Another Cyclist Fatality in Toronto That Will Never Be Explained To Those Who Are Being Killed
Once again, we are taken on the same merry-go-round, noting that another cyclist has been killed, but doing nothing about identifying how or why.
News agencies report that a 59-year-old cyclist was killed in Toronto Ontario “on Bayview Avenue at the Don Valley North exit ramp, near the Brick Works” (CP24 News article April 8, 2024). The cyclist was reportedly struck by a 2023 Ford Bronco Sport SUV.
We can note the “very helpful” description of what happened as noted in the police news release: “The two collided causing the cyclist to fall and causing significant injuries”.
It is understandable that collision reconstruction takes time. That is why persons reading such comments believe that, although nothing is known at an early time, it will eventually be unraveled. But the unfortunate reality is that, even though police may unravel what happened, the explanation of what happened will never reach the public that needs to know. And the public has a short memory. Within days the public is bombarded by numerous other news items and the relevance of a cyclist death become irrelevant.
But why does the public need to know? Surely, over the years, it has been understood that how and why collisions occur is only to be known by investigating police and then only known by those to whom the police report the information. Strangely this process has carried on for decades as if it could be an efficient way to improve road safety.
Our view at Gorski Consulting is clear: Anyone who rides a cycle on or near public roads and paths ought to be provided with clear and accurate information about what risks exist that could injure or kill them. At the present time that is not happening.
The evidence is clear, as demonstrated by Dr. Alison Macpherson in her recent research on cyclist collisions in Toronto. Her work showed that police reports of collisions captured only 8% of cyclist visits to hospital emergency departments in Toronto. She also noted that, over a 5-year-period, there were over 30,000 cyclist visits to hospital emergency departments and about 87% of those incidents did not involve a collision with a motor vehicle. Whenever a motor vehicle is not involved police do not have to fill out a report. So this is another reason why vast numbers of cyclist injuries are never made public.
Zameer’s Innocence Raises Sudden Interest In Justice
Apparently you just need an obvious innocence to waken the sleeping public? So now many official entities are questioning why Umar Zameer was charged with first degree murder. Let us roll back the tape…
A collision reportedly occurred in the underground parking garage of Toronto’s City Hall in July of 2021. The collision occurred as plainclothes police officers, including Constable Jeffrey Northrup, approached a parked BMW driven by Umar Zameer, for an unclarified reason. A witness police officer, Constable Tony Correa stated with respect to Constable Northrup’s actions: “His hands hit the hood. He goes up in the air. He bounces off the hood of the car. He lands forward on the floor”. The reported (by CTV news) motions of the BMW in a security video showed “Zameer’s car lurching forward, reversing, and then turning and driving towards the camera position”. The type of contact described by Constable Correa does not appear to be consistent with the lack of vehicle damage as shown in the court exhibit of the BMW shown below.
The reason for Zameer’s actions was that he did not know the persons at his vehicle were plainclothes police officers. He thought they were trying to rob him and so he fled. His vehicle was eventually rammed by another unmarked police vehicle and he was subsequently arrested. It is notable that during that arrest Constable Scharnil Pais punched Zameer in the face.
Toronto Police Chief James Ramer was quoted as saying the incident was “deliberate and intentional” and that the officers were wearing police identification at the time (CTV news). Zameer was charged with first degree murder.
For a long time after this incident no information was allowed to be revealed because there was a ban placed on the publication of evidence. But, in typical fashion, news media quoted various dignitaries, who apparently knew nothing about the details of the incident including Toronto Mayor John Tory, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford, former Police Chief Bill Blair, and Toronto Police Association President Jon Reid. While they expressed their condolences, none came out to emphasize that they knew very little about the incident and that conclusions should be withheld until further information was known.
It was reported that police were in the parking garage as a result of a reported stabbing. So they were there to “look for evidence”. But it is unclear why the search for evidence resulting in approaching the Zameer BMW to the point that police had to be closeby when Zameer was making his movements out of his parked location. Nor was it clear why police needed to be in plainclothes to collect the evidence about the stabbing. And if the police had worn body camera’s much of the speculation about what occurred might have been nullified.
Zameer’s trial did not commence until March, 2024 or approaching 3 years after the incident.
