Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North (ACTION)
The Local CTV News website has reported that a new citizens’ group has been formed in Old North London called ACTION or Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North. The STV news article mentioned that ACTION was formed after a crossing guard collision occurred in early June, 2025 at the Old North intersection of Colborne and St James Streets. Gorski Consulting had been conducting a traffic study at that location a couple of years earlier with respect to a new cycling lane that was being developed along Colborne.
In fact Gorski Consulting was not aware of the crossing guard collision until the city councillor for the area, Sam Trosow, reported the creation of a Go Fund account for the crossing guard. The incidence of collisions in London, Ontario is monitored by Gorski Consulting on a regular basis but our records do not show that a news media article had ever been posted about the collision. To this day we still do not know the precise date of the collision or any details about how it happened. During our video sessions at the site in 2022-23 we regularly observed a crossing guard in the background, sitting on a chair, and we assume this may have been the same person who was injured.
CTV News posted the address of the website of ACTION which can be found at “oldnorthcommunity.ca”. It was noted on the site that a survey of 236 local residents had been conducted to obtain information about the concerns they had about traffic safety in their neighbourhood. A rally had also been organized by ACTION for November 6th however sufficient public notification of it was not available except for the CTV News article of the same date.
ACTION summarized the results of the resident concerns as follows:
- Pervasive Speeding and Aggressive Driver Behaviour.
- Disregard for Stop Signs & Confusing Intersections.
- The Human Cost: Grave Danger to Pedestrians and Children.
ACTION also posted the results of the survey as follows:
In conclusion ACTION posted the following comments with respect to the residents’ concerns:
“The collective public feedback paints an unambiguous picture of a community that feels it is under siege from dangerous traffic conditions.”
“The residents’ concerns are not minor or isolated; they describe systemic issues of excessive speeding, hazardous intersections defined by driver non-compliance and confusing design, and a direct and constant threat to the safety of children, pedestrians, and all road users.”
“The submissions reflect a profound loss of confidence in the current state of neighbourhood safety in Old North and serve as an urgent plea for immediate short-term interventions and longer-term planning.”
Gorski Consulting Studies in Old North London
Over the years Gorski Consulting has been involved in a number of traffic safety studies in the vicinity of London and surrounding areas in Southern Ontario. As a road safety researcher with the University of Western Ontario Multi-Disciplinary Accident Research Team (1980-90) Zygmunt Gorski carried out hundreds of investigations in South-Western Ontario in full-filling the requirements of a Transport Canada contract dealing with preventing injuries in transportation collisions. In subsequent activities as a collision reconstructionist for a forensic engineering firm (1990-95) as well as through similar work conducted in the newly-created Gorski Consulting (1995 to present) roadway safety issues had to be addressed as part of a comprehensive analysis of how individual collisions occurred. These activities were mainly retained by insurance and legal clients for resolution of claims in civil litigation although a smaller number of files also dealt with criminal matters.
As part of those activities a variety of procedures were developed to extract information from the sites where collisions occurred. A prominent methodology that was used in many collision assessments was the set-up of multiple video cameras to document typical patterns of vehicle motions and speed as well as to document traffic volumes. As Zygmunt Gorski began to pass through toward retirement the use of video documentations continued as activities passed from client-paid cases toward non-paid interest in road safety as a whole. In recent years a number of non-paid studies have been processed and reported on the Gorski Consulting website.
Interest in the traffic of the Old North neighbourhood occurred initially as a result of one of the key road safety developments occurring from reactions to climate change and the need to transport persons by mass transit, cycling and walking. As a cycling enthusiast Zygmunt Gorski was interested in the safety of cyclists which was expected to become more prominent as more cyclists were likely to inhabit public road systems. A variety of cyclist documentations were engaged particularly commencing in 2018. A common complaint from cyclists was that they felt unsafe and that more infrastructure was needed in the way of protected cycling lanes. However it became clear as more data was gathered that cycling safety was not just a matter of creating more cycling lanes. Never-the-less in 2022 comments were made by some residents in the Old North community that a new, painted cycling lane along Colborne Street was insufficient and that a protected cycling lane was needed. This discussion caught our interest and we decided to proceed with an objective study.
It was somewhat of coincidence that the site where a study of the cycling path was chosen was near the intersection of Colborne Street and St James Street. Yet this was determined to be most appropriate because of the reduced influences of roadway features that could affect the assessment of the safety of the painted cycling path. So in 2022 Gorski Consulting commenced a number of video sessions at the site before the cycling lane was completed and then similar video was captured after the cycling lane was completed in 2023. Throughout this process a number of website articles were posted on the Gorski Consulting site describing the procedures and their results.
