Posted Speed, Operating Speed and Speed Enforcement
While maximum speeds are posted along almost all roads and highways in Ontario that has little to do with the operating speed, which is the average speed that vehicles are observed to travel. Speed enforcement is the police function of controlling the speed of vehicles so that the operating speed is closer to the posted maximum. In reality the operating speed is never as low as the speed limit and it varies from one road to another. Perhaps the greatest difference between maximum posted speed and operating speed occurs on Highway 401 where the operating speed is often close to 20 km/h higher than the maximum posted speed.
The mix of higher-speed cars and light trucks, and the much slower heavy trucks with governed maximum speeds, means that more traffic conflicts occur on the 400 series of highways in Ontario. This is a safety problem that has been created by Provincial legislation.
Recently the Ontario government decided to increase maximum, posted, speed limits along three sections of 400-series expressways from 100 to 110 km/h. The segments include a portion of Hwy 417 near Ottawa, a segment of the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW) between Hamilton and St Catharines, and Hwy 402 between London and Sarnia. Many safety advocates have expressed concerns that increased speed limits result in higher incidence of death and injury.
It is difficult to argue with the statement that speed kills. If the speed of all traffic was reduced to 15 km/h our fatality and injury rates might be near zero. Yet, we would not get anywhere, there would be massive traffic jams and our society would break down. So there is an alternative argument that higher speeds should be maintained as these can provide the optimum between safety and efficiency. It is not clear to everyone as to where that optimum lies.
What is known, but not discussed, is that Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation collects very detailed data about traffic volumes and compositions along the 400 series highways in the Province. Magnetic coils imbedded in the traffic lanes are located between every interchange and these provide information such as the speed, type of vehicle and gap between vehicles passing through the sensors. The location of these traffic counters can be detected by noting a junction box attached to a small post situated on the grassy ditch next to the magnetic sensors.
Typical junction box along side of Hwy 401 at traffic counting station.
As it is possible to collect data 24 hours a day and 7 days a week it is likely that the Province maintains astronomic volumes of data on the characteristics of traffic in those areas where traffic counters exist. Thus the Province should be fully aware that operating speeds on the 400 series of highways are often much higher than the increased speed limit of 110 km/h that is being proposed. They should also be aware that changes in the posted maximum speed has little to do with what speed drivers will select. The obvious example is the current 100 km/h posted speed yet the operating speed of light vehicles often approaches 120 km/h.
The factor that likely has a dramatic change in operating speeds is the extent of police enforcement. Yet it takes additional money to provide that enforcement. It does not take much imagination to observe that the current Ford Government has been slashing spending in every direction and why the maximum posted speed increase is being instituted. With the higher posted speed it is a way of requiring less police enforcement. If the operating speed on the three segments of highway of higher speeds does not increase by 10 km/h then there could be less need for police enforcement and therefore a reduction in policing costs. This is likely why the pilot projects have been introduced, likely to study driver behavior, as well as injury and death rates.
It still remains a hidden secret that police have difficulty enforcing speed limits on the 400 series of highways where traffic volumes are very high and it is difficult, and dangerous, to pull over a speeding driver in the vicinity of these high speeds and volumes. Traffic stops are not a solution often because many segments of highway do not provide a roadside where a traffic stop can occur in a safe manner.
The “Move Over” law is not a solution because in many instances large trucks can block the view of drivers such that a traffic stop may not be visible to approaching drivers. Delayed detection of a traffic stop means that drivers have a reduced time and distance to check their mirrors and conduct a lane change. Sudden brake applications cause further problems when drivers who have not detected the traffic stop are not expecting the braking and various conflicts are initiated. In many instances it can be safer for drivers to remain in their lanes and continue to travel at a constant speed past a police traffic stop. It is the very lane changes and speed changes that are being required by the Move Over law that could be making it more dangerous for those stopped on the roadside.