During the trial prosecutors maintained that “Zameer chose to make a series of manoeuvres with his car that caused Northrup’s death”. Police reportedly banged on Zameer’s window and Zameer drove forward to avoid them. But Zameer’s forward motion was terminated when an unmarked police SUV blocked his path, so he reversed his BMW into the lane before accelerating forward toward the exit. He ran over something that he thought was a speed bump which turned out to be Constable Northrup’s body. Zameer’s perceptions were also affected by his pregnant wife’s stress and his crying son in the back seat.
The testimony from three police officers all provided the same description that Constable Northrup had been standing in front of the BMW and was fully visible to Zameer when he accelerated forward in the laneway. This version was not supported by two experts from the defense and the prosecution who concluded that Northrup was on the ground when he was run over.
Eventually a jury found Zameer innocent of all charges and the judge offered to Zameer “my deepest apologies for what you’ve been through”.
The trial judge raised concerns about the prosecution’s case and even came to the suspicion that the three witness officers who provided their statements colluded to provide a false account of what transpired. Subsequently, Toronto’s Police Chief, Myron Demkiw, announced an independent investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police to shed light on how the prosecution occurred with involvement of the Toronto Police.
Discussion
Some news media are now questioning why a decision was made to prosecute Zameer for first degree murder. Comments made by several local defense lawyers suggested that it should have been clear that the evidence did not support such a charge. Mr. Zameer’s lawyer, Nader Hasan, expressed his belief that the prosecutors in the case were pressured by their superiors to follow through with the charges.
One defense lawyer was quoted in a Canadian Press article as saying “They’re trying to turn something that isn’t a murder into a murder”. The same lawyer also said “The premier of Ontario was putting his thumb on the scales of justice and infecting the public’s views about how they should view this man”. This comment was made in relation to Premier Doug Ford’s criticism of the decision in the fall of 2021 to release Zameer on bail.
The results of the Zameer trial have spurred a renewed interest in Ontario’s justice system and justice as a whole. While there has been previous discussion about the ideals of being innocent until proven guilty, the practical reality is that in many instances that ideal is not met. The Zameer case demonstrates that you may be in jeopardy of being found guilty due to pressure exerted from certain interest groups or persons of high influence. When someone dies, someone has to pay, and a scapegoat continues to be found even when the evidence does not support the charge.
Premier Doug Ford has shown a continued lack of respect for the justice system by interjecting his will to influence it at inappropriate instances. In can be recalled from the past that he tried to appoint one of his friends into the position of OPP Commissioner even though other candidates were more qualified. He also talked about appointing “like-minded judges” who would prevent persons from being released on bail, seemingly ignoring the facts surrounding any specific case. Problems in the justice system grow roots from the top down so that, when the Premier is not an ethical person, he surrounds himself with persons of similar calibre and this process filters through to the rest of the system.
Respectable members of the justice system cannot function properly when they become accountable to persons who are unethical and corrupt. There is evidence of this dysfunction in all levels and areas of Ontario’s justice system. Inappropriate behavior becomes acceptable and condoned when the upper echelons of the justice system are themselves part of the inappropriate behavior. The possibility of collusion by three witness police officers in the Zameer trial, is an example which suggests that this inappropriate behaviour was not kept in check by those whose responsibility it was to provide that oversight. And the first degree murder charge against Zameer is another example of the inappropriate action of the justice system. It still has not been resolved who was actually responsible for applying the pressure to lay that charge.
McNorgan Found Guilty Without Full Discussion Of Issues
Why a 2017 Honda CRV accelerated through an intersection and struck a group of children was the basis for a trial of its driver, Petronella McNorgan. The fatal collision occurred on November 30, 2021 on Riverside Drive in London, Ontario. The trial heard from prosecution experts that McNorgan did not press on the brake, like she claimed, but that she was pressing on the accelerator pedal, as supported by a download from the vehicle’s event data recorder and summarized in a Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) report that was entered as evidence. News media reported that on December 13, 2021 the vehicle was inspected by “Transport Canada inspectors, police and a Honda Canada mechanic”.
The prosecution conclusion, as summarized by Constable Blair Jackson, was that “the evidence collected throughout the investigation revealed that the subject motor vehicle was in good mechanical condition, and that the brake system specifically, was in good working order and this was a preventable collision due to driver input”. Strangely, it was reported that McNorgan had been licensed to drive since 1967, or about 54 years when the collision occurred, yet there was no discussion whether, in all those years, she had ever mistook her accelerator pedal as the brake pedal.
