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 walking 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
Girl Cyclist = 9
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.
Wortley at Mountsfield Traffic Study – Volume & Speed Results From first Video Session
Recently Gorski Consulting was approached by a local group of residents with a request for a traffic safety study for their area. Their concern was with respect to the intersection of Wortley Road and Mountsfield Drive and specifically a newly-installed pedestrian crossing that may not be providing the safety for the children attending the nearby Mountsfield Public School. Safety concerns have been expressed by residents in other neighbourhoods in London and this provides an opportunity to demonstrate what can be done to conduct a proper, objective, safety study. As such Gorski Consulting agreed to become involved.
The Wortley-Mountsfield Traffic Study was previously introduced in a Gorski Consulting website article (“Wortley at Mountsfield Traffic Study – Introduction”) posted on this Gorski Consulting site on July 6, 2026. There we described the six camera locations and the two 50-metre segments along Wortley Road in which speed documentations were accomplished. The focus of the study was with respect to a painted pedestrian crossing that was installed across Wortley just north of the intersection with Mountsfield Drive.
The present article will describe the findings from the observations of motor vehicle traffic volume and speeds from the June 15, 2026 video session which took place approximately between 1503 and 1617 hours. A future article will then describe the findings of the pedestrian and cyclist observations from that same session. A second video session was also conducted on the morning of June 22, 2026 and discussion of those results will be posted in a future article.
Motor Vehicle Traffic Volume & Speeds From June 15, 2026 Video Session
A total 546 motor vehicles were documented travelling north and south along Wortley Road between 1503 and 1617 hours in the vicinity of the T-intersection with Mountsfield Drive. 317 of those observations were of southbound vehicles whereas 229 were northbound.
Although there are slight variations at various schools in London, typically, grade school children are released from school at approximately 1520 to 1525 hrs. Mountsfield Public School is located about 150 metres east of the intersection of Wortley and Mountsfield. So it would not be surprising that school children would begin to arrive at the intersection shortly after this time. This is confirmed in our video observations. Of the total 156 pedestrians/cyclists that were observed throughout the full video session, 108 of those reached the pedestrian crosswalk in the vicinity of 1527 and 1535 hours, or within a time span of only 8 minutes.
The video session took place over a time of 74 minutes and therefore, an observation of 546 motor vehicles would lead to an average of 7.38 vehicles per minute. An examination of the motor vehicle traffic showed that 48 southbound and 36 northbound motor vehicles passed by the pedestrian crossing in that 8 minute time span, or an average of 10.5 vehicles per minute. Therefore, the results show that, at the time that children arrived at the pedestrian crossing at a high volume, motor vehicle observations also increased to a higher volume.
The speed of motor vehicles also presents a useful observation. Over the full video session the average speed of vehicles was documented along two segments of Wortley Road: 1.) between 50 metres north up the pedestrian crossing; 2.) at 50 metres south up to the pedestrian crossing. The video camera at the pedestrian crossing stopped recording at 1600 hours, so speeds up to that time could be obtained over the two segments but for the remaining time of about 17 minutes speeds could only be obtained over the full, 100-metre distance. The posted speed limit for Wortley Road in this vicinity was 40 km/h. At the two road segments the following average speeds were observed:
Southbound Vehicles: 50m N to pedestrian crossing = 40.03 km/h, pedestrian crossing to 50m S = 39.14 km/h.
Southbound Vehicles (1600 to 1617 hours): 50m N to 50m S = 41.8 km/h.
Northbound vehicles: 50m N to pedestrian crossing = 39.74 km/h, pedestrian crossing to 50m S = 38.73 km/h.
Northbound Vehicles (1600 to 1617 hours): 44.49 km/h.
In contrast to the above data, we can examine the speed of vehicles during the 8 minutes between 1527 and 1535 hours and this shown below:
Southbound Vehicles: 50m N to pedestrian crossing = 27.22 km/h, pedestrian crossing to 50m S = 31.08 km/h.
