their lane (geez, I went up and down
Dorrigo Mountain a few times last week -- don't those turns bring out
the incompetance in drivers? Counted 3 seperate cars driven by old
people in hats who completely overshot left hand bends while doing
10km/h, ending up on the wrong side of the road with approaching
traffic), and 2, and more importantly, that there are no bike users in
that lane.

Now when you consider that intersections are the riskiest place for a
cyclist, this suddenly becomes a CON.

--
TimC
The prolonged application of polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly
exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression,
rendering the ultimate tendancy apocryphal. --unknown
 

Similar threads