The events unfolded on November 30, 2021 when McNorgan was westbound along the downslope of Riverside Drive and approaching the busy intersection with Wonderland Road. Two vehicles were reportedly ahead of her, presumably stopped at the Wonderland intersection. As she applied her brake she reported that the vehicle began to accelerate. It was reported that her Honda struck a Jeep but this was a glancing blow as police believed that such an impact would not trigger the vehicle’s event data recorder to start recording. After this glancing impact the Honda travelled at high speed onto the north roadside of Riverside Drive where it struck a lamp standard with its front end. Following this the Honda continued to travel onto the north sidewalk where it struck a group of children, killing one of them. Following this the Honda travelled in an arcing fashion back onto Riverside, crossing it, and entering the south roadside where it came to a stop.
The progress of the trial in early 2024 was reported by local news media. On March 27th the news media reported that the prosecution was finished with their evidence and that the Judge in the case would ask the defense whether they would call any evidence. On the following day news media described McNorgan’s testimony and she stood fast with her belief that she tried to apply her brake yet her vehicle accelerated. The news media did not indicate that there was any testimony provided by an expert witness for the defense.
The possibility that there was no expert witness for the defense that provided any countering comments to the prosecution’s experts is disturbing. Since the CDR report was never released for viewing by the public important questions about its content can never be answered.
Some questions that needed to be answered include the following.
Was a non-deployment file activated when the Honda struck the Jeep at the Wonderland Road intersection? If a non-deployment file was not created why did the stability control system activated so that it caused the Honda to reduce its speed by about 20 km/h even through the accelerator pedal was presumably pressed to the floor?
What was the status of the rest of the data contained in the CDR report?
Did Defense experts examine the vehicle and conduct their own download of the Honda’s event data recorder?
What did the court know about the details of Honda vehicle control networks and whether any of those could have failed?
Answers to questions like these are unlikely to be provided.
The content of Crash Data Reports is trusted essentially by everyone who examines them. Analysts of such reports regularly discuss various details and problems in internet chat groups. The accuracy and reliability of these reports is safeguarded by government legislation which instructs manufacturers what they must do in terms of providing collision data. As of the year 2013 manufacturers were instructed that, if their vehicles contained the ability to record collision data, such data must be made available to their parties and there must be a list of mandatory data that must be included in any report. The belief is that, those requirements are sufficient to guarantee the trustworthiness of these reports. One difficulty is that no one can be absolutely certain that motor vehicles are functioning safely except through examining the content of these reports. As the functioning of motor vehicles becomes more complex, so are the systems. The details of electronics, software and complex vehicle designs are proprietary information that is only available to the manufacturers for competitive reasons. Only a small part of this information is available through analysis of Crash Data Reports. Given the mandatory parameters that must be reported government officials believe that safety problems can be reliably uncovered. But there is no absolute certainty in that belief.
A review of past instances where motor vehicle manufacturers hid safety related problems likely never reached the jury in the present trial.
For example, it was not that long ago that a driver who was convicted of “criminally negligent homicide” was set free and the conviction was overturned because new evidence revealed that a motor vehicle manufacturer hid crucial information about sudden unintended acceleration in its vehicles. How quickly we forget that in August, 2015, Koau Fong Lee, was sentenced to eight years in prison, and was in prison for two-and-a-half years, before it became known that Toyota failed to reveal certain causes of sudden acceleration of which they were aware. The tragic collision occurred when Lee’s 1996 Camry suddenly sped up and he could not gain control it until he crashed into an Oldsmobile occupied by two adults who were killed and a six-year-old girl who became quadriplegic.
Here are some examples of past misdeeds by motor vehicle manufacturers where safety related problems were hidden for many years.
Toyota Sudden Acceleration
In a U.S. Justice Department report the following summary was provided about the Toyota sudden acceleration defect:
In the fall of 2009, TOYOTA deceived consumers and its U.S. regulator, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), by claiming that it had “addressed” the “root cause” of unintended acceleration in its vehicles through a limited safety recall of eight models for floor-mat entrapment, a dangerous condition in which an improperly secured or incompatible all-weather floor mat can “trap” a depressed gas pedal causing the car to accelerate to a high speed. Such public assurances deceived customers and NHTSA in two ways: First, at the time the statements were made, TOYOTA knew that it had not recalled some cars with design features that made them just as susceptible to floor-mat entrapment as some of the recalled cars. Second, only weeks before these statements were made, TOYOTA had taken steps to hide from NHTSA another type of unintended acceleration in its vehicles, separate and apart from floor-mat entrapment: a problem with accelerators getting stuck at partially depressed levels, known as “sticky pedal.”