Ultimately some form of automated speed enforcement similar to photo radar must be implemented if there is any reasonable hope that operating speeds can be reduced to come closer to posted speeds. This can be complicated because some of the most dangerous situations occur when overall speeds are reduced due to road construction, previous collisions, weather, and rush hour traffic jams. In those instances the average speed of vehicles may be well below the maximum, yet a few drivers will travel at a reckless speed that may be at or below the speed limit. The present limits of photo radar cannot capture these drivers yet they may be more dangerous than those who travel 20 km/h over the speed limit but only 10 km/h faster than the traffic around them.
In summary, in many instances safety does degenerate simply because of increased travel speeds. Yes, it is a factor, but of greater importance is the difference in travel speed that occurs when drivers drive exceptionally slower or faster than others around them.
Vehicle Fires – 5 Fatalities & No Concerns
Three collisions involving vehicle fires and five fatalities occurred in less than a week in southern Ontario – yet there has been no expression of official concern.
In a pole impact on King Street in Toronto on March 17, 2019, this Nissan Altima caught fire and the driver sustained critical injuries while trapped in the vehicle.
Late Wednesday, May 1st, a vehicle exited Oil Heritage Road in Lambton County and burst into flames after striking a wooded area. The driver died. No photos were made publicly available of the collision site or vehicle.
On Friday night, May 3rd, a vehicle was travelling near Charles and Gaukel Streets in Kitchener when it struck a concrete planter, bursting into flames. Two persons in vehicle died. No photos were made available to show the extent of frontal crush on the vehicle and thereby enabling an assessment whether the collision severity was of sufficient magnitude that a fire could be reasonably expected.
On Saturday, May 4th, a vehicle travelling through a construction site along the QEW in Oakville struck some construction equipment and burst into flames. Two persons perished. Although photos were available showing the site, a tarp had been placed over the burned vehicle so that no one could evaluate the collision severity and thereby determine whether the eruption of the fire was reasonable.
In all three collisions there was no mention of the influence of the fires with respect to the occupants’ deaths. Equally, there was no opportunity for anyone to examine the damaged vehicles and question whether the eruption of the fires were reasonable in the circumstances. It is this kind of functioning of the public systems of news reporting that hides safety problems and prevents action from being taken.
In this realm there is a police culture that their sole responsibility is the purpose of controlling actions of drivers rather than understanding that they have a wider responsibility of protecting the public from all forms of harm, including vehicle fires.
It is important to take impaired, speeding or distracted drivers off the road because their actions may kill an innocent party, or themselves. But surely it should be just as important to document vehicle or road safety problems that might lead to equally deadly consequences. For society’s overall welfare it should be of minimal difference whether an innocent person has been killed by an intentional shooting, a speeding driver, or vehicle defect resulting in a fire. Yet these same events are treated very differently in terms of the resources applied mitigate them.
Much of the problem is that there is no official agency in Canada that is mandated to take on a road safety investigation for the specific purpose of illuminating a road transportation safety problem. In the United States such a function is taken up by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), In Canada the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) cannot be involved in a road safety investigation unless it involves an incident involving a railway train or airliner. If a collision involves the explosion of fuel tanker truck or something like the infamous Humboldt Broncos multi-fatal bus crash, the TSB cannot be involved. This lack of independent and unbiased safety investigation allows for incidents such as vehicle fires to exist without recognition that a wider safety concern may exist.
Hiding of Out-Dated Guardrail Terminus In Multi-Fatal Crash
The hiding of the fact that a guardrail terminus where four teenagers drowned in Miramichi New Brunswick on April 20, 2019 was outdated and inadequate is irresponsible. Future tragedies might be avoided through recognition and replacement of such installations. But when those who are aware of the problem attempt to hide its existence the impetus for change is lost.