Northbound Vehicles: 50m N to pedestrian crossing = 33.64 km/h, pedestrian crossing to 50m S = 24.75 km/h.
The above data show that, during the 8 minutes between 1527 and 1535 hours, the average speed of all motor vehicles was substantially lower than the speed throughout the full 74 minutes of the video session. Given that there were substantially more pedestrians (children) in the vicinity, and given that there were also more motor vehicles passing through the area it would be reasonable to conclude that it was the congestion caused by all these observations that caused this reduction in vehicle speeds. And this is verified when reviewing the video and observing the incidents where motor vehicles had to slow down, or come to a stop, for pedestrians crossing at the pedestrian crossing.
Motor vehicle speeds were also affected by the number of turning vehicles. Most of this turning was in and out of Mountsfield Drive. Throughout the full 74 minutes of the video session there were 72 southbound vehicles and 59 northbound vehicles that performed some type of turning motion. Thus of the 546 vehicles 131 made a turning motion, or 24%.
In contrast, during the 8 minutes between 1527 and 1535 hours, 84 vehicles passed through the site. There were 48 northbound vehicles and 24 of those made a turning motion. There were 36 southbound vehicles and 17 of those made a turning motion. Or more generally, of the 84 vehicles that passed through the site in those 8 minutes, 41 of them made a turning motion, or 48.8% of that total.
Summary of Results
We can now summarize these findings. An 8 minute segment of the 74 minute video session, between 1527 and 1535 hours, experienced a substantial difference in the character of the traffic scenario. At the beginning of the 8 minutes children began arriving, approaching westbound on Mountsfield, and then they disbursed, primarily travelling northbound on the east sidewalk of Wortley Road. During this time more motor vehicles began travelling through the site and more vehicles performed turning motions. The average speed of motor vehicles dropped substantially during this period of congestion. These results are not surprising. Similar results would be expected in the vicinity of any school in London, Ontario.
An important question is whether the results from this study suggest that the Wortley-Mountsfield site contains conditions that are less safe than other sites in the City of London. The primary concern of residents was whether the newly installed pedestrian crossing was providing a benefit toward the safety of children and all else who might use it. The exploration of this issue will continue in another Gorski Consulting website article that will deal with pedestrian, cyclist and other micro-mobility motions observed during the June 15, 2026 video session.
Wortley at Mountsfield Traffic Study – Introduction
Gorski Consulting was recently contacted by a residents’ group that expressed concerns over the safety of a roadway near a school where a pedestrian crossing was recently installed in London, Ontario. The site was located at the intersection of Wortley Road and Mountsfield Drive in the “Old South” neighbourhood of London. (A video frame taken from our study is shown above.) The issue of child safety near school zones is important and therefore Gorski Consulting agreed to conduct a study of the safety issues at the intersection.
The Googlemaps image below shows the site of the study with respect to the central portion of London, Ontario and its downtown. The area slightly to the north is also known as “Wortley Village” and is one of the more desirable residential locations in the City.
A closer view of the Wortley-Mountsfield area is shown in another Googlemaps image shown below. This view shows the location of the Mountsfield Public School and the orange circle shows the location of the intersection where the traffic study was conducted.
The safety of the Wortley-Mountsfield intersection needed to be examined during a time when children were entering or exiting the nearby elementary school, Mountsfield Public School. However because we did not become aware of this request until June 10th, there was little time as the school year would come to an end by June 25th. Never-the-less, we were able to complete two video sessions at the site, one on the afternoon of June 15th and a second one on the morning of June 22, 2026.
In both sessions the video documentation was completed with the use of six, synchronized, video cameras. Three of the cameras (GoPros) were positioned facing across Wortley Road so that the speed of vehicles on Wortley could be captured along two, 50-metre, road segments. In the June 15th session, GoPro40 was placed on the west side of Wortley Road at the pedestrian crossing, as shown in the photo below.
