School Transportation Reform Requested But Nothing Said About Relevance To Five-Fatal collision
On October 9, 2026 the local CTV News channel in London, Ontario posted a detailed article about the need for school transportation and grief counselling reform. This was related to a collision that occurred on May 23, 2025 at the intersection of Thorndale Road and Cobble Hills Road north-east of London, Ontario. What little is known about the collision is that an SUV driven by school teacher Mat Eckert was travelling northbound on Cobble Hills Road when it entered the intersection with Cobble Hills road just as a westbound “transport truck” approaching. The subsequent collision caused the death off Eckert as well as all of its four school-age passengers.
No useful information was revealed by either police or official news media that could explain how and why the collision occurred. That lack of transparency led Gorski Consulting to attend the collision site on June 1, 2025 and an article was posted on this Gorski Consulting website about our findings on June 8, 2025. Some of the physical evidence was presented and explained however this led to more questions than answers. Even when a transport truck is involved it is rare that a collision would result in the death of all five SUV occupants unless the impact was extremely severe. Yet the physical evidence at the site did support this notion of an extremely severe collision. Yet even basic information about the collision was kept from the public’s knowledge. Nothing can be learned from this tragedy if no information is available to consider.
Over the past year there were several articles posted about the identity of the collision victims, but again, nothing was written about the collision or how we could prevent a similar tragedy. There was a recent attempt however to address the safety issue in the CTV News article of October 9th. In that article Jessica Ford, the mother of one of the collision victims, Kaydance, was asking for reforms to how school children will be transported for school events in the future. It was reported that Jessica wrote a fourteen-point letter to the Bluewater District School Board in which she requested that all transportation for school bus activities involve a school bus.
What is interesting in the CTV News article is that “… she holds no blame towards Coach Eckert”. Yet it was Eckert’s SUV that was controlled by a stop sign while the transport truck’s direction of travel was uncontrolled. And there was no indication that the transport truck driver was ever charged as a result of the collision. So was someone at fault for causing the collision? In the Gorski Consulting article we presented evidence that the line of sight was restricted by some large signs and some trees but we were not in a position to conduct an investigation whether those were a contributing factors in the collision. But the lack of official discussion about this is loudly silent.
The use of school buses for transportation of students is not always an efficient solution. In the case of transporting just five passengers a full-size school would have many empty seats. A small-size school bus might be suitable but then how much different would the collision consequences have been if such a smaller bus was struck by the transport truck? Obviously what we need is details about the collision to understand what might be the best solution. It is a common thread on this Gorski Consulting website that secrecy is an enemy of public safety.
Police Vehicle Impact of cyclist on Hamilton Road in East London Ontario
Little is known about the cyclist collision that occurred on Hamilton Road in east London, Ontario this morning which involved a London City Police SUV. It has been reported that the collision occurred at approximately 0630 hours thus it would have been fully dark at the time. There is no information about the level of injury sustained by the cyclist and this may be revealed but given the lack of transparency in previous cyclist collisions that is not guaranteed.
The above photo shows that the cycle is lying largely in the eastbound passing lane of Hamilton Road therefore it would be unlikely that the cyclist was travelling near the south edge of the eastbound lane near the curb. Rather, it is likely that the cycle was somewhere within the eastbound passing lane when it was struck. This would be consistent with the stopped position of the police vehicle which is in the eastbound passing lane. If the police vehicle had been travelling quickly when it struck the cycle it likely would have passed the final rest position of the cycle but this did not happen. Also the damage to the cycle does not appear to be severe. Unfortunately none of this can foretell what the cyclist’s injuries might be because even minor impacts can cause serious or fatal injuries. Helmet use is a critical factor in cyclist protection but our studies show that many cyclist’s on Hamilton Road do not wear helmets.
Gorski Consulting has expressed concerns over the safety of cyclists on Hamilton Road for several years. There have been three fatal collisions on this road in the last few years but nothing has been revealed to the public, or cyclists, as to how those collisions occurred and what factors might have led to the collisions.
Our concern has led us to focus our cyclist documentations specifically on Hamilton Road and we are close to completing a five-year study that will be completed at the end of 2026. We have just completed three-quarters of the year’s observations at the end of September and so far we have made a total of 1166 cyclist observations. A number of those observations were in the area where the present collision occurred.
