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.
Once Again Body of Deceased Not Found By investigating Police
The public should have a right to know why police fail to locate the body of a deceased in a motor vehicle collision. But such explanations are not being provided.
In a detailed article (“Missing Fatality – But Still No Useful Details Revealed”) posted November 14, 2025 on this Gorski Consulting website we reported on a fatal collision of November 1, 2025 at the intersection of Chinguacousy Road and Queen Street in Brampton where investigating police failed to identify that the body of a deceased was in one of the colliding vehicles. In that article we made the following comment:
“What should be concluded from the above discussion about historical methods of collision reconstruction is that, in order to conduct a properly scientific analysis of a collision, vehicle interiors must be included in that analysis and examined in detail. When a proper examination of the interior of a collision-involved vehicle is conducted there should be no reason for an injured occupant in that vehicle to be unidentified. What led to the lack of identification of a deceased inside a vehicle has not been explained. Beyond police, medical personnel and even fire department personnel have responsibilities for identifying occupants in a damaged vehicle and why their failures occurred also needs to be revealed. Up to now there has been no photo posted of a reasonable quality that could reveal the extent of damage to the Honda Civic and provide some explanation as to why no one detected the deceased passenger.”
Subsequent to these comments the official news media revealed that the body of another deceased driver was also not identified by investigating police in the Ottawa area. The following excerpt is provided from the Ontario SIU report:
“On the evening of January 23, 2026, the man drove a Dodge Caravan southbound on Bank Street. His blood alcohol concentration was more than twice the legal limit. Approximately five seconds before the collision, his vehicle was travelling at about 170 km/h on Bank Street, approaching Morningside Avenue in a 60 km/h zone. The man lost control of the Caravan. South of Morningside Avenue, the vehicle crossed into the northbound lane and shoulder before entering the snow-covered east-side ditch. The man was ejected from the vehicle and suffered catastrophic injuries that resulted in his death. The time was about 8:20 p.m.
At about 9:43 p.m., a passing motorist stopped at the collision and subsequently called 911. Officers were dispatched to the scene at about 10:13 p.m. After searching the vehicle and the surrounding area without locating anyone, they left the scene at about 11 p.m.
The following morning, after receiving a call from the man’s wife reporting that her husband had not returned home from work, the police service dispatched an officer to the collision scene. Upon arrival, the officer located the man’s body partially buried in the snow-covered ditch several metres from the Caravan.
Based on the SIU’s preliminary inquiries, including review of video footage that captured the incident in part and the results of the postmortem examination, Director Martino was satisfied the investigation should be discontinued. At autopsy, the pathologist attributed the man’s death to multiple blunt force injuries, and explained that given the nature of those injuries, the man would have been deceased by the time the first officers arrived at the scene following the collision. On this record, there being no reason to believe that any officer caused or contributed to the man’s death, the SIU was without statutory jurisdiction to investigate the incident.
That said, Director Martino identified what appeared to be evidence of misconduct by the officers who initially attended the scene in connection with their investigation of the collision, in contravention of section 19 of the Police Code of Conduct. Director Martino will be referring the matter to the Ottawa Police Service Chief of Police and, further to section 35.1 of the Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency.“
There are obvious problems when “evidence of misconduct” by police becomes public knowledge but no explanation is given as to what the misconduct entails. The details of this misconduct should not be kept within the secretive confines some tribunal. Persons who read or hear of such things come to distrust the the operations of police and those who oversee them. Incidents labelled as “errors” may or may not be so depending on the details of each incident. Leaving the present matter secret and unexplained helps no one.
E-Bike Fatal Collision in London Ontario – Continued Lack of Transparency
Not unexpectedly, another fatal collision involving a cyclist riding an e-bike occurred in London, Ontario on May 15, 2026 and there has been no disclosure about its location, who died, or anything about how the collision occurred. This collision was not publicly reported until May 19, 2026 , or 4 days after the occurrence, when official news media prepared articles from a London Police news release.
The location of the collision was described as in the area of Brydges and Egerton Streets in east London. There are cycling lanes on both of these roads in the described area. Googlemaps views of the area are shown in the following photos.