The yellow fire hydrant visible in the above photo was used as the arbitrary “Zero Point” for positioning video cameras at 50-metre distances to the north and south of the fire hydrant. At a location 50-metres to the north of the fire hydrant we positioned GoPro29 on the west roadside, facing east, so that it would show a painted marker that we created on the east sidewalk. A view of GoPro 29 is shown in the photo below. Also visible is JVC4, a camera positioned to look southward toward Mountsfield Drive and the pedestrian crossing.
A similar arrangement existed at 50 metres south of the pedestrian crossing where GoPro39 pointed across Wortley at a paint marker while JVC1 was positioned pointing northward along Wortley.
And finally the JVC2 camera was positioned on the north side of Mountsfield Drive and pointing westward toward the pedestrian crossing, as shown in the photo below.
Upon initial attendance at the site on June 15, 2026 it became apparent that the pedestrian crossing was not well visible because of the interplay between sun and shade caused by the large, roadside trees. The location of some of these trees can be seen in the Googlemaps view shown below.
Indications of this problem can be seen in the site photos below, taken on June 15, 2026.
In the image below a school bus is attempting to make a left turn to travel from the stop-signed Mountsfield Drive, to travel southward along Wortley Road. Tree branches are hanging too low so that the bus driver’s view of northward traffic is made more difficult and the driver is forced to put more attention to that portion of the roadway. This could prevent a good assessment of what objects (pedestrians) may be near the bus.
A discussion of the results from the video sessions at this site will be discussed in an upcoming website article which will be posted on this Gorski Consulting website in the near future.
Classic Red Herrings In Failing To Disclose Why Five Children Killed North of Kitchener Ontario
There can be nothing more comforting than a standard, condolence message sent by Ontario’s Premier about the “heartbreaking loss” whereby five children were killed in an unidentified collision at the intersection of 4th Line and Wellington Road 12 north of Kitchener, Ontario on June 13, 2026. This would seem to be the case since police and official news media did not report any useful information about the actual collision. The only available information is that the collision involved a van and a SUV. The five deceased children were riding in the van. There was conflicting information that either 9 or 10 persons occupied the van.
It is notable that a day after the tragedy news media announced that police would be conducting a “new safety blitz” focusing on the dangers that exist at roadway intersections. There was no clear explanation what the blitz entailed and what police were actually intending to do as part of the blitz.
The propaganda about the safety blitz is, in the view of Gorski Consulting, a red herring, that has been thrown onto the public deck so all can see that something is being done, even though there has been nothing done. The issue is not the danger of collisions at intersections. The issue is that five children were killed but no adults were killed. This fact is been hidden from public understanding.
No one has provided any description of the involved van and whether it was capable of properly transporting 9 or 10 occupants. Some specialty vans could be capable of such transportation but that is not possible for most, typical vans. So were the children who died properly restrained by infant carriers, child seats or booster cushions? This issue has cleverly been ignored by police and news media. And this is a recurring problem.
There have been many previous collisions of suspicious child fatalities where those fatal results have not been discussed, for seemingly bazaar reasons. Surely, any person, in any official capacity, who knew that there was a life-threatening danger to a child’s life, would do something to broadcast that danger. For the simple fact that when the danger remains unknown, it cannot be corrected. And the danger will cause the death of future, innocent children. This relationship is not that difficult to comprehend.
It has been my personal experience, from examining an admittedly small sample of collisions involving serious injury and death to children that a child that is properly restrained, particularly in an infant carrier or child seat, gains superior protection from these devices compared to adults simply wearing a three-point (lap & shoulder) seatbelt. That extra casing around the child’s body is what gives the child that extra “helmet” of protection. In addition, most of these devices restrain the child with a 5-point, harness, something that is difficult to do with adults unless they are in racing cars. Yet it has been my personal experience that I have witnessed unnecessary tragedies where children were either not restrained, or were improperly restrained and this has led to very difficult tragedies that need not have occurred. In monitoring various news reports over the years I have observed a number of occasions where child deaths have occurred in suspicious circumstances, circumstances that ought to have been uncovered, but were not. And because these circumstances have not been uncovered those tragedies have been repeated, for nonsensical reasons.
