AI, Radar, Lidar, Cameras Event Data REcorders – Collision Reconstruction is Changing Quickly
Independent and unbiased monitoring or road safety, like in any other field, is essential to a proper-functioning society. But as our world becomes more technologically complex, such monitoring becomes much more difficult.
Publicly funded road safety organizations such as the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or Transport Canada’s Road Safety Branch were created in the late 1960’s and have provided meaningful evaluations along with safety standards that have protected road users throughout these decades. However recent advances in the sensing, monitoring and storing of vehicle performance on public roadways has increasingly become a proprietary matter only available to the manufacturers and their partners. The rulemaking in 2006 that required manufacturers to provide basic “event data” that they store on their various modules has become challenged as the functioning of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) is not made public.
Other manufacturers such as General Motors have recently (early September, 2026) announced that they will be expanding their use of in-vehicle cameras to improve vehicle security as well as to monitor in-vehicle passengers. A spokesperson for GM commented “We wanted to add flexibility to monitor the back seat without turning away from the road, which is dangerous”.
The operators of many commercial fleets in North America have also begun to enter into relationships with firms providing technologic that monitors driver actions and artificial intelligence (AI) to capture instances where driver behavior is wanting. Such systems store data about those instances that this can be used to coach drivers to improve their driving. Obviously there are privacy issues that accompany these developments.
And various other advancements have taken hold. Closed-circuit cameras (CCTV) and automated license plate recognition (ALPR) systems have become popular such that surveillance of the public’s behavior has increased. This concern has caused some jurisdictions, such as the State of Florida, to revoke licenses for these devices , commencing in early September , 2026, and require that the cameras be removed in 30 days. Various camera installations continue to exist in southern Ontario and, in fact, their installations are being expanded in locations such as the Waterloo region. Private firms such as Flock, Mio-vision and others have established relationships with many public jurisdictions.
For the purposes of collision reconstruction all these rapid developments have made the landscape far more complex. While data becomes increasingly stored in various ways, accessing that data is becoming more complex. Despite the claimed good efforts of NHTSA and Transport Canada, manufacturers have developed their own proprietary hardware to access data such that even very large entities such as police and government agencies must pay substantial money to keep up with purchases of the hardware. It can be said that the average vehicle owner has a “snowball’s chance in hell” of ever being able to independently retrieve the data existing on their own vehicle. Individual rights are good on paper, but they are fast becomes less useful than the paper they are written on.
E-bike & E-scooter Safety Information Non-Existant
In August, 2026 a number of news articles were posted on the internet talking about the large increase in injuries suffered by riders of e-bikes and e-scooters.
In London Ontario it was reported that the Children’s Hospital treated 22 children for e-scooter related injuries in between April and June of 2025. It was reported that this number rose to 58 for the same period in 2026.
In another report released by the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program, 48 cases of serious injuries and death related to e-scooter and e-bike incidents were noted in 2025. Much of the concern was with how many of those cases involved children.
In Toronto Ontario police have reported that there were 514 collisions in 2026 involving micro-mobility devices such as bicycles, e-bikes, cargo bikes, mopeds and e-scooters. Two of those incidents involved fatal e-scooter collisions. In response to these numbers Toronto police went on a two-week enforcement campaign. They issued 1,277 tickets for vehicles parked in bike lanes and 324 tickets against riders of micro-mobility devices. The campaign ran from August 10 to 24 so now that it is over does that mean there will be no focused attention to this issue? It would seem that the only solution to be found is to give out tickets but these may only be a drop in the bucket as police have so many other matters to deal with.
The newly appointed “Mayor of Toronto”, Doug Ford, has now been given permission by his appointed Ontario Court of Appeal to remove a number of cycling lanes in Toronto. While a lower court determined that the removal of the cycling lanes was an infringement to cyclists’ constitutional right to be protected from harm the Court of Appeal determined there was no such harm that should prevent Ford from doing whatever he wants with cycling lanes.