Some views of the area are shown below, taken the morning of May 20, 2026.
Again, there has been no information released by the London City Police about this collision. Not even basic information such as the travel directions of the involved vehicles. No description was given of the vehicle that was involved in the impact with the fatally injured cyclist. There are public safety repercussions that are created when cyclists and motor vehicle drivers are left in the dark about how such collisions occur.
With the absence of any information about the actual collision, based on our review of thousands of serious collisions, it is possible to consider some of the characteristics at this intersection and to comment on what issues could pose safety problems to cyclists.
Brydges Street has been redesigned in recent years through the creation of new cycling lanes. This is something that has been incorporated from the intersection of Clarke Road which is about 3.7 kilometres east of the collision site. Egerton Street has also seen the installation of cycling lanes in recent years. So there has been an increase in the number of cyclists using Brydges and Egerton as a path to other destinations in the City of London.
There are several safety problems along these roadways that are not unique but are just a manifestation of what goes on whenever cycling lanes are installed, regardless of the specific location. A common problem that is never discussed in official circles is that, whenever there is a change in direction of a roadway or cycling lane, bad things can happen. This is not something new. Decades of investigations of motor vehicle collisions in the vicinity of southern Ontario have shown that, Whenever a horizonal curve exists there is a greater potential of a serious collision. This is just a recognition that drivers of motor vehicles must make adjustments to their steering, braking and acceleration in curves which they do not need to do on a straight and level roadway. Well, for cyclists the issue is no different. Cyclists experience the same difficulties. But when you combine the difficulties of drivers of motor vehicles along with the difficulties of cyclists this magnifies the potential for disaster. These comments are exemplified in the following cyclist observation at the Brydges-Egerton collision site.
The actions of the eastbound cyclist shown in these photos is typical of what often occurs within horizontal curves. Cyclists do not maintain a precise, centre position within a cycling lane and this wandering can lead to a conflict with a motor vehicle approaching from the rear. Drivers of motor vehicles also experience the same difficulties.
While we often believe that roadway markings are straight this is not always the case. As our eastbound cyclist continues travelling to the east we can see, in the photo below, a typical roadway marking that deviates from a straight line. Deviations like these can place cyclists and passing motor vehicles in conflict.
Another emerging problem in local design of cycling lanes is the “Green Zone” shown below. Cyclists travelling westbound on Brydges Street are directed to travel within the exclusive Green Zone if they intend to turn right at the upcoming T-intersection. The obvious problem is that drivers of motor vehicles who intend to turn right must cross through that green zone in order to enter the right turn lane. This places cyclists in dangerous situations where they ride “into the path” of a faster-moving motor vehicle. Such an arrangement is ripe for misjudgment errors both both cyclists and motor vehicle drivers.
One of the key elements to collision causation is the phrase “violation of expectation” and this can apply to the current site. Drivers are rarely taught that their driving (or cycle riding) must be predictable to others. When we violate someone’s expectation of what we do we become a safety hazard. However, in some instances, the design of roadways and vehicles can be the accelerant to violations of expectation.
At the current site there are no restrictions to what types of cycles use the cycling lane. And therefore the speed of cyclists varies. A young or elderly rider using a pedal bicycle may travel at average speeds below 18 km/h and sometimes much lower.
Faster-moving cyclists can sometimes be detected by the style of the cycle and what the cyclist is wearing. So someone riding a road bike with riding gear can sometimes be detected by drivers of motor vehicles as someone who could be riding quickly. And this becomes important when cycles and motor vehicles approach an area where they must cross paths such as at the current site.
However we are seeing more and more riders of e-bikes and some of these are difficult to differentiate from a standard pedal bicycle. Sometimes one must look very closely for some evidence of a battery to recognize an e-bike. However the driver of a motor vehicle approaching from the rear is unlikely to detect whether such a battery exists and so they will find it difficult to detect that they are approaching an e-bike. The problem is that the speed of e-bikes is not correlated with the experience and abilities of the rider. Whereas a rider of a road bike often has greater experience and ability in order to travel at a higher speed, an e-bike rider does not. E-bike riders can be of any age or ability and their speed is only governed by what adjustment they make to their throttle. And this is an emerging problem. Yet our observational data has shown that e-bike speeds are higher than the speed of almost all pedal bicycles. While, officially, e-bike speeds must be below 32 km/h, the reality is that many e-bikes are manipulated to attain higher speeds.