It did not become fully clear that residents in Old North were concerned about safety in their neighbourhood until the collision involving the crossing guard occurred reportedly in June of 2025. The city councillor representing the area, Sam Trosow, was aware of the research study of Gorski Consulting at the Colborne-St James site. As residents became more vocal Mr. Trosow arranged a meeting to discuss road safety in Old North. He invited a presentative of the London City Police, one from the City’s transportation department, a doctor from the City’s hospital emergency department and Zygmunt Gorski was also asked to participate. The meeting took place on July 23rd, 2025 at the parish hall of the St. John the Evangelist Church at 280 St. James Street in Old North. The meeting was well-attended as the hall was full by the time it commenced. Articles were posted on the Gorski Consulting website discussing preparatory facts about road safety and then a follow-up article was also posted after the meeting. While not of direct interest in the Gorski Consulting study, the motor vehicle traffic at the Colborne-St James intersection was captured in the background of video cameras in several of the video sessions. Thus additional analysis of that traffic was discussed. One of the findings from the Colborne-St James study was that drivers appeared to be confused about who had the right-of-way. This was likely because many intersections in the area were posted with 4-way stop signs and many drivers did not appear to be aware of the two-way stop signs at Colborne and St James. While it may appear odd that drivers were so non-observant this is just a reflection of the numerous previous instances at many other locations where objective data demonstrated that drivers, in general, do not pay attention to signage as much as roadway engineers expect them to.
Following the safety meeting, Mr. Trosow contacted Gorski Consulting with respect to concerns expressed by another group of residents from Old North with respect to traffic at the intersection of Wellington Street and Regent Street. A video survey of traffic conditions was conducted and this was compared to data provided to Mr. Trosow from the City’s transportation department. This intersection was serviced by 2-way stop signs however the traffic study showed that the stop sign should have been placed for Wellington Street rather than the busier roadway of Regent. Again it was noted that drivers appeared to be confused about who had the right-of-way. This became of greater concern at this intersection because Wellington Street was unusually wide because of the existence of a decorative centre median. Details about this issue were discussed in a subsequent article on the Gorski Consulting website in late August, 2025.
And in the fall of 2025 another group of residents contacted Gorski Consulting with respect to their concerns about traffic safety at the intersection of Richmond Street and Epworth Ave. Once again Gorski Consulting attended the location on four different dates where video documentation was carried out to explore the problems. Meetings with the group of residents were conducted and the preliminaries from the traffic study were posted in a Gorski Consulting website article.
ACTION And The Path Forward
Groups interested in the safety of their local communities can be the impetus for their road safety education. The unfortunate reality in the London region is that the essential objective data that is needed to properly evaluate that safety is not publicly available.
The Human, Vehicle & Environment
Understanding road safety must come from an initial recognition that it is influenced by diverse factors. A common acknowledgement in road safety research is that three broad areas of influence need to be considered; The human, the vehicle and the environment, or HVE. This acronym has been well-known in road safety research for decades. The details for these influences cannot be discussed here due to the extended verbiage that would lose the attention of almost all readers.
However, in considering the human, one must have an appreciation that our goal is to prevent, or lessen, the severity of injury. So we must have some idea of how injuries are generated, what injuries are more important than others, and what those mechanisms are that cause those injuries.
With respect to the human we must also have some idea of the limits of human functioning as well as how humans typically function. Without this consideration we can develop unreasonable expectations driver behavior that will never correct a safety problem.
We must also recognize that roadways cannot be created just for the transportation of the super-humans of our species. In any normal distribution of a population fifty percent will always be below that mean. Thus humans with less than ideal eyesight, those with disabilities that lessen their travel speed, humans that are too old or too young, must all be considered. After decades of political denial and refusal to help the financially disadvantaged and shutting down of mental health institutions a permanent population of unhoused persons now roam certain neighbourhoods of London. These persons become safety problems when they mingle in traffic while typical methods of communication and education fail to penetrate their need to be aware when their safety is jeopardized. These too cannot be ignored in any road safety plans.
With respect to the vehicle, we must understand the basic idea that we are becoming transported in a wider variety of implements. While decades earlier must persons were transported in private, light-duty passenger vehicles, the present, and future means that we will see persons being transported on a variety bicycles, e-bikes, e-scooters and creations that are yet to be introduced to the general market. More of us will likely be transported in some form of mass transit and this will mean the presence of more voluminous, more massive vehicles. And we will need to consider that technology is advancing rapidly such that the vehicles we see today will become controlled by modules and computers that may cause communication between vehicles as well as with the roadway.
And with respect to the environment we must understand that diverse influences such as weather play a role in road safety because it may influence matters like visibility of road signs, or the required intervals at which certain maintenance is required for the road system. The roadway itself can be extremely divergent. Not all roads are of the same character because of the date when they were created and what changes were progressively applied in attempts to match more current standards of design. Roadway width, slope, surface composition and a vast number of characteristics are controlled by various standards that are somewhat standardized across North America.
Often there is a balancing between efficient/capacity and road safety. A simple example is that a roadway that is clogged with traffic cannot efficiently distribute that traffic and this is a negative result. Yet because of the resultant low speed of vehicles safety may be improved because no one can drive fast enough to cause a collision of any large severity.