Such cycling lanes are not just used by cyclists but by all users of micro-mobility devices. In its wisdom the Ontario Court of Appeal failed to acknowledge that, when cycling lanes are removed, this does not mean that cyclists will also be removed. In other words, many cyclists will still use the roadway where those lanes were removed. The misinformed logic is that cycling lanes can be moved to a less-busy road nearby and that cyclists will then ride along the newly created cycling lanes. This misinformed logic fails because it does not recognize that, unlike drivers of motor vehicles, cyclists are hampered when they must ride a further distance and thus expend more energy. It is not just a matter of more time, expended energy is a critical factor for cyclists. Thus it is a real danger that cyclists will continue riding where the cycling lane has been removed. But this real danger is also not appreciated by many cyclists because many are kept in the dark.
All involved parties, including the Ford government, are guilty of failing to educate cyclists, and all micro-mobility riders, of the dangers posed to them. As stated numerous times in Gorski Consulting website articles, collisions involving cyclists, and collisions involving all micro-mobility devices are rarely publicized. Even in major injury and fatal collisions only bare facts are released to the public. Such information is never sufficient to understand how and why a collision occurred and what actions motor vehicle drivers or riders of micro-mobility devices could have taken to avoid the collision.
School bus Monitors, crossing Guards, Speed Cameras, cycling Lanes – All targets of Ontario’s Ford Government
In life one ought to recognize that the relationships between cause and effect are subtle. That relationship is no different in matters of road safety. While society employs police to capture speeding, distracted or impaired drivers, there are other factors that endanger road safety without accountability or recognition. Government actions, as an example, can be as dangerous as driver actions, if the government does not care to protect its citizens. The Ford government in the Canadian Province of Ontario is just such a gang which continues to have no conscience in its actions against road safety.
The Ford government is squeezing the budgets of many entities that provide safety to Ontario’s citizens. Whether it be municipal, health, education or so many others, the Ford government’s reductions of funds to these entities means that these public groups must find ways to cut services. While the public rages against these institutions it fails to understand the underlying cause of service cuts is due to the Ford government’s actions.
As an example, recent news headlines revealed that school boards in southern Ontario in the vicinity of the City of London will be removing school bus monitors. Monitors are persons that ride in a school bus along with the driver and they provide important support by dealing with safety problems that cannot be readily dealt with when a bus driver must pay attention to their driving. If a collision occurs it will most likely be deemed the fault of the bus driver when, in many instances, it could be related to the driver being overwhelmed by distractions or other stimuli not under their control. Serious collisions can result leading to deadly consequences.
Whether it may, or may not be, related, a fatal collision on Longwoods Road on December 16, 2024 at the southwest of London demonstrates what could happen. An 82 year-old school bus driver was charged by London police after a 7-year-old boy was truck and killed by a van driver who passed through the bus’s flashing lights. Why this charge was laid has not been revealed and a trial is still upcoming. Often the public is not provided with the essential details of such incidents. But following the trail back to decisions made by entities such as the Ford government is very difficult, even when that trail is properly revealed.
In another revelation, news media reported on negotiations between elected officials and city staff with respect to the hiring of more school crossing guards in London. It was reported that the city budget for these hires has been maxed out leaving no money to expand the program into newer school areas. Again, this is viewed as a municipal issue, and far removed from any provincial politics. However the provincial government is the overseer of how municipalities function and where municipalities will receive money for local services.
In yet another issue, the Ford government has appealed an Ontario Superior Court decision that prevented cycling lanes from being removed along several of Toronto’s major roadways such as Bloor Street, Yonge and University Avenue. The recent result is that the Ontario Court of Appeal overruled the lower court’s ruling and gave the Ford government free reign to remove those cycling lanes. The Court of Appeal erroneously commented that the negative impacts of removing bike lanes would exist only if bicyclists chose to to ride on the roads that have no bicycle lanes. This logic fails to understand that this is not a “choice” but something that will occur because of how cyclists function. Cycling is not the same a driving a motor vehicle because taking longer routes is not just a matter of something taking more time. For cyclists taking a longer route will involve more expended energy and this is a critical factor in cyclists’ decisions where they will ride. Thus when the cycling lanes are removed many cyclists will continue to drive in those dangerous lanes because it is the shortest route to where they must go.