Accompanying this problem with e-bikes, is an additional problem that has existed for decades with respect to differences in motor vehicles. There is no restriction as to what kind of motor vehicle can drive along Egerton or Brydges Street. While some vehicles can be small, some can also be large. With large vehicles there has always been a problem with proper visibility of smaller motor vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians in their vicinity. Drivers of large trucks such as a tractor-trailer or dump truck have special difficulties seeing objects near their right sides.
Numerous examples have been created in past cases where poor visibility has been shown to exist for drivers of heavy trucks. One example is shown in the three dated photos below.
The unfortunate reality is that, unless someone has some experience in driving a heavy vehicle, such visibility limitations are not understood.
Combining these facts we can consider what might happen if an e-bike was westbound on Brydges Street and approaching the Green Zone. At the same time we can consider that a truck is approaching the e-bike from behind. The driver of the large truck does not know that the cycle is an e-bike but a decision must be made whether to pass by the e-bike, cross over the Green Zone and then enter the right-turn lane. And this is where the “violation of expectation” comes into effect. The truck driver may not appreciate that the cycle is an e-bike which could be travelling much faster than a typical pedal bicycle. Believing that there is sufficient time and distance to pass a “slower moving” pedal bicycle the truck driver proceeds to make the passing maneuver and then steers to the right, across the Green Zone, into the right turn lane. The driver of the truck may not have a good view of where the e-bike is located when the two are side-by-side because of the limitations that truck drivers have in observing objects just to the right of the truck. Meanwhile the rider of the e-bike may no be aware that this truck will be crossing into where the cycle is travelling. And so the right side of the truck makes contact with the e-bike. This can result in the fatal consequences to the rider of the e-bike.
We know nothing about whether such a scenario played out in the collision of May 15, 2026. And neither will any other driver in London nor any other cyclist. The officials who know how this collision occurred have deemed it appropriate to keep this information from the public. There are several articles posted on the Gorski Consulting website where it has been shown that, over the years, nothing of substance has ever been revealed in the recent cyclist fatalities that have occurred in London. Nothing of substance has ever been provided to the drivers of motor vehicles or to cyclists about the specific dangers that could involve them in a fatal cyclist collision. And there are numerous collisions involving cyclist injuries that are never publicly reported. In fact police are not obligated to file a collision report involving a cyclist unless a motor vehicle was involved. So there is no public information about how cyclist collisions are occurring. This lack of transparency has repercussions. While the public propaganda refers to catchy phrases such as Vision Zero, it has been said before on this website that the reality is Zero Vision – we chose to keep the public blind about the causes of collisions that are killing and injuring them.
Dingman-Highbury Collisions And Persistent Lack of Transparency
The London CTV News agency posted an article on its website on May 7, 2026 containing comments about the safety of an intersection from a resident, Ilan Tipping, who lives near the intersection of Highbury Ave and Dingman Drive in south-east London, Ontario. In part the title of the article included the phrase ‘Municipal laws don’t matter when people are being killed’. The article went on to the resident’s comments that “This intersection is crazy” and “It’s just gotten worse”.
Another segment of comments from Tipping was noted as follows”
“I’ve warned the city about this corner, and they just brush me off about it, they say it’s not that important,” said Tipping. “I talked to the city about the speed here and they said, ‘Oh they follow municipal laws;’ municipal laws don’t matter when people are being killed.”
Comments like these are nothing new. Agencies like CTV News create such articles and post comments of residents at numerous sites across the City of London. In many of these postings the persons making the comments believe the collision site is the worst and most dangerous they have ever seen, or something of that nature. And sometimes the publicity generated by CTV News causes politicians or local police to provide short comments containing minimal or no valuable information related to the safety of a particular site.
In fact, just because someone claims that a site is dangerous does not make it so. It could be just someone given a microphone who has a strong opinion but not necessarily an accurate one. So how does one know whether someone’s comments are describing a factually dangerous site or whether someone is just “broadcasting” nonsense?
