Police Photos of Adelaide Street Collision Released – Further Evaluation Now Possible
In an unprecedented action London City Police released some useful photos of the collision that occurred between a pick-up truck and a Tesla passenger car on November 26, 2025 on Adelaide Street near Victoria Street in London, Ontario. This is a rare, helpful action as it allows the public to obtain a further understanding of such collisions. In almost all serious collisions in London such helpful actions by its city police service never occurs.
Background
Collision reconstruction is a complex affair that requires the analysis of good quality evidence. In the thousands of collisions examined for over 40 years, Zygmunt Gorski has had the opportunity to review all the details of a police investigation, including their, notes, measurements and photographs. Accompanying this it has been possible to examine the collision sites and involved vehicles to collect evidence independent of those police investigations. But those actions have occurred when Gorski was either employed to conduct investigations for Transport Canada, or has been officially retained by some party in a civil litigation matter or related to some criminal charges. It is a different affair when the news of a collision is published by a news agency where the quality and quantity of useful evidence is scarce, or sometimes non-existent.
When the collision on Adelaide Street occurred there was essentially no useful evidence to review. Some long distance photos from news media provided some indication that a significant collision had occurred but nothing else. However a single photo posted in a London Free Press article drew our attention to the fact that a structural failure occurred along the left (driver’s) side of a passenger car.
Structural failures are not a good thing. Engineers have worked very hard over recent decades to produce some very clever designs that have been tremendously successful in reducing the severity of injury. Even as vehicles have sometimes become smaller, faster, and their abilities to accelerate have increased. And government expectations through various safety standards have pushed engineers to the limits. And this has been a good thing. But no one designs vehicles for structural failure in a collision. There is no benefit to such a result and it often means that bad injury results can be expected.
Further Analysis
NHTSA has been using a side-impact test procedure since 1998 to evaluate the safety performance of new vehicles. A view of that set-up is shown below. Due testing difficulties the test procedure does not replicate the forces in a real-life collision where rotations (yaw) are involved. This has been a long-time concern as the possibility of structural failure in real-life collisions may be increased by rotation and this may not be detected through government side-impact testing.
It is important therefore to look closely at those incidents in real-life side impacts where a structural failure occurs. As police are the only ones who have exclusive access to a collision site, when important and fragile evidence could be documented, it is up to them to gather such safety relevant information. Unfortunately that rarely happens.
On December 11, 2025 London City Police released some reasonably good photos of the collision and also provided the following statement summarizing the collision on Adelaide Street:
“On November 26, 2025, at approximately 6:40 am., a suspect male was operating a 2021 Tesla eastbound on Huron Street, approaching Adelaide Street North. He approached the intersection, where another vehicle was stopped at a red light in their direction. The suspect proceeded to move into the left turn lane before turning right, without making any attempt to stop at the red light. The suspect accelerated to speeds of approximately 130 km/hr in a posted 50 km/hr zone while passing other vehicles travelling southbound on Adelaide Street.
Another driver was operating a pickup truck northbound on Adelaide Street North when the suspect drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic, ultimately colliding with the pickup truck. The entire incident was captured on video surveillance and dashcam footage.
Emergency crews responded to the collision, and both drivers were transported to hospital by paramedic services. The driver of the truck sustained minor injuries, while the suspect driver sustained serious, but non-life-threatening injuries.“
This description suggests the collision occurred in a manner similar to scenarios that occur on rural highways where two vehicles approach each other from opposite directions on a two-lane highway. Such scenarios have been identified over many years on rural highways but rarely in urban environments. In a 1991 research paper (“Practical Problems Related To Side Impact Field Data Accuracy And Its Importance To Side Impact Protection Assessments”) Zygmunt Gorski presented the following figure and text describing such scenarios:
While the above description may appear different from the Adelaide Street collision there are similarities.
In the Adelaide Street collision it is likely that the Tesla was approaching impact from the wrong side of the road and the driver was likely attempting to return to the proper (southbound) side of the road. This is likely because of how the left side of the Tesla was exposed to contact by the Pick-up over an extended distance without rotating away from that contact. Such a result has been observed in many previous collisions. During this extended contact, as the left front of the Pick-up was scraping across the left side of the Tesla, the separation occurred. The mechanism by which this separation developed should be examined but it likely will not.
The travel speed of a vehicle can sometimes be a red herring when examining injury mechanisms. This has been mentioned many times before and it is worth repeating. Although the Tesla may have reached a speed of 130 km/h that does not mean that the severity of the collision was equal to a velocity change of 130 km/h. It is the change-in-velocity that describes the severity of the impact and what forces existed to cause structural separation and injury. While the Tesla eventually came to a stop and therefore lost all its pre-impact velocity, the dissipation of its kinetic energy came from several factors.