Previously the Ford government outlawed the installation of traffic speed cameras which is another in their long line of affronts to road safety. The provincial government claimed that the functioning of the cameras were a way of municipalities collecting money from the public, or a “cash grab”. And many in the province fell victim to this propaganda. Municipalities were not totally innocent for this understanding because they were never transparent enough with the public as to how those speed cameras were set. This could have been resolved if the Ford government allowed the speed cameras to exist but required municipalities to be more transparent but that did not occur. The Ford government simply made those cameras unlawful and this created the opportunity for many speeders to ride dangerously fast without repercussions. The Ford government’s alternative to speed cameras was to develop “temporary enforcement measures”, speed bumps, raised crosswalks, roundabouts and improved signage. The City of London was to receive $1 to 2$ million dollars for those actions but none of the funding was to be used to remove any traffic lanes. No one with any serious understanding of road safety would conclude that these measures could be a reasonable replacement for speed cameras. Subsequent research, such as reported in Ottawa in April of 2026 showed that drivers were speeding up sign those speed cameras were removed. Similar speeding increases near Toronto’s Parkside Road were also reported in May of 2026.
And the list goes on. Shortly after Doug Ford was first elected as Premier in 2018 his government stopped an overhaul of Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) that was put into law just a few weeks earlier by the previous Liberal government. Many important changes to the SIU that had been thoughtfully recommended in a report by Justice Michael Tulloch were overturned by the Ford government and the SIU remains an entity with limited accountability.
Due to the Ford government’s cutbacks in 2019 Legal Aid Ontario stopped payments to “outside” lawyers representing their clients at bail hearings. This was criticized by the union representing counsel in Ontario because it would cause more people to spend extended times in jail before a bail hearing. The Ford governments cut of legal aid by 30% led Canada’s Chief Justice, Richard Wagner, to comment that legal aid was essential to ensuring the justice system is fair to all.
During the Ford government’s tenure the problem of homelessness has also increased. The homeless, including those with drug addictions or have been born with mental challenges, have been progressively found in traffic where they have become a danger to themselves and to all travelers on the road. Removal of such persons away from dangerous roadways often requires police intervention which takes police away from other duties. in August of 2025 the City of London reported there were just below 2,000 homeless persons in the City but many others have suggested this is an underestimate. in early December, 2025 many Ontario Mayors called on the Provincial government to declare a homelessness state of emergency.
The Ford government has made alcohol sales more accessible such that small variety stores can now sell those products with a reduced control over who can make a purchase. This was also accompanied by legislation in 2019 that would allow “tailgating” or drinking alcohol in parking lots of sporting events while in the back of a vehicle such as a pick-up truck. In the spring of 2024 it was revealed that Ontario’s Attorney General sent a directive to Crown prosecutors to allow them to withdraw certain impaired driving charges if the guilty party accepted guilt under a lower, Highway Traffic Act charge. This was deemed as a way to reduce court back-logs.
The Ford government has increased the speed limit on many of Ontario’s highways. Anyone ought to know that high speed and alcohol are prime factors leading to many collisions. Yet, in 2019 the Ford government also reduced funding for the OPP “field and traffic services”.
In 2018 Doug Ford tried to insert a close friend of his into the position of OPP Commissioner. This appointment was criticized by the interim Commissioner, Bill Blair who asked that the appointment process be investigated. Negative comments made by Ford against Blair caused Blair to initiate a civil law suit claiming a purposeful smearing of Blair’s reputation. That law suit was annulled by Superior Court justice in December of 2020. In 2019 Ford introduced legislation that would prohibit civil law suits filed against the Ontario government. Inappropriate appointments of individuals by the Ford government have been a continual problem. In 2019 news media were able to reveal that several such appointments had ties to Dean French who was Doug Ford’s chief of staff. One such appointee, Andrew Suboch, was the chair of the Justices of he Peace Appointments Advisory Committee who was reported to be a long-time friend of Dean French. Ontario’s judicial appointments are reportedly made by Ontario’s Attorney-General who is a member of Ford’s cabinet. Ford continued with his attempts to interfere with judicial appointments by flatly confirming in early 2024 to appoint “like-minded” judges, or those who shared his view that judges and justices of the peace were too lenient on criminals. Meanwhile the Ford government noted in March of 2026 that it was introducing legislation to keep the public from obtaining information, via Freedom of Information requests, from documents of the premier’s office as well as his cabinet ministers.