Conclusions Based On Unbiased Objective Data
So these are some of the issues related to HVE. Once it becomes appreciated that these influences exist the next step is to obtain objective data. What are the physical characteristics of the roadways in question? And how do those characteristics compare, or how are they different, from other roadways in other communities or jurisdictions. What is the traffic volume on the roadways and do those traffic counts actually tell you what you need to know? A traffic count on a lazy summer day in the centre of a larger community might be different from a count taken when some kind of seasonal event develops and traffic changes. What speeds are of concern and how do those speeds relate to the community’s safety? If speed data is available where was it taken and at what time, date or season? Is collision data available and how do those data compare to other communities of a similar character as the one in question. Many collisions are simply not registered in police data and not necessarily because they are trivial. Single vehicle loss-of-control events for example can be misrepresented in collision data as vehicles may leave a collision site if a vehicle is still drivable or if help summoned to tow a vehicle away before the incident is detected. How vulnerable are pedestrians, cyclists and similar groups on and adjacent to the roadways of the community? What are the important facts that need to be known in order to improve their level of safety? Access to objective data is what makes it possible to obtain answers to many of these questions.
Historically, the City of London Transportation Department and the City’s police have not be cooperative in disseminating the essential data necessary for citizens groups to understand how their roadways compare to the needs of other areas of the City. Clearly a lot of data is gathered and stored but never revealed. The CTV news article of November 6, 2025 mentioned that the City is “about to launch the Old North Traffic Management Study” and that they have hired a consultant to gather data and get feedback. However such actions rarely involved the sharing of details with local residents. Instead, general comments are often made along with conclusions that do little to educate and inform those citizens who need to know.
The members of the ACTION community group, as well as any and all citizen groups. need to press the City and police to be more cooperative in distributing the objective data that form the reasons for their actions or non-actions. Suggestions that providing such data to citizens’ groups will lead to a misunderstanding of it is not a reasonable rationale. In every matter of safety there have to be growing pains as persons unfamiliar with the issues are given instructions or conduct their own research on what is important. It gives insufficient respect to those who are exposed to such data for the first time to suggest that they will never comprehend its meaning.
How Did Peel Police Miss Detecting A Dead Body In A Motor Vehicle Collision?
A spokesperson for Peel Regional police asked for “privacy of the families involved” in an e-mail reportedly sent to news media after it was revealed that Peel police investigators failed to detect the presence of a dead occupant in a November 1, 2025 collision near Chinguacousy Road and Queen Street in Brampton. Police reportedly did not begin a search until family members reported the deceased missing and police returned to the collision site and to the towing compound where the vehicle was transported. This is not a matter for “privacy” or requiring secrecy, it is a matter for public disclosure as to how this occurred.
It has been the expressed concern of Gorski Consulting that police investigations are focused on laying charges and their activities are focused on that element of a collision reconstruction. Rarely is it understood that the functioning of police cannot be on this narrowed focus but that protection of the public from all elements that could injury or kill them is an equally important activity. As no other entity exists that is given access to the details of a fatal collision police must take up that role of protecting the public, not just from driver criminal activity, but from common human activities, dangers related to vehicular issues and those dangers related to the roadway. This is just a reiteration of the well-known acronym “HVE” (Human-Vehicle-Environment) in road safety research.
So an important matter is the manner in which police conduct their investigations. Understandably the gathering of objective evidence from various vehicle components and modules that record crash data is an important activity. And such an activity is growing in its importance for laying charges against drivers. But how much of police investigation goes toward a scientific study of how a collision occurred and what objective physical evidence exists that can explain more about that collision? Unfortunately, as police focus on matters such as determining speed they do not focus on understanding the details of physical evidence. In the secrecy of their operations no one can confirm that there is some training toward the scientific study of collisions through a thorough examination of a collision-involved vehicle.
Heart surgeons cannot be expected to be expert in their work by taking a two-week course. And the same must apply to reconstructions of motor vehicle collisions. Proper training in collision reconstruction involves a long period of becoming familiar with the evidence that is supposed to be analysed. It is not as simple as being introduced to a slide-to-stop or a critical-speed-yaw formula for calculating speed. It must include detailed study and understanding of the physical evidence through many years of exposure to it. It cannot be a situation, which is presently common in police circles, where an individual is selected to be the reconstructionist for a period of five years and then he or she is shipped off to another department dealing with fraud or homicide. A collision reconstructionist must be a life-long analyst of collisions and his/her expertise must be based on a very long progression of examining many many collisions. It is that repeated exposure to many similar collisions that makes the reconstructionist an expert who can detect abnormalities when they do not fit the pattern of what has been observed in the past.
What happened with the Peel Regional Police investigation is not a matter to be kept secret. But this is often how the wheels run over the bumpy road and we never get down to fixing it.
Traffic Study: Richmond at Epworth in London Ontario – Part I
In the fall of 2025 the Broughdale Community Association contacted Gorski Consulting with respect to concerns they had over traffic safety in their community particularly on Richmond Street in the area of University Drive and Epworth Ave in London, Ontario. It was described as a “dangerous place” and, with the building of a new 780-unit student residence it was believed that the area would become busier and even more dangerous. Subsequent to this initial notification it was also learned that a private developer was intending to build a 21-story apartment building at south-east quadrant of Richmond and Epworth, across the street from the student residence. Initially the Community Association proposed that a traffic signal at the intersection of Richmond and Epworth might alleviate some of the safety concerns. However representatives from the City of London Transportation Department indicated such a signal would be too close to the present signalized intersection of Richmond and University Drive. Because of these problems the Broughdale Community Association asked whether Gorski Consulting could conduct a traffic study and provide advice as to what options might improve traffic safety in the area. These are the circumstances which led Gorski Consulting to proceed with a traffic study.