General Motors Ignition Switches
Ignition switches installed in certain General Motors vehicles led to them being shut off while vehicles were in motion. Such an occurrence would prevent activation of air bags in a crash. The problem existed for many years until a local and independent mechanic uncovered that a spring in the ignition switches was too short. It was further uncovered that a General Motors engineer was aware of this defect but hid it. At last count, in the years around 2016, well over 400 deaths were accepted by GM as related to the defect although the final number has never been revealed.
Takata Air Bags
In February, 0217 Takata pled guilty to charges that it concealed a defect in its air bags that caused them to explode because of the chemical in the inflators did not function properly when exposed to prolonged heat and humidity. Meanwhile plaintiffs in other lawsuits claimed that other manufacturers such as Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford and BMW had independent knowledge of the Takata defect.
Discussion
It was the opinion of the prosecution experts in the McNorgan trial that two seconds prior to the impact with the lamp standard the vehicle’s stability control system was activated. This caused the Honda to slow down from 121 km/h to 102 km/h at the instant of impact with the lamp standard. Yet they also stated that the accelerator pedal was pressed down 99% throughout the 5 second time before the impact. This is a demonstration of how the systems in the Honda took over and changed the speed of the Honda despite the driver’s actions. It is assumed that the experts did not believe that a similar control could have taken place if McNorgan applied the brake but that somehow the Honda systems caused it to accelerate. This belief would likely come from the CDR report that showed that the brake pedal was not depressed. Yet braking of the Honda had to have occurred because its speed was reduced on approach to the lamp standard impact.
The question remains, what should the brake pedal data look like when the Honda’s stability control system was braking the vehicle? Mechanically, if there is a physical connection between the brake pedal and the brake fluid, the brake pedal increases the pressure in the brake fluid and this pressure travels to the brake calipers which collapse around the wheels’ rotors and thus the vehicle slows down. But it appears that the stability control system had priority over the brakes. The systems engineered into the Honda were such that it was more important to “stabilize” the vehicle rather than allow maximum braking. The word stability is somewhat of a misnomer because what is really happening is that the systems are controlling the rotation of the wheels to achieve the goal of pointing the vehicle in the direction that it is travelling. During this process a substantial amount of tire force must be taken up that might otherwise be available for steering, full-wheel braking or acceleration. While some tire force may remain to steer the vehicle for example, it is not the full tire force that would be available if the stability control system was not engaged. In this sense, there remains some ability to steer a vehicle away from danger but that ability is compromised.
The goal in pointing the vehicle in the direction it is travelling is to prepare the vehicle for any impact that might occur. It is understood that a vehicle striking something with its front end is safer to the occupants than if the impact occurs to the side. So in most instances the logic makes sense. But in some instances the result is not as favourable.
In the present case, after the Honda made a glancing contact with the Jeep it most likely entered into a rotation that needed to be countered and that is why the stability control system was activated. The safety systems imbedded in the Honda likely determined that the most important matter was to stop the rotation. In fact, if the rotation was allowed to continue the Honda might have entered into a sideways slide, or a further spin during which a greater level of deceleration might be achieved than what the stability control system was needing to stop the rotation.
Granted, there was some danger to McNorgan if the Honda began sliding sideways because it is possible that it might approach the lamp standard while leading with its driver’s side. If the lamp standard contact was directly to the driver’s door there could be a substantial danger that might be mitigated somewhat by deployment of a side air bag. But such a direct contact would have to be precisely where the driver is seated to pose a substantial danger.
The further advantage of allowing the Honda’s rotation is that, if McNorgan was indeed pressing on the accelerator pedal there is a reasonable chance that her foot might slip off the pedal due to the rotation. And if the Honda struck the lamp standard with its driver’s side there would be an even greater opportunity to force McNorgan’s foot off the accelerator pedal.
It also becomes important to study what might have happened after the Honda struck the lamp standard. Was the stability control system active after that impact? There is reason to believe that this was the case because of the manner in which the Honda continued to straighten its rotation as shown in the tire mark evidence. The two photos below show the Honda’s tire marks on the north roadside and after it crossed the road onto the south roadside. In the first photo there is evidence that the Honda is in a counter-clockwise rotation (“yaw”) but the convergence of the tire marks indicates that it is straightening out. And by the time the Honda reaches the other side of the road there are only two tire marks so it has now fully straightened out and is pointing in the direction it is travelling. Such a successful straightening of the vehicle’s pointing direction is indicative of the action of the stability control system.