In 2020 the Ford government was accused of interference with its Human Rights Tribunal by failing to provide sufficient funding while creating a flawed appointments process.
In December of 2023 Ontario’s Auditor General expressed concerns about the Ford government’s decision to shorten driver examination procedures as a way of reducing he backlog of prospective drivers seeking licenses. The Auditor also expressed concerns about the Ford government’s contracting driver examination contracts to companies that consistent fail to improve service levels.
Under the Ford government the threshold for reporting collisions to police was raised from $2500 to $5000. This change was marketed as a money saving gesture while releasing police from their collision reporting duties. However such lack of reporting means that it becomes more difficult to track road safety issues.
Summary
The provincial government of Doug Ford has demonstrated a substantial history of actions to undermine road safety since its election in 2018. This is only a partial indication of its unethical practices in all areas of its influence. For those fortunate in nations where voting has some meaning the historical reality has always been the same: You Get Whom You Elect.
Cyclist Observations in 1st Six Months of 2026 in London Ontario
In an article posted on this Gorski Consulting website on January 2, 2026 we reported on our findings from cyclist observations in 2025. This article also contained tables from similar observations dating back to 2021. In this present article we provide the latest cyclist observation data from the first six months of 2026. This data is shown in the table below.
As can be seen, the first six months of 2026 exhibited similar findings to previous years, except that the number of observations was increased. In typical fashion numbers of observations were low in January and February. Winter was particularly harsh in the London area. Observation numbers began to rise in March and these continued to increase until the last month of June. In June, 2026 we observed the greatest number of cyclists at 268 and this helped to increase the overall total for the six months to 790 observations. This is the highest number of cyclists we have ever documented since we started our focused attention on cyclists in about 2020.
As typical, observations of female riders continued to be low compared to their male counterparts. The female average of 13.04% is within the typical range between 12 and 14% that has been seen throughout this study since 2020.
Sidewalk usage by cyclists appears to have dropped slightly compared to previous years however this is misleading. In the last couple of years we began a focus on comparing two roadways, one of which contained a cycling lane. Upper Queen Street which becomes renamed to Ridout Street contains a cycling lane so that almost all cyclists riding on this roadway are coded as not riding on a sidewalk. In contrast we compared this to Horton Street which becomes Hamilton Road which contains essentially no infrastructure for cyclists. Several cyclist fatalities have been reported recently along Horton-Hamilton and so this is the reason why we have focused on these two roadways because we wanted to see what differences may emerge. So, this is the reason why observations of cyclists on sidewalks appear to have been reduced when it is only a function of a change in our procedures. A discussion of the comparison between Upper Queen-Ridout and Horton-Hamilton will be provided in another Gorski Consulting website article in the near future.
The most effective way of studying the safety of cyclists in London would include a detailed examination of all cyclist collisions. Unfortunately those officials such as London City Police and the City of London have provided very little or no information about those cyclist collisions. The local, official, news media have also failed to conduct investigations which could inform the general public. Hospitals that receive injured cyclists in their emergency wards also have an opportunity to collect and disseminate collision data however they are hampered by not being able to combine critical collision reconstruction information with that injury data.
Given these unhelpful conditions Gorski Consulting has attempted to gather cyclist observational data that provides some insight into this safety issue. A dash camera mounted to a moving vehicle has been used to take photos of cyclists along roadways in London. A database of these photos is compiled and then analysed to create tables such as the one shown at the top of this article. While these photos and summaries are not ideal there is no other available option to inform the general public. Not only do cyclists need to know how they could be injured or killed but drivers of motor vehicles also need to know how they could avoid those collisions. The Gorski Consulting observational data provides some help in that regard.
Gorski Consulting has selected a few photos of cyclists from this past six months to provide some examples of possible safety problems. Some of these photos are shown below.
Summary
We seem satisfied to install memorials to a cyclist who has passed away and then we move on to more important things. Those important things are the bombardment by the details of sporting outcomes, the latest fashions, television shows, car promotions, music fads, politics and every other frivolous detail that keeps us away from paying attention to things that really matter. Many of us are so attached to our smartphones that we cannot put them down, even when we are also watching a TV show, conversing with someone or driving. When we are involved in a serious collision we suddenly realize that the results are permanent and our lives change, become limited or come to an end. But we believe that possibility is often as likely as being struck by lightning.