General Characteristics of Richmond Street At Epworth Ave
The area of concern is located in the north-west of London, Ontario. Richmond Street is a busy arterial roadway which runs north-south generally between London’s downtown up to its northern suburbs where it eventually turns into Highway 4 which is the main highway running north near the west shore of Lake Huron and toward Georgian Bay in Mid-Western Ontario. Epworth Ave is a short roadway that runs for approximately half a kilometre, east-west and it connects to the intersection of Richmond at its west terminus. Epworth is the roadway that many students at Kings University College would take to transition with the larger campus of Western University located to the west. A student transportation bus is also provided by Kings College to transport students along Epworth back and forth with Western University.
The image below provides a general view of the community and the subject area of concern.
A closer view of the Richmond-Epworth intersection is shown in the Googlemaps view below. Descriptions in orange text show the location of the student residence and the proposed apartment tower. There is no infrastructure for cyclists along Richmond and Epworth however there been a new pedestrian and/or cycling path created east of University Drive which connects to University Crescent and toward Kings College, as shown in the image below.
Where Epworth Ave intersects with Richmond Street there is a fourth leg of the intersection extending westward which is named Tower Lane. Tower Lane travels only about 185 metres where it comes to a dead end. On the west side of the dead end is a large parking lot operated by Western University.
Four, 4-storey student-rental apartments presently exist on the land where the proposed apartment tower is to be built at the south-east quadrant of Richmond and Epworth. A view of one of these apartment buildings is shown in the image below, taken looking westward along Epworth Ave. The construction of the student residence can be seen in the background.
on the west side of Richmond Street can be seen in the background.
At the extreme left of the above image one can note the existence of a driveway which services the rear of the four buildings.
The next image shows the same rental building but looking south from the intersection of Richmond and Epworth. The signalized intersection of Richmond and University Drive can be seen in the background.
A description of the proposed apartment tower was contained in a written proposal to City of London staff on behalf of the owner, KAP Holdings Inc. A depiction of the tower was contained in the report and is shown below.
At present the Western University student residence building is in the process of being built. A view of the progress on this construction is shown in the image below, taken on October 16, 2025.
Upon a visit to the site on October 29, 2025 it was observed that a new billboard was posted on the grounds of the KAP Holdings Inc. property, as shown below.
Gorski Consulting Traffic Study
While an initial meeting was arranged with the Broughdale Community Association for the morning of October 2, 2025 Gorski Consulting had already made plans to attend the site in late September, at a time when it was unknown what the safety concerns were with respect to the area. Independent of the Community Association concerns Gorski Consulting observed that a substantial volume of motor vehicle traffic was making turns at the intersection of Richmond and Epworth. Very little traffic was seen turning in and out of the Tower Lane roadway which contains a dead-end a short distance west of the intersection. At this time it was decided that the focus of the traffic study would be at the intersection of Richmond and Epworth, pending what concerns might be raised at the subsequent meeting. Eventually, four, two-hour video sessions were conducted at this intersection. The dates and times of these sessions are noted below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours
September 26, 0730 to 0930 hours
October 2, 1700 to 1900 hours
October 3, 1130 to 1330 hours
In most instances six video cameras were used and these were synchronized. The video was subsequently transferred to video-editting software (Adobe Premiere) and projects were created for each video session. Analysis of these video projects led to the creation of Excel spreadsheets outlining the turning motions of motor vehicles at the intersection. The motions of cyclists and micro-mobility traffic units were also documented. During a second viewing of the projects the motions of pedestrians were documented in separate spreadsheets.