So one can conclude that the stability control system was active from 2 seconds before the impact with the lamp standard and throughout the Honda’s travel after that impact.
The jury at trial should have been instructed about the complexity of modern vehicle control systems and what systems were installed in the version of the Honda CRV driven by McNorgan.
Some CRVs are equipped with a Forward Collision Warning (FCW) system. As described by Honda the system is “designed to detect the presence of vehicles in front of you and issues alerts if you’re approaching with too much speed. If you fail to respond to the alerts, the SMBS is triggered”. The Collision Mitigation Braking System (SMBS) is described by Honda as follows: “To help reduce the likelihood or severity of a frontal impact, the available CMBS is engineered to apply brake pressure if you don’t slow down when it senses you’re at risk of a collision. If it still senses an imminent collision, the SMBS is designed to brake firmly”.
So was there any discussion at trial whether the above systems were installed in McNorgan’s Honda? And if the CMBS was installed why did it not apply braking when the Honda made initial contact with the Jeep? Such automatic braking could have prevented the remaining tragedies from occurring.
A number of questions still exist with respect to what occurred at McNorgan’s trial. Unfortunately news media did not provide enough detail to answer these questions.
In incidents like these many persons question why a driver would not gear down or turn off the ignition. Such arm-chair quarterbacking never appreciates how drivers can become confused about what is happening and then must fight with avoiding immediate dangers that are occurring in very rapid succession. Never-the-less good driver training should emphasize to drivers the need to become familiar and practice methods of slowing a vehicle by gearing down or turning off the ignition.
Imperfect Police Agencies Fail To Focus On The Word “Properly”
The above photo was posted by the OPP to remind motorists that they will be on the lookout for none-use of seat-belts over the Easter weekend. The campaign is commendable as seat-belt use is so critical in determining whether someone dies, is permanently injured, or comes home with minor injuries. Unfortunately the photo itself demonstrates the reality that many police are not trained to recognize the word “properly”. There are a number of issues shown in the above photo which should raise a concern about the officer’s safety should a significant collision occur. That being said, officers must carry a number of “accessories” on their body in case they have to response to an emergency where timing of response is critical. We need to review the basics of occupant safety before focusing on what problems are visible in the above photo.
Seat-belts are very effective when they are used properly. And even when they are used improperly they still provide some benefit. The whole idea behind seat-belt effectiveness lies in the timing of an occupant’s deceleration and how that will occur. Seat-belts need to be pressed close against an occupant’s body so that the beneficial “ride down” can occur as quickly as possible. Secondly, seat-belts need to be placed across proper portions of the occupant’s body so that the forces are applied to those areas that can withstand those forces.
Before the advent of pre-tensioners many collisions occurred when seat-belts contained a great deal of slack. For example my studies commencing almost 40 years ago showed that, in a serious collision, the loading of a seat-belt occurred at a delayed time similar to a seat being positioned in the “full forward” position. This needs a little explaining. When we get in our seat we adjust it to fit our comfort and often it is not in the full forward position unless we are extremely short in stature. Without going into detail, I was able to examine the “loading marks” on seat-belts to determine their precise length at the time of a collision. This research showed that many seat-belts were not effective because there was too much “slack”. Occupants were not loading their seat-belts until they were in a position equivalent to sitting with their seat full forward. For this reason occupants were not getting the benefit of being restrained by their the seat-belts. This observation was not unique to myself but many safety researchers recognized the problem. So in modern times “pre-tensioners” were installed that, upon sensing a collision, would explode and pull the webbing of a seat-belt, usually about 4 inches, against the occupant’s body. This nullified the problem of slack in most cases. But that is not the only concern.
Not only must seat-belts work as quickly as possible, they must also be applied to the strong portions of the body that can withstand those impact forces. When seat-belts were originally introduced it was understood that placing the lap belt below the illiac crests of the pelvis was desirable. These bones are located below the abdomen. But if the webbing is placed just above those illiac crests bad stuff happens. What the general public does not understand is that, above the illiac crests there is nothing but vulnerable soft tissue all the way back to the spine. Such soft issue cannot accept typical collision loads. So proper vertical placement of the lap belt becomes crucially important, even though pre-tensioners may exist. This is even more important for children approaching adult stature where such proper placement becomes more difficult. So seat-belt effectiveness depends on where the webbing is pressed onto the occupant’s body.