Cycling is a dangerous activity in London Ontario. It could be better and it could be worse. We can improve the circumstances by learning more about how cycling collisions occur. Building more cycling infrastructure helps but it will not solve many of the safety problems that will continue to exist because both motor vehicle drivers and cyclists continue to be kept in the dark about how to prevent those collisions.
Wortley at Mountsfield Traffic Study – Pedestrians, Cyclists & Micro-mobility Motions From June 15, 2026
In two previous articles (posted on July 6 and July 15, 2026) Gorski Consulting has discussed the traffic safety study at the intersection of Wortley Road and Mountsfield Drive in south London, Ontario. The study was introduced in the first article and then in the second article the results of motor vehicle volumes and speeds were presented. The present article will focus on the observations of pedestrians, cyclists and other micro-mobility riders observed during the June 15, 2026 video session conducted at the site.
Observed Actions of Pedestrians, Cyclists & Other Micro-mobility Units
Review of the June 15, 2026 video session provided details of the actions of transportation units other than motor vehicles. It has been previously reported that, during the full video session on June 15, 2026, 156 pedestrians, cyclists and micro-mobility units were observed. This total can be broken down to the following:
Pedestrians = 124
Cyclists = 27
Push scooters = 3
E-scooters = 2
So pedestrians were the predominant observations followed by a moderate number of cyclists.
The actions of children are difficult to describe and document due to the unorthodox and unpredictable nature of their actions. This is particularly true when they exit a school in a large mass. For this reason some of the students had to be documented as a group particularly during the 8 minute time frame when they reached the study area.
Of the 156 observations that were documented in the 74-minutes of the video session, 108 occurred in the 8-minute time frame between 1527 and 1535 hours.
Throughout the full video session, a total of 51 observations were documented where someone used the pedestrian crossing. And 35 of those observations occurred in the 8-minute time segment of 1527 to 1535 hours. It is these 8 minutes that are different from the other portions of time before and after them. So it would be useful to provide some indication of those differences.
The best way we have found to describe the happenings at the site is to divide the descriptions into three as follows:
- Those occurrences that were observed from the beginning of the video session (1503 hours) up to the beginning of the 8 minute segment (1527 hours).
- Those occurrences that were observed within the 8 minute segment of 1527 through to 1535 hours.
- Those occurrences that were observed from the end of the 8-minute segment (1535 hours) through to the end of the video session at approximately 1617 hours.
Observations From Beginning Of Video Session To 1527 Hours
Only 16 pedestrians were observed passing through the site during this time period of 24 minutes. No other travellers such as cyclists or scooter riders were observed. No children of an age consistent with attending Mountsfield Public School were observed.
Nine of the 16 pedestrians were adult, or teenage, females. One of the females was pushing a stroller while two of them were walking with a dog.
There were seven instances where pedestrians used the pedestrian crossing to walk across Wortley Road. The types of observations are noted below:
Teenage Male Pedestrians = 3
Adult Female Pedestrians = 3
Adult Male Pedestrian = 1
In two instances drivers parked their vehicles against the curb of Wortley Road, exited, and then walked across Wortley Road. In one instance a male driver parked his southbound Pick-up truck just north of the 50-metre-south marker, walked northbound on the west sidewalk, used the pedestrian crossing then continued walking eastbound on the north sidewalk of Mountsfield toward the school. In the second instance a female parked her southbound SUV just north of the pedestrian crossing, exited, crossed Wortley without using the pedestrian crossing, and met another female on the east sidewalk of Wortley. Then both females walked southbound to Mountsfield Drive where they turned and walked eastbound on the north sidewalk of Mountsfield toward the school.