Whether the Pick-up truck and the vehicle behind it were travelling forward at the time of impact needs to be determined. If not then all the kinetic energy of the crash would come from the pre-impact velocity of the Tesla and we would begin to add up how that velocity change occurred. Some of it would result from pushing the Pick-up truck backwards and into the front end of the vehicle behind. Some of it would occur from the Tesla moving (sliding?) from impact to rest. And some of it would be lost from producing crush to the Tesla and Pick-up. The only component of this speed loss (velocity change) that would be relevant to injury potential is the crush to the two involved vehicles. This is how the ground (travel) speed of a vehicle may be inaccurate in defining the threat to the vehicle occupants because that ground speed is lost through other forms besides the impact itself. This is how confusion is created when it is announced that there has been a very high ground (travel) speed and therefore persons assume that this must indicate a certain severity of a collision.
For police purposes it is often sufficient to produce evidence that the Tesla driver was reckless due to the Tesla speed and because it was on the wrong side of the road. And there is no need to go further. Yet, from a road safety standpoint, a structural separation like this could occur in a different scenario where the driver of a Tesla was not speeding or riding on the wrong side of the road. Consider the scenario if a young mother was driving a Tesla and transporting her children in the back seat. An alcohol-impaired driver of the Pick-up truck drove into her lane and she reacted by steering to the right, away from the Pick-up. Such a scenario could also cause a similar scraping across the driver’s side of the Tesla and a structural separation might occur. This could place the young children in grave danger due to that separation, yet through no fault of the young mother. Would it be acceptable that we only focus on charging the impaired pick-up truck driver? Surely we should also be interested in understanding how the structural separation developed and if something needs to be done to prevent it in a future collision. So we need to examine these results for the possibility of a future collision to protect occupants from needless injury.
Details of Tesla Collision Event Recordings
Further collision information could be available from the Tesla. It has not been revealed by London City Police what actions they completed to obtain collision event data and how they determined the pre-crash speed of the Tesla. Not all police personnel are aware of how collision data is recorded and stored by different vehicle manufacturers. A recent post by an expert in one of our collision reconstruction chat groups provided this detailed information about Tesla:
“If a Tesla is involved in a “Critical Safety Event” such as a crash which triggered EDR recording or airbag deployment, the Videos are uploaded to Tesla Servers and saved “indefinitely.” Only the Selfie Cam is “Anonymized.” There are times when none of the video is uploaded, but that’s due to connectivity issues or because the crash is catastrophic and a power interruption occurred. When things work “perfectly” the video is saved in the SavedClips folder of the flashdrive and uploaded to the servers. EDR data and CAN signals are saved locally and uploaded Over The Air (OTA) to Tesla Servers. EDR data can be imaged locally; while CAN data is saved on the SD Card, only Tesla can ingest the encrypted CAN signals.Sometimes, when there is a power interruption, the last video clip doesn’t make it to the flashdrive and is lost forever.
Regarding CAN data, that info is saved on the SD card in the main computer and is also uploaded to TeslServers. Again, connectivity issues can prevent the upload. If there are diagnostic issues, CAN data is periodically uploaded to the servers and can be requested by the owner thru a “Data Privacy Request.” Lately, if data is requested for an event that didn’t trigger an EDR event, the request returns no CAN data (unless there is a Diagnostic issue; think “Active Check Engine light”). If a Data Privacy Request isn’t made within 30 days (when there isn’t at least a non-deployment level event) no CAN data is returned. All recorded video is saved in the RecentClips folder of the flash drive until it’s overwritten. Video is never uploaded to servers unless it’s a “Critical Safety Event” as referenced above. Sometimes, “Alerts” can be viewed on the “Service Menu” on the display screen and includes date & time, but that’s password protected and is quickly overwritten. In all these cases, “time is of the essence” in trying to recover Alerts and CAN data.“
An Example For Why Speed Cameras Are Needed
As a further comment, recently the Ontario provincial government of Doug Ford enacted legislation that prohibited the installation of speed cameras by Ontario’s municipalities. Ford indicated that these cameras were being used as a cash grab rather than as a method of improving road safety. To some degree that is likely the case as municipalities allowed third-party owners of the speed cameras to set low thresholds for speed infractions and therefore money was generated for those third parties and to the municipalities. Ford had the opportunity to correct this by allowing speed cameras to exist but to require a higher speed threshold for infractions. But he did not. Even though numerous organizations and individuals indicated that this was a step in the wrong direction Ford ignored those warnings. The Adelaide Street collision is an example of things to come as a result of Ford’s foolish thinking.