Results from this analysis indicate the large number of motor vehicles turning at the Epworth intersection with Richmond. The total hourly turning motions for each of the 8 hours of observation are noted below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours = 292 motor vehicle turning motions
September 25, 1610 to 1710 hours = 351 motor vehicle turning motions
September 26, 0730 to 0830 hours = 250 motor vehicle turning motions
September 26, 0830 to 0930 hours = 220 motor vehicle turning motions
October 2, 1700 to 1800 hours = 323 motor vehicle turning motions
October 2, 1800 to 1900 hours = 244 motor vehicle turning motions
October 3, 1130 to 1230 hours = 236 motor vehicle turning motions
October 3, 1230 to 1330 hours = 226 motor vehicle turning motions
Pedestrians were only documented if they crossed either of the two roadways. It was reasoned that pedestrians who passed through while walking on a sidewalk should not be a primary safety concern as the possibility of their interaction with motor vehicles, cyclists and micro-mobility units would be minimal. The volumes of documented pedestrians crossing the roadways at the Richmond and Epworth intersection for each hour of observation are noted below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours = 61 roadway crossing motions
September 25, 1610 to 1710 hours = 101 roadway crossing motions
September 26, 0730 to 0830 hours = 27 roadway crossing motions
September 26, 0830 to 0930 hours = 29 roadway crossing motions
October 2, 1700 to 1800 hours = 78 roadway crossing motions
October 2, 1800 to 1900 hours = 80 roadway crossing motions
October 3, 1130 to 1230 hours = 50 roadway crossing motions
October 3, 1230 to 1330 hours = 68 roadway crossing motions
The volume of cyclists and micro-mobility units at the intersection can be described as low, as summarized below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours = 2 cyclists, 1 e-scooter
September 25, 1610 to 1710 hours = 8 cyclists, 1 e-scooter
September 26, 0730 to 0830 hours = 2 cyclists
September 26, 0830 to 0930 hours = 3 cyclists
October 2, 1700 to 1800 hours = 3 cyclists
October 2, 1800 to 1900 hours = 5 cyclists
October 3, 1130 to 1230 hours = 8 cyclists, 1 mobility-assist scooter
October 3, 1230 to 1330 hours = 6 cyclists, 1 e-scooter
At present no documentation of through traffic has been made along Richmond Street because of the very large motor vehicle volumes. Current traffic volume data obtained from the City of London indicates that Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Richmond Street is approximately 27,000 vehicles south of Epworth and about 28,000 vehicles north of Epworth. The AADT for Epworth Ave is listed at 5,000 vehicles.
In a large percentage of time southbound Richmond Street has been observed to contain stopped or crawling vehicles in the vicinity of the Epworth intersection. This occurs when the traffic signal at University Drive turns red and a queue of motor vehicle traffic begins to build northward, often as far as Mayfield Drive which is over 200 metres north of University Drive. When southbound traffic is stopped this provides the beneficial opportunity for westbound vehicles on Epworth to enter Richmond. Additionally, when the traffic signal turns red at the University Drive intersection this stops the northbound traffic flow and provides the opportunity for vehicles on Epworth to enter onto Richmond. If the traffic signal at the University Drive intersection did not exist it is likely that there would be a steady, mostly uninterrupted, flow of traffic on Richmond making it difficult for vehicles on Epworth to enter Richmond. However problems develop whenever a large number of vehicles attempt to make turns at any unsignalized intersection and the Epworth intersection is no exception.
The video data also showed that many southbound drivers on Richmond were making left turns to travel eastbound on Epworth. At times this could not be accomplished without delay and this caused the traffic in the southbound passing lane to come to a halt behind the left-turning vehicle. This was a common inefficiency which reduced traffic flow as vehicles could only continue southward using the southbound curb lane.
Pedestrians were vulnerable when they crossed Epworth travelling either southbound or northbound because of the many vehicles coming in and out of Epworth. However more pedestrians were observed crossing Tower Lane and this was beneficial because there were very few vehicles entering and exiting that portion of the intersection. Throughout the 8 hours of observation 294 pedestrians were observed crossing Tower Lane while only 184 pedestrians were observed crossing Epworth. Yet, in the eight hours of observation, of the total 2142 vehicles that were observed making turns at the four-legs of the Richmond-Epworth intersection, only 104 vehicles were observed turning in and out of Tower Lane. Thus there were many more pedestrians crossing Tower Lane than there were motor vehicles entering or exiting Tower Lane. This beneficial result has to be viewed with caution once the student residence is built to see if this pattern is changed as more motor vehicles may begin to use Tower lane from the residence.
Truck traffic is particularly important. If delivery vehicles begin to use Tower Lane to service the new student residence this could pose a potential danger to pedestrians crossing Tower Lane. The importance of this potential safety problem cannot be overstated. It has been known that heavy trucks have high front ends and drivers are challenged to see objects close to the left and right front because the visibility obstructions from mirrors and roof pillars. At the same time if truck drivers need to make a turn onto heavy traffic on Richmond Street their attention will be toward scanning for traffic on Richmond and not on the presence of pedestrians. Many pedestrians have sustained serious injury or have been killed in this type of scenario when at turning truck runs over a pedestrian or cyclist or other micro-mobility unit.
With respect to cyclists the Richmond-Epworth site poses a threat because there is no infrastructure for their safe travel. Furthermore, although only 37 cyclists were observed during the 8 hours of observation, a couple incidents occurred which suggest there could be greater problems as cyclist volumes rise. In one instance a westbound driver made a right turn from Epworth to travel northbound on Richmond and this was done just as a northbound cyclist was travelling through the intersection.
In a second instance which occurred on September 25, a northbound cyclist was riding a gas-powered bicycle northbound on the east sidewalk of Richmond and he crossed the Epworth Ave intersection at a very high speed. Although cameras were not set up to capture his precise speed it is estimated his speed was in the range of 45 km/h. Such a speed is clearly dangerous to the cyclist but also to vulnerable pedestrians. This same cyclist was observed approximately 35 minutes later, returning southbound on the east sidewalk of Richmond, again at a very high speed.