The CBC posted another news article on April 26th, 2019 generally describing the anguish of the friends and families of the four young teenagers who perished when their Nissan Rogue was vaulted over the end of the outdated guardrail and into an adjacent pond. The guist of the article was to demonstrate the heroics of those who tried to pull the teenagers out of their upside down vehicle, to no avail. And similar heroics were discussed with respect to the hospital staff who also tried to save the teens. All this wording was for the benefit of making readers admire the actions of all those involved in the process. How could anyone be critical of this process in the environment of such anguish and sadness. And so no criticism has evolved, not even about the obvious inadequacy of the guardrail installation that was likely a factor in the teens deaths.
The Miramichi site is not a unique circumstance as aged and inadequate roadside barriers continue to exist for years in other provinces, including Ontario. Below we can examine a set of photos taken in April 2012, of such a dangerous installation that continues to exist, even to this day, without any action taken.
This view looking east along Egremont Drive north-west of London, Ontario was taken in April, 2012. It shows the installation of a guardrail with a buried end treatment similar to one at the Miramichi accident site.
By burying the end of the guardrail a striking vehicle is vaulted into the roadside. At this Egremont site a bridge crosses over the Oxbow Creek thus a vehicle could be vaulted into the creek just like at the Miramichi site. (Photo from April 2012)
This photo from April, 2012 shows that the guardrail has lost its anchorage bolts that connect it to the concrete bridge abutment. Thus a striking vehicle would likely impact the immovable concrete abutment or drive through the guardrail and into the water.
View in April, 2012, of the Oxbow Creek at the Egremont site. A vehicle vaulting over the aged guardrail could land in the creek and the vehicle occupants could drown just like at the Miramichi incident.
View of the same guardrail at the Egremont site five years later (April, 2017) showing that nothing has changed except that the system has become older and more dangerous.
With respect to the Miramichi site no one has said anything about the end of the guardrail through which the Nissan passed and was vaulted, thereby carrying the vehicle further into the roadside and giving the opportunity for the vehicle to reach the water where the drownings occurred. No one has said whether the end treatment met the current acceptable standards of design as spelled out in documents such as the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) or even its aged predecessor, NCHRP-350. In fact these U.S. technical documents are kept away from the general public’s view. There is no easy way to obtain copies of either of these documents. Furthermore, there is nothing available in Canada with respect to what standards are appropriate in each province. This essentially gives provincial governments “carde blanche” to keep whatever outdated roadside installations they wish. Even more tragic to the general public is that some provincial governments, such as Doug Ford’s Conservatives in Ontario, are bringing in legislation that would prevent civil suits from being launched against the provincial government when its failures to provide a safe roadway environment leading to needless deaths and injuries. Such legal penalties do not even slap the specific hand that “stole the cookie”, they only penalize the general public which pays the provincial taxes and from which the legal penalties are withdrawn.
Pedestrian and Pole Impact in 40 km/h School Zone
It may be of little interest to the general public that a car reportedly struck a pedestrian in a school zone and then struck a utility pole. But to an accident reconstructionist the facts are intriguing.
It has been reported that yesterday afternoon a Nissan Altima was travelling westbound on Central Street in Waterloo, Ontario and it was passing the area of the MacGregor Public School. In this zone Central Street is governed by posted 40 km/h maximum speed signs. It is also interesting that the Nissan driver would likely have made a turn onto Central Street from King Street, less than 200 metres away from the location where the Nissan struck a utility pole located in front of the school. One would think that, along with the posted speed, and the required turn, the Nissan should have been travelling rather slowly.
The Google Maps views of the site (shown below) also show that parking is allowed on the opposite side from where the school drop off zone thus narrowing the passage between parked cars and vehicles, such as school buses, that drop off or pick-up students. So this narrowing of the available road width would also tend to slow the speed of through traffic.
View looking west along the travel direction of the Nissan Altima which struck a utility pole just past the stopped school bus shown in the background. It was reported that a pedestrian was struck before the pole impact.
View showing the gap between a stopped school bus and a parked vehicle in the school drop off zone where the Nissan collision occurred.
In this view the Nissan was travelling toward the camera. It struck the utility pole shown at the left edge of the photo.