The only reason why the reckless Tesla driver was caught is because he caused a very dangerous collision. Police indicated that a dashcam captured the incident and that surveillance videos did the same. But neither of these sources will effectively prevent such dangerous situations until a collision occurs and then it is too late. But speed cameras have the capability of identifying the vehicle involved and, in some instances the driver can be identified. Speed cameras can identify dangerous actions before a collision occurs. And speed cameras can operate 24 hours a day, every day of the week. This is a very large step toward removing dangerous persons off the streets. Ford claims that larger speed limit signs and speed bumps (humps) will do the same but that makes no sense. Studies conducted at Gorski Consulting confirm that this makes no sense. Ford’s belief that greater police enforcement will replace speed cameras is also a falsehood. Police budgets are tight and, even now, there is little attention paid to road safety as compared to the issues of various violence, murders, robberies, etc. Greater police enforcement of vehicle speeds will take police away from these other important activities while being far less efficient than speed cameras.
Many members of the public are against speed cameras likely because many persons have been caught by them and charged even though their elevated speed was not inherently dangerous. It has never been revealed how many of these drivers were given a ticket travelling just slightly over the speed limit. But such a process does not help to form a positive view of speed cameras in the public’s eye. Municipalities failed to ensure that speed camera programs were transparent and this is why many have turned against these programs.
In the view of Gorski Consulting the greatest benefit of speed cameras is that they efficiently detect that small number of dangerous drivers who are at the top of the danger pyramid.
High Severity Fatal Impact of Loading Dock in Sarnia
It is admirable that Sarnia police posted a photo of an unidentified vehicle that reportedly struck a loading dock at Sarnia’s Lambton Mall on Tuesday, December 9, 2025. However no explanation is available about where exactly this occurred or how it occurred.
Generally, loading docks are expected to be in low speed areas where large trucks are able to drive and deliver or pick-up items. There should not be sufficient distance to ramp up enough acceleration to cause a high speed collision. Yet the above photo indicates the striking vehicle had be moving at a considerable speed to cause the visible damage.
When such incidents occur there is an obvious concern that a sudden, unintended acceleration occurred. If the vehicle was of recent vintage it might be equipped with Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) which would automatically apply braking even if the driver failed to do so. But absolutely no information has been provided as to what type of vehicle was involved.
Is it because digital photos are so costly to create and display that this basic information is not provided to the public? Maybe news reporters are running out of ink in their feather pens to complete their manuscripts?
Ontario Providing $20 Million To Fix An Invisible Road Safety Problem
Out-of-control motor vehicles that strike things rarely attract attention, often because there is no injury or death. And drivers may receive some low-level driving citation for failing to maintain control of their vehicles. But if, by bad luck, that incident causes an injury or death, everything changes. But only with respect to that one incident.
That one incident occurred on September 10, 2025 when an SUV plunged through the glass window of the First Roots day care facility in Richmond Hill, just north of Toronto, Ontario. A toddler child was killed and six other children were injured. Photos of that crash site cannot be shown because all photos are copyright to the news agencies. And police did not provide any photos even though they might be important to inform the public. Even with the death of an innocent child money and monopoly come into play, preventing important information from being discussed in a public forum.
If one looked at the articles published by the news media one could see their photos of the crash site and one could appreciate that this was an accident just waiting to happen. There was absolutely no protection between the parking area and the glass window of the day care. A simple curb at the parking spot, and then absolutely nothing but a very large glass window at the “wall” of the day care building. It is as if building impacts by motor vehicles have never occurred before. And those constructing the buildings seem to have built them without any rules to prevent a vehicle from driving into them.
So who was asleep on that job? Was it the municipal personnel who allowed these buildings to be constructed in this fashion? Was it the police who never informed anyone that vehicles were driving into buildings? Was it the Province of Ontario to whom all those police reports are written and whose policy writers should have drank enough coffee to wake up to the danger?
In our view the Ontario government pulled a publicity stunt by announcing that they would be providing a $20 million fund for daycare centres to install concrete barriers to prevent a similar tragedy. This is a publicity stunt because the collision at the daycare centre had little to do with the daycare centre. The collision was just a single incident of bad luck amongst numerous previous incidents that could have been recognized as a danger, but were not.
It is not just daycare centres that are being struck. It is all kinds of buildings. And all kinds of persons live and work in these buildings. It is a problem that has been unrecognized and ignored. And the Ontario government has created the fund to give the impression that they care, and are doing something about it.