In those seven instances where pedestrians used the pedestrian crossing they approached from the following locations:
Southbound on West Sidewalk of Wortley = 3
Northbound on West Sidewalk of Wortley = 1
Westbound on North Sidewalk of Mountsfield = 1
Eastbound Through Church Driveway = 2
In one instance, an adult female pedestrian had been walking eastbound on the church driveway and stopped at the west edge of the pedestrian crossing. A black car (NB Obs #54; at timecode 00;26;43;00) approached the crosswalk at an average speed of 52.48 km/h and did not stop for the pedestrian at the crossing. This black car then continued northbound, north of the pedestrian crossing, at an average speed of 56.25 km/h. The pedestrian was available to be seen by the car driver at a time when she was on the west sidewalk. This was at a time when the car driver was at the 50-metre-south marker. Thus the driver had the opportunity to stop to allow the pedestrian to cross but the driver failed to stop. Other than this one instance there were no other safety issues identified with the crossing of the other six pedestrians.
Eleven of the total 16 pedestrians ended up walking eastbound on the north sidewalk of Mountsfield Drive and toward the school.
Observations During 8-Minute Segment Between 1527 & 1535 Hours
In this short time of 8 minutes 108 observations were made at the site. The types of observations can be broken down to the following:
Girl Pedestrian = 39
Boy Pedestrian = 36
Boy Cyclist = 15
Girl Cyclist = 9
Adult Female Pedestrian = 6
Adult Male Pedestrian = 2
Adult Female Cyclist = 1
Boy on Push Scooter = 1
It can be noted that no adult male cyclists were observed in this time period.
In 102 of the 108 observations (94.4%) the observed persons were initially seen walking westbound on the north sidewalk of Mountsfield Drive. In 60 (55.6%) instances the observed persons completed their passage by walking northbound on the east sidewalk of Wortley Road.
There were 35 incidents where an observed person used the pedestrian cross walk. The types of persons making that crossing are listed below:
Boy Pedestrian = 13
Girl Pedestrian = 10
Boy Cyclist = 5
Adult Female Pedestrian = 4
Adult Male Pedestrian = 2
Girl Cyclist = 1
Some images taken from video are shown below. The video was purposely shot at low resolution to prevent a display of details about the individuals in the views.
Observations From 1535 Hours Thru To End Of Recording At 1617 Hours
This last segment of observation occurred over a time of 42 minutes.
Only 32 observations were made during this time
Fourteen of the 32 pedestrians were boy and girl pedestrians. Twelve of the 32 observations were adult male and female pedestrians. The details of these are noted below.
Boy Pedestrians = 7
Girl Pedestrians = 7
Adult Female Pedestrians = 7
Adult Male Pedestrians = 5
Boy Cyclists = 2
Adult Males on E-scooter = 2
Adult Female Cyclist = 1
Boy Riding Push-Scooter = 1
Girl Riding Push-Scooter = 1
There were seven observations of pedestrian crosswalk usage and these are detailed below:
Girl Pedestrians = 3
Adult Female Pedestrians = 2
Adult Male Pedestrian = 1
Boy Pedestrian = 1
In 23 of 32 observations the persons travelled westbound on the north sidewalk of Mountsfield Drive and then 17 of those turned right to walk northbound on Wortley Road.
Discussion of Results Pertaining to Pedestrians, Cyclists & Micro-mobility Units
The video session of June 15, 2026 was intended to examine what safety problems might exist at the Wortley-Mountsfield site during the afternoon when students reached the area upon being let out of the nearby Mountsfield Public School. This was accomplished by conducting video observations for a short time prior to the release of the students, and then an additional time of observation was conducted after the students had left the area. This process allowed for an understanding how the site conditions changed as there were large differences in those conditions which needed to be revealed.
The primary factor that caused differences in observations at the site was the release of students from Mountsfield Public School. This release caused a large influx of observations in the 8-minute time segment of 1527 to 1535 hours.
The 24 minutes of observations previous to this, and the 42 minutes of time after, could probably be combined because the observation results were relatively similar. For example, the following summarizes the observations per minute in the three time segments:
Start of Video Up To 1527 Hours = 16 observations in 24 minutes = 0.67 observations per minute.
8 Minute Segment of 1527 to 1535 Hours = 108 observations in 8 minutes = 13.5 observations per minute.
Last time Segment from 1535 Hours to End of Recording = 32 observations in 42 minutes = 0.76 observations per minute.
So this is a fairly clear indication that the times previous to, and after, the 8-minute segment provided similar numbers of observations whereas the 8-minute segment provided a much larger number of observations than the other two.