For torso (shoulder) belts similar concerns apply. The webbing must load the collar bone (clavicle) region. Placing the webbing in any other orientation can be dangerous if not deadly. So placing the webbing underneath an arm, for example, will cause the load to be applied below the arm pit and across the ribs. This application can cause rib fractures as well as injuries to the lungs, heart etc, which should be understood as very dangerous.
So, to summarize, seat-belt effectiveness is not dependent on whether you snap the belt on or not. This is the problem with current propaganda with seat-belt campaigns. Seat-belt effectiveness is dependent on early deceleration and proper positioning. Both of these require the occupant’s attention before starting any vehicle.
Now, returning to the photo posted by the OPP. There are an number of concerns about the placement of the lap shoulder (torso) webbings in this photo. Pretty well all of these concerns relate to the accessories worn by the officer, accessories that the average citizen should not have to deal with. To some degree the lap belt is positioned somewhat low below the pouches worn on the belt buckle. It could be worn in a worse position if the lap belt was above those accessories. But we have to think what would happen in a serious collision when the lap belt is pulled tight by a pre-tensioner and the lap webbing begins to apply a force on the officer’s body. While the belt may be relatively low it will be pressing on the accessories attached to the officer’s belt buckle. The load which would normally pass, unobstructed onto the illiac crests will now be passed through those accessories that are located at a higher position and onto the officer’s abdomen.
A similar concern is visible for the officer’s shoulder belt which is pressing against his radio. Again, the torso webbing must apply a load onto the collar bone area not to the centre of the chest. The narrowed dimensions of the radio will concentrate the force on that accessory and the force will be applied onto the chest behind that radio. This is not a helpful outcome.
So while police are busy telling regular citizens to wear their seat-belts they do not tell those citizens that wearing a seat-belt is insufficient for their safety. Citizens, like police, need to understand that the word “properly” is just as important as the word “wear”. Not only must you wear your seat-belt but you must ensure that it is in a proper position and orientation so that it protect you from harm.
Police Conclude Driver Mistook Brake For Accelerator Pedal in London Pedestrian Fatal Crash
Some useful details have been revealed in the trial of Metronella McNorgan whose high-speed vehicle killed an eight-year-old pedestrian on November 30, 2021 in London Ontario. News media have reported partial results from a Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) report submitted by the crown alleging McNorgan unintentionally stepped on the accelerator pedal while mistaking it for the brake pedal. This caused her Honda CRV to reach a speed of 121 km/h along Riverside Drive in London.
News media reported that Constable Bradly Yeo was the analyst who conducted the assessment of the data contained in the CDR report. He indicated that the accelerator pedal had been pushed 99 per cent of the way to the floor in the five seconds before the Honda Struck a lamp standard which triggered the recording.
Interestingly it was reported that stability control features in the vehicle activated two seconds before the vehicle struck the lamp standard and this slowed it to 103 km/h. If the Honda was only travelling 103 km/h when it struck the lamp standard then the reported 121 km/h speed must have occurred sometime before, and presumably before the so-called stability control features took effect. If there was only 5-seconds of pre-crash recording then the seconds 5 to 3 seconds before impact were the ones in which the Honda was travelling at 121 km/h, and then the speed was reduced to 103 km/h in the remaining 2 seconds, without the aid of any braking. But this speed reduction would have to occur when the accelerator pedal was pushed 99 per cent of the way to the floor. If braking was not applied then the only way that the Honda reduced its speed is by the stability control system taking over and over-riding the accelerator pedal application. When stability control is activated its purpose is to prevent a vehicle from rotating sideways and this is achieved by applying varying levels of braking to certain wheels so the vehicle points in the direction its travelling. That is an important observation.
During the 2 seconds leading up to the impact with the lamp standard the Honda’s speed was being reduced by about 10 km/h every second and this translates to a rate of deceleration of about .28g. As a comparison, drivers approaching a stop sign typically brake at a rate of .25g. And maximum braking can achieve a deceleration of .7g or higher.
So, to summarize, the police believe that, even though the accelerator pedal was pushed fully to the floor, the stability control system took control and, rather than allowing an acceleration, its caused the Honda to slow down from 121 to 103 km/h before the impact with the lamp standard. Unfortunately news media have not divulged the full contents of the CDR report so it is difficult to conclude whether the conclusions reported by the crown are correct.
It is expected that the defense will call their own expert witness and further conclusions may be made about the CDR data.
You must be logged in to post a comment.