A quick measurement, using Google Maps, of the lateral location of the struck pole, indicates a distance of about 6.5 metres from the roadway curb. In terms of roadway design that 6.5 metres is sufficient to conclude that a vehicle would not be expected to travel such a lateral distance, especially in such a low-speed zone. Yet the impact to the pole was not minimal, as shown in a photo taken by David Bebee of the Waterloo Region Record Newspaper, and the driver’s side airbag had deployed.
The frontal impact to the Nissan is also interesting. Due to the installment of electronic stability control (ESC) the likelihood of pre-impact yaw (or “fish-tailing”) has been greatly reduced. Yet ESC does not guarantee avoidance of an off-road collision, it only means that if the collision occurs the vehicle will likely be pointing in the direction it is travelling rather than sliding sideways. And so this result is exemplified in the above photo. Where, prior to ESC, we would expect to see such a vehicle struck the pole with its right side, now the impact is to the front end. In many instances an impact by the front end of a vehicle is better than impacts to the side, but that topic is for another day.
We may assume that the Nissan was travelling along Central Street, encountered a pedestrian, and then veered off the road and struck the pole. But many complicated things can happen other than what is initially believed. For instance the Nissan could have been stopped on the Central Street and an unintended acceleration could have occurred, either due to driver error or due to a problem with the vehicle. Limited visibility could have been an issue due to a school bus such as the one shown in the Google Maps views of the site. Maybe something else caused the driver to veer off and strike the pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. In reconstructing the circumstances we can look at the angle of the path of the Nissan. Vehicles travelling at high speeds are not capable of changing their travel direction or pointing as much, in a given distance, as vehicles travelling at slow speeds. And, given a number of previous investigations, an experienced reconstructionist can use such past cases to consider what angle would be common and expected. When physical evidence of tire marks, scrapes and damage to grass is available more detailed opinions can be expressed. But even without that physical evidence, the pointing angle at impact, or the rest angle of the vehicle, can be of some assistance. The quality and detail of the conclusions is dependent of many details, some of which can be obtained directly, while in other instances the details have to be derived from further analysis and testing. In many instances the details that are only available to the police need to be obtained in order to consider what matters were relevant.
It was reported that the struck pedestrian was a 43-year-old female so, at least we know that the collision did not involve a school age child. But did it involve a school crossing guard or a parent or teacher? Given the location of the collision in front of a elementary school there is more concern about the potential safety of children regardless of who was struck because this result may provide some clues about unexpected safety problems that have not been detected.
These are many interesting questions to persons such as myself who conduct detailed assessments of motor vehicle collisions. Rarely are there sufficient facts reported in official news media for me to be capable of providing a full and conclusive opinion about what factors may be involved. But in many cases some suspicions are always present that may not be recognized by the general public.
UPDATE: April 26, 2019; 2340 Hours
Additional information has been made available through local news outlets in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Regrettably, the female pedestrian who sustained fatal injuries in the crash was identified as Leanne Holland Brown, a Dean of Students at the nearby Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo. She leaves behind a husband and two sons. Details like these demonstrate the tragedy that exists behind the cold hard facts that I often work with.
The news media quoted police in saying that the Nissan “went out of control” and then struck Brown who was reportedly located on the sidewalk at the time of impact. This leaves some further questions in my mind.
Even if the Nissan was travelling 50 km/h, which is 10 km/h above the speed limit, at the time that the loss-of-control occurred, one would normally expect some speed loss in travelling from the road to the sidewalk, such that it is not fully explainable why the fatal injuries occurred. In the normal scenario of an upright, adult pedestrian struck at a speed of less than 50 km/h fatal injuries are not common unless there are special circumstances. One special circumstance would be if there was a head impact to a stiff portion of the vehicle such as an A-pillar. The A-pillar is a stiff, metal pillar that is located at the side of the windshield and essentially holds up the roof of the vehicle. There can be a large difference in the severity of a head injury if a pedestrian is fortunate enough to make head contact with the windshield or the centre of the hood which are generally more forgiving. Researchers know these facts and attempt to develop vehicle designs to lessen the chance of a head impact with a stiff portion of a vehicle’s perimeter.