The impact of buildings is also just the tip of the iceberg. Building impacts are just part of the much broader issue that drivers are losing control of their vehicles and striking everything. Pedestrians are struck. Cyclists are struck. Other vehicles are struck. And, once in a while, a child daycare is also struck. But the Ontario government wants to focus on this narrow issue of daycares while refusing to inform the public that this is a broad issue which has been going on for many years. Just a quick review of news items from CTV News in the first nine months of 2025 reveals a small sample of the many building impacts noted below:
In early January a vehicle struck at building on Charles Street in Ingersoll, Ontario.
In mid-February a vehicle struck a building near the intersection of Oxford St and Hyde Park Road in London, Ontario.
In late February a vehicle drove into a Pharmacy building at Thames Road in Exeter, Ontario.
In March a vehicle crashed into a store on Main Street in Grand Bend, Ontario.
In April a vehicle drove into a building at Westwood Shopping Centre in Malton, Ontario.
In early May a vehicle drove into a storefront on the downtown Square in Goderich, Ontario.
In late July a vehicle drove into the Monda Farms Market on Hyde Park Road in London, Ontario.
In mid-August a vehicle struck a storefront near Bloor St and Brunswick Ave in Toronto, Ontario.
In late August a vehicle struck a building at Lambton Mall Road in Sarnia, Ontario.
In early September an SUV struck a building at Portland St and Goldwick Crescent in London, Ontario.
In early September a vehicle struck a private residence on Brayford Ave in London, Ontario.
In mid-September a vehicle struck a townhouse at Warden Ave and Lafontaine Lane in Scarborough, Ontario.
And the above sample hardly represents the many other incidents throughout Ontario that we have not been able to document because we do not have the resources to do so.
Why not gather large amounts of government funds and begin installing concrete barriers at all the buildings and residences throughout Ontario? After all does everyone deserve to be protected just like the little toddlers? But does that make any sense? Clearly we cannot protect everything everywhere from out-of-control vehicles. Instead we must look, in detail, about how and why vehicles are going out of control.
In this modern age technology exists in newer vehicles whereby collisions can be avoided, or their severity can be reduced, by Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). When drivers fail to detect that a collision is about to occur ADAS steps in and takes action, such as automatic emergency braking (AEB). The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration describes some of these features as follows:
Automatic Emergency Braking: Applies brakes automatically when a forward collision is imminent. There are two types of automatic emergency braking systems that meet NHTSA’s performance specifications: dynamic brake support and crash imminent braking.
Many motor vehicle loss-of-control incidents are officially attributed to driver error. So the existence of AEB should override instances where an out-of-control vehicle should collide. And as more and more vehicles are equipped with AEB the need to create barriers around every roadway feature should be reduced. But these attributions need to be viewed with caution.
Up to now, crash investigators can access certain collision information stored on modules that contain event data recorders (EDRs). Motor vehicle manufacturers are required by law in North America to provide select data to investigators, but not all data. Much more data is stored by the manufacturer that is not translatable to investigators. The functioning of ADAS systems for example is not required to be reported and so far governments have no plans to require manufacturers to provide that data. This is an important omission.
The causes of vehicle loss-of-control need to be publicly revealed and the incidence of collisions caused by vehicle loss-of-control need to be revealed but they are not. Instead the government of Ontario is focused on how to win votes in the next election so they take an issue like protection of daycare centres and develops propaganda to demonstrate that they are interested in public safety. Meanwhile the much bigger problem of overall motor-vehicle loss-of-control is not addressed.
No Basic Information About Hwy 401 Fatal Collision Near Iona Road
The South-West Region of the Ontario Provincial Police along with the London City Police are the two worst distributors of collision information in the Province of Ontario. So it is not surprising that, once again, basic information has not been provided about a fatal collision that occurred on Hwy 401 in the early hours of December 7, 2025 near Iona Road.
The one improvement is that an actual photo of the collision site was made available and this is shown above. However, look at the views of the two involved vehicles. Can anyone see anything useful from this view that could provide a basic indication as to how the collision occurred? The photo is taken from a considerable distance and the two vehicles are mostly hidden by tall weeds. Also the left half of the photo shows several police vehicles as if this is what would be relevant to anyone wanting some basic information. It is as if the photographer purposely arranged this view to show nothing.
But there is something curious in the photo at the high-tension cable barrier at the median. We have highlighted the area with an orange circle. There appears to be a gap in the cable barrier. Ordinarily such barriers extend for a very long distance without gaps for a very good reason – so the barrier maintains its tension and strength. Of course there are areas where a barrier terminates by design and another section immediately follows. And, because the police photographer took their photo from a substantial distance from this gap it is not possible to know whether this was a designed gap or something where a vehicle struck the barrier and created the gap. And police have not said anything about any involvement of a median barrier.
