Glen Forrest Incident

triangle
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:32 pm
Location: Perth

Glen Forrest Incident

Postby triangle » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:23 pm

I'm sure plenty of people are aware of this incident https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/307 ... australia/ but I'm posting more out of interest in any updates people may have as I ride this exact section of road four times a week. I'm not too keen on getting reversed over and it would be good to know (for peace of mind) that the driver is dealt with .. I've had a few incidents up that way, where I live, over the years but this is about as bad as anything I have witnessed so far.

User avatar
herzog
Posts: 2174
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby herzog » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:28 pm

Does WA have the offence of "Menacing driving"? In NSW it carries lengthy jail terms.

If this particular incident doesn't fit the definition, what does?

triangle
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:32 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby triangle » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:32 pm

No, we don't have predatory driving laws here, which is really unfortunate. This would qualify as reckless driving which carries a fine up to $6k, mandatory 6 month license suspension and imprisonment up to 9 months.

wellington_street
Posts: 1791
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby wellington_street » Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:45 pm

I would wager this "fellow" is a local and any group ride that comes across him again may find out where he lives very easily.

User avatar
roller
Posts: 1881
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: embleton

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby roller » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:01 pm

I would imagine that without any blood spilt the police will not be that interested in following it up.

I hope to be proven wrong.
inflammatory statement or idea

User avatar
herzog
Posts: 2174
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby herzog » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:17 pm

I think given the media coverage they will have no choice. Sadly it seems the coppers only take action when shamed into it.

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby wombatK » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:22 pm

What an ugly piece of work that driver is.

I'd like to have someone ask the police to justify not investigating and
taking strong action against him.

Would also like a lawyer to given an opinion as to whether an assault
has taken place, just to keep the police honest. AFAIK, you don't
have to actually strike someone to have committed assault ... you
just have to threaten it.

IMHO the driver has a very clear intent to threaten the riders with grievous bodily
harm.

This is of concern to riders all around Australia ... shame it's in a state-specific
area of the forum.
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

Scott_C
Posts: 934
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:49 am
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby Scott_C » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:41 pm

wombatK wrote:This is of concern to riders all around Australia ... shame it's in a state-specific
area of the forum.
It has already been cross-posted in the Moron Motorists thread in the General Discussion forum.

User avatar
wombatK
Posts: 5612
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:08 pm
Location: Yagoona, AU

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby wombatK » Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:08 pm

Scott_C wrote: It has already been cross-posted in the Moron Motorists thread in the General Discussion forum.
Kinda gets lost there too, one minimalist url link (no comments !) amongst 515 pages of rants against motorists.
Many of which pale into insignificance beside this nasty piece of work.

The driver in the Glen Forrest incident warrants his own category, maybe somewhere a few light-years to the right of Attila the Hun, and his own topic at the least. Moron is much too nice a word for him and probably disrespects your run of the mill moron motorist :)
WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

cj7hawk
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby cj7hawk » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:07 am

Use of force like that is covered under the criminal code as assault - the fact that it is in a car does not diminish the charge.

Regards
David

hooman
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:03 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby hooman » Wed Feb 03, 2016 11:47 pm

What's the latest on this? Is this moron going to go up in front of a judge or not?

jlh
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:17 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby jlh » Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:50 pm

hooman wrote:What's the latest on this? Is this moron going to go up in front of a judge or not?
Knowing Perth he probably got a free new car complete with nudge bars

Lozzie
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:08 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby Lozzie » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:07 am

Police don't care about traffic accidents. They just don't. They won't even follow this up

softy
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby softy » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:26 pm

On insta, someone said the police have been informed and they are following it up.

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6734
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:54 pm

I am SO sick of people here that post inane crud like "the cops will not follow this up". Just because they do not follow up every video or allegation made by a cyclist does not indicate that NOTHING gets their attention. NEWSFLASH: cyclists are not averse to claiming something not in evidence or claiming clarity that is non-existant except to the converted.

I don't deny that things that should be followed up are not always done so. But cops following up a case like this with the material they have is going to be the RULE, not the exception regardless of whether it appears in the public domain. To pretend otherwise calls into dispute your judgement in other matters that you post. Get real.