UPDATE: October 11, 2026 1300 Hours
While updating our records we observed that on October 1, 2026 we documented a cyclist riding westbound on the north sidewalk of Hamilton Road just west of Chelsey Ave. We have attached two photos (below) of the male, riding a white bicycle and not wearing a helmet.
it is unknown whether our photos depict the same rider who was struck by the police SUV. However the features of the bike are very similar. Note that the rider is not wearing a helmet. The above photos were taken at approximately 1122 hours on October 1, 2026 or about six days before the collision occurred.
46 Years Since First Investigation of A Fatal Collision
On October 1, 1980 I conducted my first investigation of a fatal collision. That was also my first day of employment with the University of Western Ontario Multi-disciplinary Accident Research Team.
At that time the “Research Team” had completed contracts issued with Transport Canada which involved them in the Multi-disciplinary Accident Investigation program. A new contract was going to involve the Team with a new Light Truck and Van (LTV) Study. The LTV study eventually continued for a period of 3 1/2 years. While the LTV study was being set up in the fall of 1980 the person who used to run its day-to-day operations, Len Thomas, had left the team and was replaced by Dr. Alan German. The overseer of the team throughout its inception continued to be Professor Edwin Nowak. Throughout my ten year involvement with the Team, Dr. Robert Green remained its medical consultant.
One might recall that in 1966 the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was formed and this coincided with the creation of Transport Canada’s Road Safety Branch. Jim Bancroft led Transport Canada’s Collision Investigation Division while Paul Marriner directed the Defects Investigation Division. The UWO team was to support the programs of both the Accident Investigation and the Defect Investigations divisions of Transport Canada. The UWO Accident Research Team was one of 10 similar teams based throughout Canada, essentially one team per province. In the U.S. NHTSA formed 50 similar teams, one in each state.
In 1980 Alan German and myself became the primary, full-time field investigators with the Team. We also had a full-time secretary. A part-time person handled some portions of the field work and conducted interviews of collision-involved persons. There also were periodic hiring of students from the Engineering Department primarily during the summers. There was also the involvement of “Fourth-Year” Engineering students who would be conducting various road safety studies incompliance with their final-year course obligations.
I recall on October 1, 1980 we obtained notification, possibly from investigating police or through Dr. Green, of the fatality of a young female driver of a Toyota Corolla. This had been a major frontal impact but there was an unusual injury to the back of her head which was perplexing given that there was no other impact and there was apparently nothing loose in the vehicle interior that could have struck her. I recall Alan and I drove out to the Oxford Truck towing facility on Highway 2 just to the east of London to conduct an examination of the Toyota. Alan had previously being involved with the Team’s MDAI program and he had also been involved in a seat-belt effectiveness study so he already had some experience with vehicle examinations. However this was my first examination of a serious collision-involved vehicle. While we examined the interior including its seat-belt we puzzled over how the severe head injury could have occurred. Dr. Robert Green had mentioned a “contrecoup” injury mechanism whereby a severe deceleration of head could cause the brain to pulled forward inside the skull such that the brain would be “torn” away from the back of the skull and gave the appearance of a blow to the back of a head. However, in Dr. Green’s view, this was not such a mechanism. After much deliberation we never came to resolve how this injury occurred. For many years, while discussing various matters, Alan and I would sometimes come back to that mysterious injury, sometimes thinking of new possibilities, especially as our experience in injury mechanisms grew. It was for many years after I left the Team that I would go back to thoughts about that initial investigation and what could have been the source of that head injury.
On one particular occasion, many years later, I happened to be watching the results of a typical crash test into a rigid barrier that was often conducted by NHTSA, Transport Canada, and others. The instrumented dummy moved forward in the vehicle interior and then sprung back and the back of the dummy’s head struck the interior of the left B-pillar near the seat-belt D-ring. The accelerometer data showed that this was not a minor impact to the back of the head and this was the eye-opening moment when I thought that I finally discovered how that young female sustained her fatal head injury so many years previous. That D-ring area in not protected and is stiff, perhaps because designers did not think this could be the source of a serious head injury. It just so happened that the investigation of my first fatal collision proved to be the one that was most difficult to unravel, more than the thousands of collisions I investigated since.