Since police provided very little information about the location of the collision site, it could be anywhere between Currie Road and Union Road, a distance of about 15 kilometres. One news media outlet indicated that the collision site was “…at Iona Road in Dutton”. But Iona Road is nowhere near Dutton. Or at least Iona Road is about 8 kilometres east of Currie Road, which is the crossroad that one would take into Dutton. So all of this is “very helpful” to all.
We conducted some research by looking at some of the features of the police photo and from this we suspect that the collision site may be located about 2.3 kilometres west of Iona Road. But given that poor information, this analysis is not 100% certain. But if our analysis is correct, we used Googlemaps to drive along the eastbound lanes of Hwy 401 in this area and we could not detect a designed separation in the high-tension median barrier. So are the Googlemaps images too old and a new separation in the barrier was constructed? Not very likely. So why does this separation appear to exist in the median barrier in the police photo?
The safety concerns about the median of Hwy 401 in this area have existed for decades. And any police official who had any policing experience in the area would be aware of the many concerns expressed by persons about the lack of a concrete median barrier. Many persons expressed concerns when the new, high-tension, cable barrier was installed. And many persons wanted to know when, and how, a collision occurred so that they could evaluate the functioning of that barrier. So when police have not provided, even the most basic information about this latest collision, it lays doubt about their good/honest intentions.
Caution Over Prejudgment In Witness Evidence
Regrettably our society sometimes functions like a pack of sharks smelling the blood of their targeted victim. As humans we can do better. This is particularly so whenever an accusation is based solely on witness statements.
As someone who has conducted detailed reconstructions of motor vehicle collisions for decades, as well as studying human behavior from a psychological perspective, I give this word of caution whenever something is claimed to be witnessed while no objective evidence or analysis supports such claims. This is not the first time these cautions have been made on this Gorski Consulting website. Yet such problems with human judgment persist.
As witnesses we find it difficult to accept that our view of an incident could be coloured by our previous beliefs, our need to support our own viewpoint, or just through our downright bias. Sometimes what we believe we recall, is an incomplete set of visual or audible stimuli that are “filled in” in our minds because we need to complete the story. Because of these human flaws the official adjudication of what someone says has to include a careful understanding about what unbiased experts have found from independent research about human behavior.
Problems with witness information are accentuated with the advent of the internet. Internet gossip is often akin to a forest fire, it starts from a very small bit of information and then explodes. In the minds of many whose life is tied to what they are told reality is lost and turns into radicalization. Regrettably such problems spill into the justice system.
Many years ago I encountered such hysterics in a trial where someone was accused of being at fault in a fatal, head-on collision. Investigating police lost their site measurements and the basis for what happened came to several witnesses who claimed they saw a particular type of car at night and in rainy conditions. One witness was particularly adamant that she knew the exact details of the car and she was greatly influential to the others who were not sure.
As an observer of the trial proceedings I witnessed the judge’s decision that the accused driver was guilty. Yet I was not able to provide my input. As an independent investigator who was working under contract to Transport Canada I was not allowed to become involved in the trial proceedings even through I had crucial, detailed evidence that supported the driver’s innocence. Previously Transport Canada had purchased both vehicles and I was assigned to their Ottawa quarters where I spent a whole week measuring and studying the physical evidence on both vehicles. This analysis proved that the judge’s “expert opinion” was wrong. The defense lawyer obtained a copy of my report to Transport Canada and presented this at the sentencing hearing but the judge would not hear anything of it. In the judge’s “expert opinion” the final rest positions of the two vehicles clearly indicated who was at fault and that was the end of any discussion. It took a lot of effort, through the involvement of a highly respected engineer retained by the insurer, along with an expert from Ontario’s Centre of Forensic Science along with my report to inform the prosecutor that the judgment was in error. Even then the judgment could not be stopped. A subsequent hearing of the case by the Ontario Court of Appeal finally put the erred judgment to rest and a retrial was ordered. The prosecutor then stated the Crown had no interest in pursuing the case further.
This case is an example of a railway train going out of control because of what persons believed but based on no credible, objective evidence. Regrettably there are many examples of this in high-profile murder trials which have been overturned but very few of the far more numerous lower level cases ever reach the headlines. Many independent scientists have warned the justice system over the many decades that caution must be exercised whenever a judgment is based solely on witness information. Yet that railway train continues on.
You must be logged in to post a comment.