As mentioned earlier a path has been constructed near University Drive which leads from the east roadside and connects with University Crescent. This route could take pedestrians and cyclists back and forth to Kings College thus avoiding the busy area around the Epworth intersection. The Googlemaps view below shows the general position of the path.
A view of this path is shown below.
Gorski Consulting examined this area for the first time on October 29th at approximately 1030 hours. The path and University Crescent were generally deserted. This may be a function of the mid-day which might not attract cyclist and pedestrian travel. It may also be a function of the late season for cyclist travel. However this needs to be studied further.
Cyclists and pedestrians focus on the shortest and convenient travel distances when selecting a route. It has been noted that a large number of pedestrians travel on Epworth Ave and possibly not along the path connecting University Crescent. One observation is that the connection between University Crescent leading to Kings College is restricted by a fence which narrows the passage to single pedestrians. This would be prohibitive to cyclist travel. This narrowed passage may have been created on purpose to prevent cyclist usage and this needs further study. However it could be one of the reasons why cyclists might not use this route.
The report submitted for KAP Holdings Inc. to City of London staff indicated that the new apartment tower would contain 57 parking spaces for motor vehicles, 12 short-term spaces for bicycles and 108 long-term bicycle parking spaces. Our examination of the parking lot at the present, 4-apartment complex suggests there are 8 parking spaces for each of the 4 buildings or a total 32 parking spaces.
There is no indication on the KAP Holdings Inc. property if there are any bicycle storage areas, perhaps inside the buildings.
The Kap Holdings Inc. proposal appears to offer substantial storage/parking for bicycles. About twice as many as for motor vehicle parking. What is not clear is how bicyclists will be expected to navigate the area safely. As indicated earlier, there is no infrastructure on either Richmond or Epworth to support cyclists. In fact, riding adjacent to the travel lanes of Richmond Street would be, in the view of Gorski Consulting, unacceptably hazardous. This may be one of the reasons why so few cyclists were observed in the 8 hours of video documentation. While a path has been created south of the KAP property which connects Richmond and University Crescent, there is no connection between the KAP property and that path. And there is nothing shown in the proposed plans for the apartment tower that indicates there will be a connection with the newly created path. This poses a potential safety problem if the number of cyclists is increased in proportion to the increased numbers of parking spaces at the proposed apartment tower.
There is also no information about what Western University has arranged to provide safe cycling in the vicinity of the student residence. At 780 units the residence would have over six times the number of units as the Kap Holdings apartment tower. Thus there is the potential for creating a large impact on travel near the Richmond and Epworth area. There is no parking lot near the student residence so it is not clear how many motor vehicles might be attracted by the residence and where those motor vehicles would be parked. It needs to be determined to what degree traffic on the low volume Tower Lane might be increased by the presence of the student residence. Further information needs to be obtained about how many additional cyclists might be attracted and what routes they might take. If cyclists are attracted to ride onto Tower Lane and then into the Richmond-Epworth intersection this could be a hazardous result if cyclists attempted to cross Richmond in heavy traffic.
It must also be recognized that the Gorski Consulting traffic study has gathered motion data at peak periods of traffic volume but that may not be the most important matter to consider when evaluating traffic safety. The purpose of the 8 hours of video was to explore the potential need for a traffic signal at the Richmond-Epworth intersection. This analysis would generally examine the traffic volume and speeds of vehicles. And this analysis is typically an exploration of the transportation efficiency of the intersection and not necessarily its safety. When traffic is clogged up at the intersection vehicles begin to travel slowly or come to a halt. In such conditions safety is generally improved because there is little opportunity to develop higher speeds and therefore higher severities of collisions. So examining the functioning of the Richmond-Epworth intersection at times of peak traffic volume artificially creates the impression that safety problems are of minor consequence. However collision severity potentially increases with higher vehicle speeds and those speeds generally occur as traffic volume decreases. So an important addition to the study would require an examination of traffic during off-peak hours when traffic volume is reduced and speeds are increased.
An example of the potential safety problems that could exist is demonstrated by a collision that occurred at approximately 0230 hours on Thursday, September 12, 2024 on Richmond Street just south of University Drive. It was reported that two vehicles collided and one of them subsequently rode on the west roadside of Richmond and struck a hydro pole. During these events a 29-year-old male pedestrian was struck and sustained life-threatening injuries. The pedestrian was subsequently released from hospital about 4 weeks later. No assistance was provided by investigating police as to how the collision occurred. Given the vehicle rest positions visible in news media photographs it is likely that a fast-moving, northbound vehicle entered the southbound lanes of Richmond and struck a southbound vehicle before colliding with the pedestrian and hydro pole. What is important to note here is that the collision occurred early in the morning when traffic volume would be low and pedestrian volume would also be low. If the motor vehicle traffic volume was high and congested it is less likely that a vehicle would reach high speeds and collision severity would generally be less. So it is important to examine the Richmond-Epworth intersection at a time when traffic volumes are low and observations of vehicle speeds can be made and evaluated.
At present Gorski Consulting has not been provided with a collision history of the area. London City Police have been contacted and such a history may soon be available. Upon receipt of this information further comment can be made about the safety of the intersection and an opinion can be expressed about possible remedies.