The CTV News article continued with comments made by London Mayor Josh Morgan and the focus of the discussion diverted to the fact that there were discussions in place with the Province of Ontario to make this portion of Highbury Ave a provincial highway. Thus the meaning of this discussion is that if Highbury Ave became a provincial highway the safety problems at the the Dingman-Highbury intersection would be solved.
The CTV article indicated Morgan’s belief that“If the plan does not come to fruition, Morgan says the city would consider making safety improvements to the intersection following proper assessment.” And this is where the discussion becomes unreasonable. The Province’s take over of Highbury Ave would take years to complete, even if it became a reality. If there is a genuine safety problem at the Dingman-Highbury intersection actions to deal it cannot be reasonably delayed for many years. As Mr. Tipping properly indicated “something needs to be done sooner rather than later”.
The interview with Mayor Morgan made references to a “proper assessment” and Morgan referred to looking at traffic volumes, collision history and pedestrian movements. Combined with Mr. Tipping’s reference to “municipal laws” it appears both persons were referring to the guidelines contained in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) although not stating so. There are several reference documents that provide guidelines for assessing intersection safety however it is known from the past that officials at the City of London refer to the OTM. Proper assessment must include the gathering of traffic data that must be performed at relevant days of the week, relevant seasons and also relevant times of a day. However this is only the beginning. The assessment must be performed by someone experienced in collision reconstruction because factors that influence the causation of a collision are not readily recognizable. Even when such data is gathered it requires an unbiased analysis that does not always occur. The guidelines in the OTM are not chiseled in stone and their application must be balanced with the unique conditions that exist at every collision site.
In recent years the City of London has begun installing mobile video systems at the intersections of its roadways. This spring these actions appear to have intensified. This activity is low key and not publicly disclosed. Use of such systems often involves an agreement with a private vendor and that relationship between the City of London and the vendor also has not been made public. Accompanied by AI technology such video can capture very detailed data on the activities of any vehicles or pedestrians within its range.
If such a portable video installation was placed at the intersection of Dingman Drive and Highbury Ave a large amount of detailed and useful data could be obtained that could provide the basis for determining the safety of the intersection. Yet this has not been done. Up to now the City of London has not acknowledged the existence of these video systems nor have the City’s employees provided any information about what data it has obtained from these systems.
Some Observations From the Dingman- Highbury Site
Review of historical records indicates that a fatal collision occurred at this intersection of August 14, 2023. Gorski Consulting visited the site later that day and posted a website article shortly afterward on what was found.
Data shows that CTV News posted several short articles about that collision and it also described a Dingman Drive resident “Allan Tipping” whose name is very similar to the name given in the recent CTV News article. At that time Tipping was described as part of a neighbourhood group called the Shaver Brockley Coalition. At that time Tipping expressed similar comments about the roadway “gone crazy now“. Tipping indicated “We’ve asked the city to street lights, we’ve asked them to reduce the speed”. Thus information indicates that problems at the Dingman-Highbury intersection have been known to the City.
Given this news, Gorski Consulting decided to attend the collision site to obtain some information about the unidentified collision that occurred on May 6, 2026. We attended near the evening rush hour on May 8th. The photo below shows a view of the Dingman-Highbury intersection taken at the time of our arrival.
I observed that a memorial had been placed on the north-west roadside of the intersection as noted in the above photo. Closer inspection showed that the memorial was dedicated to Erynn Mariee Organ.
The plac at the memorial is shown below.
This plac seemed to indicate that Organ passed away on May 3, 2020 and the location of the memorial suggested that the death occurred at or near the Dingman-Highbury intersection. I did not recall that I heard/read of this death so I referred to that date in my collection of historical collision data.