End of rant. I await the abuse and excuses and past history of unrelated events where cops did not follow up. :?
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle

User avatar
tallywhacker
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby tallywhacker » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:16 pm

after my last run in with a car (I went through the rear window and spent the evening in emergency being stitched up) I spoke several times to the investigating officer who told me that they look at every case brought to them. The criteria they use is if there is an injury to the cyclist (ie broken bones, stitches, visit to emergency) they will investigate. Close passes they will look at but generally not do anything unless it is a clear case of road rage/deliberate intimidation (like the Glen Forrest incident). What increases the chance of them getting an outcome is witnesses or camera evidence. In my case there were no witnesses, no camera footage and the guy left the country.

softy
Posts: 1665
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby softy » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:06 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:I am SO sick of people here that post inane crud like "the cops will not follow this up". Just because they do not follow up every video or allegation made by a cyclist does not indicate that NOTHING gets their attention. NEWSFLASH: cyclists are not averse to claiming something not in evidence or claiming clarity that is non-existant except to the converted.

I don't deny that things that should be followed up are not always done so. But cops following up a case like this with the material they have is going to be the RULE, not the exception regardless of whether it appears in the public domain. To pretend otherwise calls into dispute your judgement in other matters that you post. Get real.

End of rant. I await the abuse and excuses and past history of unrelated events where cops did not follow up. :?
i have to disagree colin, as far as i am aware, police will only mandatory attend an accident if someone is hurt. Otherwise they may or may not, mostly not as they are busy.

in this example no one was hurt, nor was there a collision, so i would say not a lot will happen, maybe a warning. We will see........

Lozzie
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:08 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby Lozzie » Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:05 pm

I'm talking as someone who deals with them every day for accidents. Hey are currently eight months behind on hit and run investigations. Police attended takes four months to upload reports. They will not investigate ANY incident that does not meet their criteria. No one was injured here they don't care.

cj7hawk
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby cj7hawk » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:45 pm

tallywhacker wrote:after my last run in with a car (I went through the rear window and spent the evening in emergency being stitched up) I spoke several times to the investigating officer who told me that they look at every case brought to them. The criteria they use is if there is an injury to the cyclist (ie broken bones, stitches, visit to emergency) they will investigate. Close passes they will look at but generally not do anything unless it is a clear case of road rage/deliberate intimidation (like the Glen Forrest incident). What increases the chance of them getting an outcome is witnesses or camera evidence. In my case there were no witnesses, no camera footage and the guy left the country.
The story made front page of the local newspaper in the area - Seems police have been forced into action on this and have collected video of the incident - At this point in the process, with so much international attention and such a clear and unambiguous attempt to run someone down, they probably found it a little difficult to ignore.

Regards
David.

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6734
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:43 pm

cj7hawk wrote:
tallywhacker wrote:after my last run in with a car (I went through the rear window and spent the evening in emergency being stitched up) I spoke several times to the investigating officer who told me that they look at every case brought to them. The criteria they use is if there is an injury to the cyclist (ie broken bones, stitches, visit to emergency) they will investigate. Close passes they will look at but generally not do anything unless it is a clear case of road rage/deliberate intimidation (like the Glen Forrest incident). What increases the chance of them getting an outcome is witnesses or camera evidence. In my case there were no witnesses, no camera footage and the guy left the country.
The story made front page of the local newspaper in the area - Seems police have been forced into action on this and have collected video of the incident - At this point in the process, with so much international attention and such a clear and unambiguous attempt to run someone down, they probably found it a little difficult to ignore.

Regards
David.
And there's the rub. How do you know, David, that they were not going to act on it anyway. You don't.

In view of the several claims as fact that police will not take the time to address any incidents without certain very specific and limiting circumstance such as collision I am obliged here to present an example . I reported a punishment pass to the local plods a year ago and they did exactly what people are saying they do not do. I didn't even have video or a witness. So no, they did not pursue a court action with not much more than he said she said. But they DID get out of their office and deal with it. I have made other complaints to police and they have always been followed up (in WA).

Cops do react. No, not to all matters. But the early remarks that this case, with the evidence and clearly threatening behaviour, seems a little like low level paranoia.

Whether it goes to court and the outcomes likely are another matter. But it's not credible that the video here would not generate some action.

To those that continue to plead that the cops never deal with cyclist issues 'cos "the whole world is against us, boo hoo", get over it. Lodge your legit complaints formally and answer YES to the question "Are you prepared to front up in court if required".