Even when an A-pillar is struck it often occurs after there has been an initial contact with a frontal portion of the vehicle such as the bumper, hood or fender. In such a situation the body of the pedestrian has already been accelerated, from that initial contact, such that the severity of head impact with the pillar is not as severe as a situation where there is only head contact.
Whatever the precise mechanism of contact and source of injury, the bottom line is that a fatal consequence should be not be expected and further inquiry would be necessary to understand what transpired.
It is not clear what is meant by the term “loss-of-control”. Such a description most often means a loss of directional control. But it may mean something different that has not been explained. One possibility it that the comment refers to a loss-of-control of the speed of the vehicle.
If there had been a sudden, unintended acceleration one would expect that the vehicle would be travelling faster at the pole impact than at the pedestrian impact. Although the single photo of the damaged Nissan hides the extent of frontal damage it is my suspicion that this vehicle did not sustain a speed loss greater than 50 km/h from the pole impact. Thus the Nissan would have to be travelling slower than that speed if the pedestrian was struck earlier in time when the acceleration should not be reached its maximum. Furthermore, there would have been clear evidence on the sidewalk and grass of spinning tires which would clearly confirm the acceleration. Depending on the year of the vehicle an event data recorder (often called a “black box”), may have recorded the several seconds of impact and this would also confirm whether an unintended acceleration occurred. Police would normally use a specialized Crash Data Retrieval kit to download the data except that many Nissan vehicles are not compatible with that equipment and contact of the manufacturer might be required.
Overall the reported events represent an intriguing scenario that would not be satisfactorily resolved without additional detailed information such as on-site photos, measurements, witness and driver statements and a full examination of the vehicle that would normally be obtained in a police investigation.
The best that can be hoped for is that the official investigators can perform their duties in a way that provides the proper unbiased answers to these many unresolved questions.
Miramichi 4-Drownings – How Did They Get Past The Guardrail?
A CBC photo showing an undamaged guardrail does not explain how a vehicle carrying four young victims got past a guardrail and into a pond where they drowned. Surely we should require an explanation. The photo below was posted on the CBC website reportedly showing the location where the drownings occurred.
This photo provided by the CBC showing the site where four teenagers drowned is not helpful in explaining how their vehicle passed by this undamaged guardrail.
A photo in a previous CBC article showed the end of the guardrail located behind the camera of the photo above. In that previous photo it could be seen that the guardrail ended, or began, as a buried end treatment such that the guardrail would create a ramp upon which a vehicle could be vaulted into the roadside. Such end treatments are old and known for causing such vaulting such that more current designs do not possess such end treatments. The point is that the matter is not being raised by the CBC nor is anyone else discussing its relevance. Clearly there is no information about where the vehicle exited the road and that should be made known.
While the reported heroic efforts engaged by emergency personnel to try to save the teenagers are commendable, those efforts may not have been required if an inspection of the collision site was made at some earlier point to evaluate the potential of a vehicle entering the roadside water. There in no heroism in allowing dangerous roadside conditions to exist and then hiding their relevance when a tragedy occurs.
UPDATE: April 22, 2019, 0920 hours
A CTV news video have been located discussing the collision and a video segment was shown indicating that damage existed near the end (beginning) of the guardrail which had a buried end treatment. The damage appears consistent with what would have occurred if the Nissan Rogue in which the four teenages were in vaulted over top of the barrier. Thus the CBC photo above was misleading as it showed a portion of the guardrail that was undamaged and not where the Nissan left the roadway. It is questionable why police attended a news conference without discussing the issue of the performance of the guardrail and why an inspection of the site was not conducted to assess whether it was possible for a vehicle to pass through it and enter the water. Clearly, anyone interested in the public’s safety would raise the issue.
You must be logged in to post a comment.