The only information I could retrieve was with respect to a news article published by Dale Carruthers of the London Free Press on May 4, 2020, entitled “Two motorcyclists killed in crashes in London”. The only reference to a collision at the Dingman-Highbury site was the sentence in the article as noted below:
“A 30-year-old woman motorcyclist died in hospital after a single-vehicle crash at Dingman Drive and Highbury Avenue about 1:45 p.m. Sunday, police said.“
The name of the deceased motorcyclist was never revealed as it was indicated that police had not released that information. And no information was provided as to how the collision occurred, only that it involved the single motorcycle. The words on Organ’s memorial plac indicated “never forgotten” but it seems she was forgotten to all officials responsible for the site’s safety. If not for the memorial and plac no one would know that this collision ever occurred.
Having arrived at the site it only took me a few minutes to observe the evidence that the collision-involved tractor-trailer had been southbound and travelled into the ditch on the east side of Highbury just south of Dingman. There was a long length of tire skid-marks produced by the tractor-trailer that began in the intersection and progressed towards the truck’s final rest position.
Normally, when a vehicle is struck in an intersection there is an obvious area of gouges which indicates the general area of the point of impact. In this instance I identified several areas of fresh “scrapes” which did not identify a precise point of impact. Such evidence is odd and cannot be resolved without more information from the police investigation.
My next action was to determine if any other vehicle was struck. Typically I would expect that a vehicle would be travelling either eastbound or westbound on Dingman and would have been struck by the tractor-trailer. The actual evidence I observed was more complicated. There was obvious evidence visible along the west roadside of Highbury Ave, south of Dingman, where a vehicle had produced a long, curving, set of yaw marks in the grass, as shown in the photo below.
Such evidence would not be particularly unusual except that it would not be consistent with a vehicle that was travelling on Dingman and crossing Highbury when it was struck.
Because of the long length of tire marks in the grass the vehicle had to be travelling at a substantial speed in a southbound direction. And if it had originally been travelling either east or west on Dingman this high southbound speed could not be explained. So it is my view that the Honda vehicle was not part of the collision with the tractor-trailer or, if it was, then it was not travelling on Dingman Drive before the impact.
There was other evidence of collisions at the intersection as evidenced in the pile of debris near the guardrail shown below.
In summary there is a lack of transparency that continues to plague the functioning of local officials when it comes to assessment of road safety in London, Ontario. At the Dingman-Highbury site there is evidence that major collisions have been occurring but there has been little or no information made public about them.
With respect to the fatal collision that occurred on August 14, 2023 nothing was revealed by investigating police other than that a commercial vehicle was involved, there was a fatality, and that another vehicle was also involved. With respect to the fatal motorcyclist collision that occurred on May 3, 2020 nothing was mentioned by police as to how it occurred and/or whether it was related to the Dingman-Highbury intersection. And with respect to the most current collision of the tractor-trailer on May 6, 2026 nothing was revealed about how the collision occurred. Collision debris at the Dingman-Highbury intersection indicates that other collisions have occurred there and again nothing has been revealed about those collisions. How officials respond, or do not respond, has a bearing on how matters under civil litigation become adjudicated if a civil suit is launched if road safety is not properly addressed.
In a recent (February 9, 2026) letter to her colleagues, City Councillor for Ward 7, Corrine Rahman, made the following request:
“I am looking for your support in requesting that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to petitions and requests for traffic calming measures on neighbourhood connectors and neighbourhood streets:
a) review and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on:
i. a jurisdictional scan of peer municipalities’ processes for receiving traffic calming petitions and requests, including how those processes are communicated to residents;
ii. an assessment of how the City of London communicates with residents who submit traffic calming petitions or requests, with a view to improving clarity around the process and providing timely information updates;
iii. options to improve the quality and frequency of information reported to Council Members regarding traffic calming requests received, studies undertaken, and upcoming projects within their ward; and
b) provide updates to the Councillors and committee on approved traffic calming projects, the completion of a project, and any other pertinent information.
As traffic calming initiatives continue to be a key component of neighbourhood safety, ensuring that residents and Councillors have access to timely, transparent, and easily understood information is essential. Improved communication will help manage expectations, strengthen public engagement, and ensure confidence in the process.“
The wording in the above letter refers to “traffic calming” and does not fully address the issue of traffic safety of which traffic calming is only a partial and potential solution. While this motion was passed by London’s City Council at its meeting of March 3, 2026, I remain skeptical that the true issues will be properly addressed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.