And don't think that your complaint is the only thing they have to deal with or that it will be dealt with now. It may instead be dealt with after they see a pattern of regular poor behaviour filed from multiple complainants. Police live in a world ruled by the economics of scarce resources.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=81774&hilit=+punishment
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle

cj7hawk
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby cj7hawk » Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:07 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
cj7hawk wrote:
tallywhacker wrote:after my last run in with a car (I went through the rear window and spent the evening in emergency being stitched up) I spoke several times to the investigating officer who told me that they look at every case brought to them. The criteria they use is if there is an injury to the cyclist (ie broken bones, stitches, visit to emergency) they will investigate. Close passes they will look at but generally not do anything unless it is a clear case of road rage/deliberate intimidation (like the Glen Forrest incident). What increases the chance of them getting an outcome is witnesses or camera evidence. In my case there were no witnesses, no camera footage and the guy left the country.
The story made front page of the local newspaper in the area - Seems police have been forced into action on this and have collected video of the incident - At this point in the process, with so much international attention and such a clear and unambiguous attempt to run someone down, they probably found it a little difficult to ignore.

Regards
David.
And there's the rub. How do you know, David, that they were not going to act on it anyway. You don't.

In view of the several claims as fact that police will not take the time to address any incidents without certain very specific and limiting circumstance such as collision I am obliged here to present an example . I reported a punishment pass to the local plods a year ago and they did exactly what people are saying they do not do. I didn't even have video or a witness. So no, they did not pursue a court action with not much more than he said she said. But they DID get out of their office and deal with it. I have made other complaints to police and they have always been followed up (in WA).

Cops do react. No, not to all matters. But the early remarks that this case, with the evidence and clearly threatening behaviour, seems a little like low level paranoia.

Whether it goes to court and the outcomes likely are another matter. But it's not credible that the video here would not generate some action.

To those that continue to plead that the cops never deal with cyclist issues 'cos "the whole world is against us, boo hoo", get over it. Lodge your legit complaints formally and answer YES to the question "Are you prepared to front up in court if required".

And don't think that your complaint is the only thing they have to deal with or that it will be dealt with now. It may instead be dealt with after they see a pattern of regular poor behaviour filed from multiple complainants. Police live in a world ruled by the economics of scarce resources.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=81774&hilit=+punishment
If police show up within one to two days, it's because they are interested in solving the issue. If they show up later that this, it's because they are going through the motions. That's pretty general, but it's probably a good rule of thumb and indicates their level of interest. Based on the feedback as to when the police showed up, it seems that they aren't too interested.

I support the police in most matters, but I'm going to slam them on this one - and by police, I mean the entire police force as an organisation, particularly the upper echelons.

Generally, police follow the no-harm, no-foul principle - but most police are affected by the same perception issues many motorists have - that is, they see cyclists as pests, and have little to no idea just how vulnerable we are and even if they do, they often see us as taking those risks willingly - this is a societal attitude prevalent in Australia and it's just as prevalent in the police. We like to think the police will do the right thing, and use common sense and avoid seeing us as second class citizens, but police officers are just another part of the community and they carry with them all the community attitudes and biases. It's only when change is driven from the top that this changes.

So, yes, they might still deal with the complaint, but how they deal with it gives a pretty strong indication of their attitudes towards the situation.

And there's a serious problem with WA police that unless a cyclist is injured or killed, they are reticent to be involved. This might be anecdotal, but many of us have experienced it.

Police do a lot of good in the community - but they also do a lot of bad as well, especially if the bad aspects of policing are what the community wants. With the media constantly whipping up hate for cyclists in the community and a lack of political leadership in addressing the issue, it does mean there's an uphill battle to be had, and we're going to take casualties.

On the other hand, you might ask what I expect of police? Well, when a major video like this surfaces, usually the police comment and call for the parties to come forward on the news. They issue releases and try to find out the story behind the issue, and give a clear indication that, on the seriousness of the matter, they intend to investigate - this sends a clear an unambiguous message to the community that such activity will not be tolerated.

But such activity, even given the media exposure of the video itself, was sadly lacking.

So, yes, I feel the police need to be accused of doing a poor job on this one.

Regards
David

Grammar1
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:33 am

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby Grammar1 » Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:11 pm

Anyhoo. . . . . has anything come of the Glen Forrest incident?