It goes to show that when are perplexed by some investigative mystery it might take a long time to finally solve it. But there are also those times when those mysteries are never solved.
A Dangerous Barrier That Makes No Sense
A couple of days ago a local resident sent an e-mail to Gorski Consulting with respect to his concerns regarding a barrier that was installed along the sides of a path used by pedestrians, cyclists and other similar users. The path was located adjacent to the Greenway Pollution Plant in London, Ontario. The path was very short and connected the end of Wildwood Ave to the popular Thames Valley Trail called the “Terry Fox Parkway” in this area of the City.
The resident attached several photos of the path and he described the difficult communications he was having with the staff of the City of London. His main concern was that a set of posts had been installed along the edges of the path and the position of the posts was not in alignment with the guidelines of the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) as well as the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 18 dealing with cycling facilities. His concern was that the posts were too close to the edge of the path and therefore could be struck by cyclists. He explained that the contacts he had with a City staff member were not helpful and that “…sounds like he doesn’t want to have anything to do with me”. The resident also reported the matter to the local elected politician in his ward “but she seems to be remaining neutral on the subject”.
What I observed in the resident’s photos was unbelievable and it caused me to attend the site which I did on the morning of September 29, 2026. The above photo was taken on a westward approach to the path. The clean new posts are seen on both sides and in the distance the path makes a turn to the left (south). Between the posts on each side of the path was a single cable. Because of the incredible circumstances I purposely positioned my bicycle against one of the posts and against the cable as shown in the photo below.
I asked my wife, who is not a safety or barrier expert, to look at my photos and to tell me if she saw anything there that was wrong. She quickly replied “The cable is on the wrong side of the posts”. Not much hesitation. The cable is on the wrong side of the post. And this was not an expert opinion. But let us look at this further along.
As can be seen in the next photo the path makes a sharp turn to the left (south). And we see that the posts and cable are as they were except for a few bracing supports near where the path makes the sharp turn.
If go past the curve and turn around, the next photo shows the curve of the path coming from the other direction.
Anyone with any collision reconstruction experience would recognize that the probability of a collision increases at locations where there is a curve. It is just a simple understanding that, if we are following a straight road or path there is not much adjustment needed in our braking or steering. But on a curve we have to use some judgment and this eventually leads to some miscalculations and thus more collisions. But at this location the curve is not just gradual. There is a sharp curve here which could lead to riders of bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters to some miscalculations and therefore a loss-of-control incident.
A good, general and theoretical question to ask is “What is the purpose of a barrier adjacent to any public roadway or path?” Roadside barriers are installed as safety devices. They are installed to increase the safety of the users. It would seem to be an indication of insanity to go through the expense of installing a road or path barrier if it is not to increase the safety of the road/path users. So what harms is the existence of a barrier meant to reduce?
Often barriers attempt to keep users away from striking something that is large and immovable, such as a tree, large pole, rock or building that, if struck, would cause the motor vehicle, bicycle or other vehicle to come to a sudden and more severe stop. One must understand that it is the sudden loss in speed (velocity) that is the harmful event.
The other harmful circumstance is if there is a dangerous roadside, such as a steep and/or deep embankment or cliff, that would cause greater harm if users exited the surface of the road/path.
At this juncture it would be helpful to examine the photos shown above. Where are the trees, poles, rocks, buildings or steep and deep embankments that would threaten a user if one were to exit this path? It is a simple answer, there are essentially no such dangers. Or very minimal dangers.
Next, let us look at what kind of users are likely to be on this path. Pedestrians for sure. And likely bicyclists. And then there would also be riders of e-bikes and e-scooters. With respect to pedestrians, do we seriously believe that a pedestrian would be moving so fast that, if they were running or tripped, they would benefit from a barrier? Clearly not. Bicyclists and, even more so, riders of e-bikes and e-scooters could be of some danger if they exited the path but given the relatively benign sides next to the path serious injury would be minimized. But what would happen if any these last few users actually struck the barrier that we see in these photos? Do we understand what could be the injury consequences?
