Politicians And Speed Cameras In Ontario
As of November 14, 2025 the installation of speed cameras has been banned due to legislation enacted by Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford. The reason for the legislation was to stop Ontario municipalities from using the cameras as a “cash grab”, or a way of generating money for the municipalities rather than for the purpose of improving road safety.
In London Ontario news media reported that seven speed cameras generated $500,000 in ticket revenue in 2024, however the City of London only received $105,000 in its share of that revenue. But no one has been curious enough to ask, who received the other $395,000? What no one wants to talk about is that those speed cameras are owned by an unnamed private firm. And therein lies the problem. Ford appears to have been aware of the money that was being generated from speed cameras or he would not have called them a “cash grab”. But why has so much money been generated? Obviously from motor vehicles being driven over the speed limit.
But no one has asked, and no one has said, what threshold has been set for defining a vehicle as speeding. Is the threshold 2 km/h above the speed limit? Is it 5? Is it 10? It would seem obvious that the lower the threshold the more speeders are found and the more money is generated. So was Premier Ford aware of this? Very likely. And that is why he threw out the baby with the bath water by outlawing speed cameras?
This is a remake of the comedic movie “Dumb and Dumber”. Municipal politicians abuse speed camera procedures and Ford does the dumper thing of removing speed cameras altogether. But this is not a comedy, and it is not funny. The result that these politicians have created is that average citizens will be killed.
Ford’s claim that “traffic calming measures such as speed bumps, raised crosswalks, signage, roundabouts and increased police enforcement” can effectively replace speed cameras is an outright lie. At Gorski Consulting we are aware of that fact because we have conducted detailed studies of how collisions occur, something that few persons done, not even police.
For example speed bumps affect all drivers using a roadway and they are effective is bringing down the average speed on a roadway. And most persons think that reducing the average speed is what is important. But that is not true. What is important is detecting the criminal drivers at the very top of the speeding pyramid. It is the few drivers who travel at very high speeds and have no regard to any meaning of safety that are the true danger. And these drivers will not be stopped or detected by speed bumps. This was made clear a few years ago on Wilson Ave in central west London, Ontario.
On May 29, 2021 an article was posted on the Gorski Consulting website entitled “Speed Bump Aggressiveness As Part Of Collision Cause Analysis”. In that article we described an incident as follows:
“At approximately 0330 hours on Sunday, October 26, 2019, a Mercedes vehicle was northbound on Wilson Ave, just west of downtown in London, Ontario. Upon approaching the T-intersection with Blackfriars Street the vehicle went out of control. It knocked down two utility poles, then struck a commercial building on the west side of Wilson, it was then deflected and impacted a residential house on the opposite side of the T-intersection. News media reporting on the collision described the site as a “war zone”. A woman sleeping in the struck residence was lucky to escape injury as a neighbour reported that ‘Her head was a couple of feet from where the car stopped'”.
This “war zone” was created on a roadway containing four speed bumps. Our further comments in our website article are noted below:
“Further examinations revealed that there were four speed bumps located along the approximate 725 metre length of Wilson Ave from Dundas Street through to Blackfriars Street. It could not be expected that a northbound driver could be oblivious to the presence of all these speed bumps even though some of the warning signs might have been blocked from view. However there was no information made available whether the collision-involved Mercedes travelled the full length of Wilson or if perhaps the vehicle turned onto Wilson from one of the crossroads. Thus it is possible that the driver might have experienced a couple, or even just one of the speed bumps before experiencing the loss of control.”
“There is no question that the collision-involved Mercedes was travelling very quickly, and likely at highway speed along a narrow residential street posted with a maximum speed limit of just 50 km/h. So why did this occur? If the driver was familiar with the roadway then he/she should have been aware of the presence of the speed bumps. And one would expect that any driver would find it uncomfortable to travel over a speed bump at highway speed. Any driver can appreciate that a speed bump is designed to discourage high speeds and that driving over a speed bump at high speed should have a major effect on the motion of the vehicle and its control.”