The observation of cyclists should also be noted. In the first time segment there were no observations of any cyclists. In the 8-minute time segment 25 cyclists were observed and 15 of these were boys. In 23 of these 25 instances the cyclists were initially westbound on the north sidewalk of Mountsfield and then made right turns to travel northbound on either the east or west sidewalk of Wortley. In the last time segment there were only 3 cyclist observations.
Other micro-mobility devices were uncommon. None were observed in the first time segment, a single push-scooter was observed in the 8-minute segment and in the last segment two males were observed on e-scooters, a girl was observed on a push scooter and a boy was also observed on a push scooter.
Dangers of the Wortley- Mountsfield Site
A full discussion of the safety of the Wortley-Mountsfield site will be postponed for now because we want to give residents an opportunity to review the contents of our three articles written about this study. During our initial discussions with the individual representing those interested in this study it was noted that a meeting would be held where opinions would be expressed by a number of persons, including local residents who were familiar with the site. Those who have opinions about the safety of the site should have an opportunity to examine the data produced by the Gorski Consulting study and form their independent conclusions without our interference.
However, before leaving this issue, there are some further observations that might contribute to the discussion.
At approximately 1531 hours a girl toddler was observed riding a push scooter westbound on the north sidewalk of Mountsfield Drive. Male and female adult pedestrians were also walking westbound several metres behind the toddler. As the toddler reached the intersection with Wortley Road she stopped and looked back at the two adults. The adults caught up to the toddler and then all three walked to the east edge of the pedestrian crosswalk. At this time a northbound commercial pick-up truck was observed entering the view of Camera JVC4. JVC4 was the camera pointing northward from 50 metres south of the intersection. It was not possible to capture the initial speed of this pick-up truck however it appeared to be travelling relatively quickly. The driver of the truck applied braking and the truck came to a stop just south of the pedestrian crossing. The toddler began entering the crossing just as the Pick-up truck was coming to a stop. If an additional camera had been posted further south of the intersection the precise, pre-braking speed of the Pick-up truck would have been identified. While nothing came of this incident it revealed to us that a simple miscalculation could easily lead to a tragedy if any of the involved persons did not perform as expected.
There were also two instances where pedestrians were stopped on the edge of the pedestrian crossing but the drivers of motor vehicles failed to stop as required. In one instance, at approximately 1535 hours, a dark blue car was travelling northbound at an average speed of 47 km/h as it approached the pedestrian crosswalk where a boy was stopped on the east edge of the crosswalk. In the second instance, at approximately 1537 hours, an elderly female pedestrian was within the pedestrian crossing when a northbound passenger car, travelling at an average speed of 43.58 km/h, travelled through the crossing. Again, this was a non-event but the driver of the motor vehicle should have slowed or stopped until the elderly pedestrian fully cleared the crosswalk.
Speeding vehicles are always seen at any site of study and the present one is no exception. At this site, which is posted with a 40 km/h maximum speed, 34 southbound motor vehicles were observed travelling at 50 km/h or higher, or 10.7 % of the total of 317 observations of southbound vehicles. And 21 of the total of 229 northbound motor vehicles, or 9.17%, were similarly observed to be travelling at 50 km/h or more.
Vehicles travelling at 60 km/h or higher were naturally more scarce. Only two southbound vehicles, or 0.63%a were observed at that speed whereas 3 northbound vehicles, or 1.31% were similarly observed. In our view the very small numbers of these observations precludes drawing any conclusions about them.
It can be noted however that no motor vehicles were observed travelling at 50 km/h or higher in the 8-minute segment when school children were most active at the site. This may not be because drivers were more cautious but simply because there was a congestion that prevented these higher speeds.
While we were conducting an analysis of this video session it was announced by the local city councillor representing this ward that the City of London had completed a contractual agreement to have beacons installed at the crosswalk. One of the residents representing the community indicated that he was very pleased with that news. We also agree that this installation should be a safety benefit to the site. However further study needs to be conducted to determine the degree of benefit and if other safety issues may continue or arise.
A second video session was completed on the morning of June 22, 2026 and analysis of this additional data could provide some further useful information about the safety of the site. It is likely that this work will not be done until a meeting with local residents is completed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.