We can see my bicycle placed against the barrier in several of the above photos. Imagine someone sitting on that bicycle when the barrier is struck and what would be the likely consequences. Much has to do with speed. How fast would the bicyclist, e-biker or e-scooter rider be riding when the barrier is struck. Most bicyclists would be travelling below 20 km/h and, given the sharp curve, their speed would be lower. Riders of e-bikes and e-scooters on the other hand would likely be travelling faster. However, regardless, how would the features of this barrier improve the injury consequences of any of these riders if they were to strike the barrier? If the rider struck the narrow cable would that be a good idea? Likely the portion of body contact would be with the thigh or hip area of the rider. But this could be close to the centre-of-gravity of the body. So could the body be suddenly brought to a halt from impacting the cable? Even at 15 km/h such an impact could be catastrophic because the cable could ride onto the vulnerable abdomen of the rider and there are major, unprotected organs there.
However what if the cable was struck at an acute angle such that a rider would experience the “benign” result of scraping along the cable until the rider struck one of the posts. Look at where the cable is anchored with respect to each post. It is anchored to the backside of each post, as easily observed by my untrained wife. Does that make the slightest bit off sense? Just take a ride in your car anywhere in North America, or anywhere else, and look at all the millions of miles/kilometres of barriers along the roadsides. Do any of these barriers contain a longitudinal cable, w-beam or whatever, that is anchored to the backside of any anchorage? Precisely not. Because that would be an indication of design insanity. The purpose of such cables, w-beams, etc. is so that striking vehicles slide along and gradually reduce speed without any sudden “snag” that brings a vehicle to a sudden stop. It is these sudden decelerations that injure and kill people. But even my untrained wife knew that.
However how can you explain this to staff at the transportation department at the City of London? These people are the ones installing things like this but there appears to be no way of speaking to them or stopping them, as explained by the resident who initially made me aware of this barrier problem. Incidentally, while riding to the site of this barrier, I came across another “interesting” barrier as shown in the photo below.
The rocks in the above photo were placed at the edge of the main Thames Valley Trail. There is no lighting in this area. And look how closely the shade of the rocks matches the shade of the path beneath them. At night, and without any artificial illumination in the area, could a rider of a bicycle, e-bike or e-scooter easily detect the presence of the rocks? And this installation was only a short distance from the post and cable barrier we have been discussing.
There are no words to express the lack of logic demonstrated in these installations. And I, as well as the unidentified resident, have no way of stopping this. The number of bicyclists, e-bike riders and e-scooter riders that are involved in collisions in London is never revealed. And how those riders sustained there injuries is never revealed. That information likely exists in the records of police, hospital emergency departments and City of London staff. But that information is never shared with the public nor with those persons who are likely to be injured and killed.
News About Road Rage More Important Than Inappropriate Barrier Crossing?
It was recently reported that the female driver of a Tesla car was found guilty of being involved in a road rage incident on Highway 400 near Simcoe Road 89 north of Toronto. Alicia Beerdat reportedly pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death after she interfered with a Chevrolet Equinox that attempted to pass her using the left shoulder of the “fast lane”. It was described that both drivers had been weaving and interfering with each other prior to the final result when the Equinox travelled through the median barrier and was struck by a pick-up truck travelling in the other direction.
It is revealing how the results of collisions are often described with incomplete focus on the factors that matter. While it is important to inform the public about incidents of road rage, other issues, such as suspect road barrier performance, is also important. No one has mentioned that the concrete barrier shown in the above photo is there to protect from vehicles crossing into the opposing lanes of a major expressway such as Highway 400. The barrier is designed to deflect an impacting vehicle and keep it scraping along the barrier until the vehicle comes to a gradual stop. We ought to know that some large and tall vehicles can sometimes tip over such a barrier and rollover but even then there is substantial contact with the barrier. Thus occupants of heavy trucks and large buses are in danger when this occurs. Such bad results are rarely discussed.
However a Chevrolet Equinox is not a large or tall vehicle. A barrier like this was likely tested with this type of vehicle in mind. So what happened? This is something that official news media ought to be aware of, they should question police investigators and this should be reported to the public.
You must be logged in to post a comment.