Reminiscent Of Insanity Of Donald Trump, Premier Doug Ford Outlaws Speed Cameras In Ontario
Premier Doug Ford’s solution after removing speed cameras throughout Ontario is that he would replace them with speed bumps, speed cushions, roundabouts, enhanced signage and education. Anyone with any knowledge of road safety and collision analysis would know that these alternatives are not solutions, they are simple folly. This will endanger many innocent lives as police in Ontario will not have the resources to conduct speed patrols. This will give the most dangerous drivers on the road a free ticket to drive at the speed they wish, no different that the outlaw gangs that could roam at will in North America’s wild west before civilization crept in.
Strange Reporting From Trial About Fatal Collision In South-West London Ontario
Due to copyright rules we cannot post photos of the collision site where two vehicles collided on November 3, 2020 in London Ontario. The fact that a criminal trial is underway almost five years after the collision date is strange in itself. Why such a delay occurred has not been explained.
Furthermore we cannot find any mention of the collision from local news agencies on the date that it occurred. At Gorski Consulting we are vigilant to reports of collisions occurring in the vicinity of London Ontario and throughout south-western Ontario so it is puzzling that we have no record of this collision being publicly reported at the time that it occurred.
News of the trial became apparent from articles posted on the local CTV News website, commencing on October 8, 2025. CTV never explained why there was such a long delay in the commencement of the trial.
Several photos of the involved vehicles at the collision site were available in the current CTV website articles. These photos showed the results from a typical angle collision causing both vehicles to travel to the south-east quadrant of the intersection of Southdale Road and White Oak Road in south-west London. It was obvious that a Hyundai Sonata sustained damage to its right side while a Mercedes had frontal damage. Such results would suggest that the Mercedes was eastbound on Southdale Road.
The pre-crash motion of the Sonata was not obvious from the visible evidence. Damage and rest positions like this could suggest that the Sonata was either southbound on White Oak Road or it could have been westbound on Southdale Road and made a left turn in front of the Mercedes. The CTV articles never provided an official finding from the police as to the pre-impact direction of travel of the Sonata.
It has been reported by CTV News that the alleged driver of the Mercedes, Bahaa Ali, claimed that the Sonata turned left in front of the Mercedes and, given the evidence visible in the photos, this could be one explanation for how the collision occurred. But then the situation becomes bazaar. CTV reported that Bahaa Ali claimed he was not the driver of the Mercedes. Bahaa reported that his younger brother, Muhannad, was the driver. Muhannad telephoned Bahaa that he was involved in a collision and Bahaa rushed to the collision site before police arrived. It was reported that Bahaa then told police that he was the driver of the Mercedes. So the public has become side-tracked by these additional complications.
At this point it is useful to introduce the concept of a “red herring” whereby some things are reported to distract the reader/viewer/listener about information to prevent relevant facts from being detected. Another description of this phenomenon is where a shiny red ball in introduced into the field of view to cause the viewer to look at the distracting ball while the magician performs tricks without being detected. It is apparent to us that this kind of trickery is taking place with respect to the relevant facts in this collision.
Another bazaar fact introduced into the reporting of this trial is that a police “forensic video analyst” testified that “from collected data from the area” (words reported by CTV) the Mercedes was travelling approximately 129 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. Wow, say the public, this fact clearly indicates that the Mercedes driver was a reckless maniac. Well, maybe, however that is not the full story. What the public does not understand is how collision reconstruction functions and what evidence is gathered and analyzed in the process. So we need a little “Collision Reconstruction 101” course to assess these reports.
A Course In Collision Reconstruction 101
Traditionally, police have used methods such as momentum analysis to reconstruct the speeds of vehicles. Such a method employs gathering information about the pre-impact directions of travel of the vehicles, the area of impact, the post-impact travel directions and final rest positions of the vehicles. This method has worked reasonably well in situations where vehicle pre-crash travel directions are at substantial angles, such as where two vehicles enter an intersection from different roadways. Momentum analysis begins to break-down when the two vehicles approach each other in a head-on scenario such that they approach each other along the same roadway. The scenario is referred to a “co-linear” collision because the both vehicles approach along a straight line. When such a head-on collision occurs investigators must take into account the crush in the vehicles and conduct an assessment of how much energy was dissipated in the collision. This crush analysis provides an estimate of the “Change-in-velocity” of the vehicles. Such a crush analysis helps the investigator with the momentum analysis because the calculated speeds must conform with the severity of the impact.
While Momentum and crush (energy) analysis can be performed via hand calculations, for practical reasons, they are best performed using computerized programs. Such programs have been available for decades, although police have never used them. The most common programs in North America are CRASH and SMAC, both originally developed under contract to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Various private vendors has incorporated this code into their own systems that are sold to various reconstruction and road safety organizations. The PC-Crash program is also popular program and it was originally developed in Europe. The bottom line is that, traditionally these were the methods used to reconstruct collisions.