Bigfella195
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:49 am

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby Bigfella195 » Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:50 am

Having twice almost been wiped out by angry/frustrated/ impatient (not exactly sure of their issue) motorists when riding Mundaring Weir Road this incident was alarming but not completely surprising. Road rage is an issue for both drivers and cyclists, what is it about our society that is making people so angry and so willing to attack others over trivial incidents?

When talking to a hills resident, who is a non cyclist, he expressed frustration that on weekends that he is constantly caught behind groups of 2 abreast riders and can't legally pass due to double lines.

Part of the issue here is lack of funding for cycling infrastructure, the cycle route from Kalamunda to Mundaring and back again is very very popular but there are lots of bends, hills and narrow roads making the whole car/cyclist thing all the worse. There really needs to be investment in sealed shoulders in this area to reduce the conflict or potential conflict between motorist and cyclists, and at the same time reduce the number of car accidents along some of these stretches of roads. In other states they have now brought in rules where motorists can legally cross a double line to pass a cyclist if safe to do so, this may help also. Further to this, the whole cycling community cops the anger of motorists who are frustrated by the lack of consideration by a few cyclists, when traffic approaches from behind on narrow roads, riders who are two abreast should attempt to move to single file, yes we have a right to ride two abreast but a little consideration never goes astray, and it might save the life of another cyclist down the road who cops some nutter who finally flips his lid, like the 4WD in Glen Forrest, because he was going to be 30 seconds late for his psychiatrist appointment or something like that.

cj7hawk
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby cj7hawk » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:02 pm

Bigfella195 wrote:Having twice almost been wiped out by angry/frustrated/ impatient (not exactly sure of their issue) motorists when riding Mundaring Weir Road this incident was alarming but not completely surprising. Road rage is an issue for both drivers and cyclists, what is it about our society that is making people so angry and so willing to attack others over trivial incidents?

When talking to a hills resident, who is a non cyclist, he expressed frustration that on weekends that he is constantly caught behind groups of 2 abreast riders and can't legally pass due to double lines.

Part of the issue here is lack of funding for cycling infrastructure, the cycle route from Kalamunda to Mundaring and back again is very very popular but there are lots of bends, hills and narrow roads making the whole car/cyclist thing all the worse. There really needs to be investment in sealed shoulders in this area to reduce the conflict or potential conflict between motorist and cyclists, and at the same time reduce the number of car accidents along some of these stretches of roads. In other states they have now brought in rules where motorists can legally cross a double line to pass a cyclist if safe to do so, this may help also. Further to this, the whole cycling community cops the anger of motorists who are frustrated by the lack of consideration by a few cyclists, when traffic approaches from behind on narrow roads, riders who are two abreast should attempt to move to single file, yes we have a right to ride two abreast but a little consideration never goes astray, and it might save the life of another cyclist down the road who cops some nutter who finally flips his lid, like the 4WD in Glen Forrest, because he was going to be 30 seconds late for his psychiatrist appointment or something like that.
I completely disagree with this idea - it's not about courtesy, it's about safety - Riding 2 abreast is, at the present time, the only safe way to go about this. attempting to ride dangerously, by allowing cars to pass when it is unsafe to do so, only puts us and other cyclists in danger.

To remain safe, it is necessary to ride in the safest possible manner- this includes claiming the lane, riding two abreast when practical and following the road rules, except where unsafe to do so.

Regards
David

just4tehhalibut
Posts: 1152
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:02 am
Location: Spearwood, WA

Re: Glen Forrest Incident

Postby just4tehhalibut » Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:29 pm

For the sake of everyone else here can you learn how to trim your quotes down, only quoting the section that you want and not reposting the whole reply. If you were quoting from a book would you normally read out the entire book or just the relevant passage?

As to what the Bigfella was saying there are sections of the road up there with lots of corners and crests, poor line-of-sight. "Riding two abreast when practical" (and I quoted you) isn't just lacking in courtesy to drivers, it lacks care for your fellow riders. Riding two-abreast when safe isn't going to get your mates killed, riding two-abreast without regard just so you on your bike can dominate a lane may. Taking a lane is about controlling the vehicles around you and you can't really do much of that if there's a car approaching from behind that blind corner that you just passed unless maybe you break into single file; the only vehicles that you can control in that scenario is you and your mates, the car driver isn't going to know of your plan for world domination of the roads starting with Glen Forrest until he's right on top of you, maybe literally.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users