So, for the present matter, it is imperative that the circumstances by which the five, innocent children came to their deaths, ought to be made public. If this is a matter of a very high severity collision whereby there is a reasonable explanation for these deaths then so be it. It could be a terrible tragedy that we would find difficult to avoid. But if this collision consequence is a matter of improper or no child restraint then it must be revealed as such.
True To Their Word Police Reveal Nothing About How Five Persons Died
No one needs a crystal ball to make the following pronouncement: Today, tomorrow, or three weeks from now there will be a tragic motor vehicle collision that will be scantily announced in official circles. It will be pronounced as devastating. And there will be quotes from various politicians and officials explaining how deeply sorry they are that the tragedy took place. Investigating police will have closed the collision site for several hundred metres around, or sometimes for several kilometres, so that the peering eyes of journalists with long-zoom lens can only distinguish the markings of official vehicles, but very little or no useful images of the collision-involved vehicles. It will be announced that the tragedy is under investigation and it is too early to tell how it unfolded. And there will be quotes from local residents about how they do not understand how the tragedy occurred but they will explain their theories. And then there will be the many posts on social media, a very few will insightful and specific details, but by far, mostly a series of uninformed opinions that the collision could have been caused by Martians or unknown terrorists, or something similar. And then there will be silence until some future anniversary where some news articles will remind the public that the victims are sadly missed. Having spent well over 40-years of investigating and reconstructing the deaths of thousands of collision victims I do not need a crystal ball to know that this merry-go-round will continue spinning despite what words I may add to the process.
Just this past May 23rd the one-year anniversary of another traffic tragedy passed related to the deaths of five persons in a collision at the intersection of Thorndale Road and Cobble Hills Road east of Thorndale and less than 20 kilometres north-east of London, Ontario. Police who investigated the collision provided no useful information about it, not even the travel directions of the involved vehicles. The only useful information was that an SUV was struck by a truck and that truck collided with a second SUV. It was the initial impact that killed all five occupants of the first SUV.
In an article posted by Bryan Bicknell of CTV News in London, the comments of a couple of persons were posted will some thought-provoking content. One driver who reportedly drove through the intersection on a regular basis indicated he could not understand “…how this could have possibly happened”. And a resident who owns land at the intersection had the following comment:
“Well, the only thing out of the ordinary is that it has the hill over there, which is a little difficult seeing traffic coming this way,” he explained, referring to drivers coming from the south and checking to their east for any westbound traffic.“
In his article Bicknell referred to some signs near the intersection but made no reference to their relevance.
As a result of the lack of information I attended the collision site on June 1, 2025 and prepared an article (“Poor Reporting of 5-Fatal Collision North-East of London Ontario Has Consequences”) on my findings on June 10, 2025. This article is still available to be viewed on this Gorski Consulting website.
A few days after the collision occurred the official news media announced that local politicians would authorize a safety study of the intersection after the police investigation was completed. But why?
Surely a single motor vehicle collision does not spark a safety study at every intersection. Is it because five persons died in one vehicle? But if there was just a single driver then there might only have been one fatality. So was it just bad luck and nothing to do with the safety of the intersection? The motion for the study was unanimously approved. So did the councillors know something about the intersection that was not publicly revealed?
To this day no information has been made available about charges against the truck driver involved in this collision. Yet there were numerous racial slurs posted on the internet shortly after the collision occurred against that driver. Again, what information has passed under the radar that suddenly these comments have supposedly died down? Is it because the driver of the northbound “SUV” was governed by a stop sign and therefore deemed at fault? But there are many scenarios where such facts do not necessarily mean the driver is at fault. There could be many circumstances that exist that need to be considered. So were those circumstances considered? After a year has passed no one knows or, at least, no one officially knows.
You must be logged in to post a comment.