Commencing in about 1999 event data recorders (“Black boxes”) began to be installed in light duty motor vehicles. Because of their ability to provide a calculated, pre-impact speed of a colliding vehicle event data recorders (EDRs) became very popular in the police community. All that was needed was some “decoding” hardware that could be plugged into the vehicle and a variety of crash data became available without the drudgery of gathering and interpreting the physical evidence. Now almost 100% of light-duty vehicles on the road are equipped with EDRs. However the decoding hardware is not capable of downloading data from every vehicle and here lies an important problem. When a vehicle is encountered where the EDR cannot be downloaded police must use the traditional reconstruction methods. And those who have become focused on reconstruction with EDRs become less familiar with understanding the physical evidence that needs to be gathered and interpreted.
Police also have limited knowledge of mechanisms of occupant injury. What injuries occur at what levels of collision severity and what kinds of collisions produce the injuries that have been observed. Again, police are focused on gathering data for the purposes of laying charges. Injury mechanisms are not viewed as part of that process in the police community. Yet knowledge of injury mechanisms can be helpful in understanding what occurred in a collision and therefore this could help police in their purpose of laying charges. It is just that most police services do not understand that this relationship exists.
Peculiarities In Reported Evidence
So, after reviewing this short summary of collision reconstruction techniques, what can be understood about the present collision? Firstly we see that there is no information about any downloaded data from an EDR. So this should be viewed as peculiar. Why not? One might surmise that police were caught flatfooted as, initially, the collision seemed of less importance because there was no indication of life-threatening injuries. But then that supposedly changed.
If EDR data was not available then the alternative would require the gathering of physical evidence to conduct a momentum and crush (energy) analysis. So was this done? It was not reported so. And if it was reported that speed was calculated from video then it should also have been reported if momentum and crush (energy) methods were also employed. In our view it is highly doubtful that these basic reconstruction methods were employed. However there has been no explanation provided why this was not done. Again, did police believe this was going to be a simple, non-life-threatening result? Did the death of the passenger of the Sonata catch them by surprise? Was it too late to gather the evidence once it was determined that there was a fatality? No information about this has been provided.
For an unexplained reason a passenger in the Sonata eventually passed away. But this is another peculiarity. Looking at the crush to both vehicles it appears that the collision was not of a severity where fatal results could be expected. Several views of the crush at the right side of the Sonata were provided in the CTV news articles and these showed insufficiency for the causation of fatal injuries. However nothing has been officially reported about that. And here is that “red herring”, or bright flashy ball, that redirects the public’s attention away from an important fact. It makes good copy to discuss who was driving, or how fast the Mercedes was travelling but the public does not want to know about the mysterious death of the Sonata passenger.
None of the CTV news articles ever indicated the seating position of the Sonata passenger who passed away. There was a greater threat to her if she was seated in the right rear seat because this was the location of the greatest exterior crush. But if she was seated in that position then it would be very peculiar if there was no one seated in the right front seat. But no one has mentioned if there was another passenger in that right front seat. What is visible in the photos is that there was minimal crush at the Sonata’s right front door, so if the deceased was seated in the right front seat her death would be quite unusual and unexpected.
There are ways to examine physical evidence that could also provide information to police about the identity of the driver of the Mercedes. Again, many police are not familiar with studying injuries and patterns of injury, yet that information can be used to identify a seating position or if a person was present in a collision-involved vehicle. But nothing has been said about what was presented at trial on this point.
The CTV news articles also described how a police video expert performed an analysis to estimate the pre-crash speed of the Mercedes. Again, no information was provided to examine how this was done so one has to surmise what was actually done. If video camera views were available, say, from property surveillance cameras, then analysis of that video can provide such a speed estimate. If so, it has not been explained where, long Southdale Road, that Mercedes was observed and its speed was calculated. What can be known is that the speed of the Mercedes was nowhere near the 129 km/h as estimated by police at the time of impact. So if the Mercedes was truly travelling at such a high speed this would have be at a substantial distance west of the intersection, or there should have been physical evidence on the roadway that the Mercedes was braked heavily on approach to the area of impact. But again, nothing of any such information has been publicly disclosed. So why would such speeds be publicly reported without an explanation of these peculiarities?
As a final comment, recently the Premier of Ontario Doug Ford said he would remove all speed cameras in Ontario because they are a municipal “cash grab”. And many persons would support this, likely because they were caught “speeding”, possibly only a slight amount over the posted speed limit. But rather than removing speed cameras altogether, municipalities could adjust their operation so that detection and ticketing could occur at a higher threshold.
However this collision is an example of the consequences that await the Ontario public if speed cameras are removed. Who will monitor traffic to prevent very dangerous drivers from travelling 129 or even 100 km/h in a 60 km/h zone? Police are not prepared to suddenly increase the numbers of officers positioned along numerous roadways in the hope that the select few dangerous drivers are apprehended. But speed cameras are much more efficient for that purpose. Speed cameras can remain operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Without such cameras there will be incidents where innocent drivers are killed by dangerous speeding drivers. Sorrow and sympathy counts very little after someone has already been killed. Preventative action through speed cameras will reduce the need for sorrow and sympathy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.