Premier Ford is informing the public that collisions like these just don’t exist. Or he may say that the speed bumps did their job correctly by causing the offending driver to crash. However this collision could easily have caused a fatality, or more, if there were persons present in the path of the Mercedes when it went out of control.
Speed cameras cannot stop these types of collisions, however they can document a speeding vehicle before a collision is created. A speed camera may not necessarily identify the specific driver doing the speeding but it will identify the vehicle and this is a large step toward identifying the driver. Unless the vehicle has been stolen police can narrow the possibilities of who was driving and that makes a big difference in a police investigation.
It is not clear what the Premier was thinking of when he referred to “raised crosswalks” as being an effective safety technology. Anyone who has substantial experience in collision reconstruction would know that it takes a lot of force to stop or change the direction of a typical motor vehicle that has gone out of control. Much consideration has been taken in collision reconstruction circles whereby we discuss the speed at which a vehicle might mount a typical concrete curb or how much speed is lost by a vehicle striking such a curb. A raised crosswalk is typically a shallow change in elevation which has very little effect on the motion of a heavy vehicle.
And the installation of roundabouts is a Ludacris road safety solution as roundabouts cannot be installed everywhere that there might be a speeding problem. Roundabouts are installed at intersections not in the middle of a long segment of roadway where speeding is often observed.
And finally, the idea that Premier Ford thinks he can simply increase the amount of police enforcement is just juvenile. Increasing police enforcement costs money. It costs money because you have to hire additional police officers so that they can conduct the enforcement. Police forces are already stretched to difficult limits in detailing with major crimes. Is Premier Ford going to remove police investigators of a murder and send them onto the roadside, to stand there for numerous hours, so that a few speeders can be caught?
How did Ontario get to this position where one individual can put the safety of millions of citizens in jeopardy, over such a poorly thought out idea as removing speed cameras throughout Ontario? Any expert with any degree of integrity would state clearly that this is a bad idea. And many have done so. Various individuals and organizations have said so. But, like a runaway railway train, nothing has stopped Premier Ford’s folly.
In our view the solution is clear. Speed cameras must exist on Ontario’s roadways. But they cannot be operated for profit by third party companies who share their profit with a municipality. The threshold for capturing speeding drivers must be set higher than what has been done in the past, even though no one has said what that threshold was and that information has been kept unethically secret. Speed cameras can be used to document drivers who are travelling over a speed limit and that data should be kept to identify drivers who continually travel over the speed limit. Such a data file should be simple to create. Software can be developed to identify those vehicles that continually travel over the speed limit and the owners of those vehicles can be dealt with in the appropriate manner. However ticketing drivers who speed should be done at a higher threshold.
Testing by Gorski Consulting has shown what percentages of speeders travel at 10 or 20 km/h above the speed limit and it is certain that most municipalities have similar data. At most sites the average speed is often 10 km/h above the speed limit. Although this matter has not been thought out, it is possible that thresholds of 20 km/h could be used to ticket drivers in those instances where speed camera data is used. Data from Gorski Consulting studies suggest that these thresholds would capture about the top 10 percent of speeders. This would disqualify a large percentage of the population of speeders from being ticketed. And this would not make a large profit for the companies operating the cameras or for the municipalities where those cameras are used. Municipalities should be combining their resources to purchase and operate their own speed cameras without the involvement of a third party company that is there to generate a profit.
Missing Fatality – But Still No Useful Details Revealed
It was reported by news media that on Saturday, November 1, 2025, at approximately 0420 hours a fatal collision occurred between two vehicles near the intersection of Chinguacousy Road and Queen Street in Brampton, Ontario. Initially it was announced that one of the drivers was killed.
Then on Tuesday, November 4th, news media reported that a second person, 20-year-old female, was also was killed. However no further information was provided.
Then on Wednesday, November 5th news media reported that the second victim had been reported missing by family members and her “last known location, confirmed through a shared tracking app, was the crash site“. Police reportedly returned to the crash site and to the towing compound where they discovered the remains of the female in the rear passenger compartment of the involved Honda Civic.
News media indicated that the Peel Regional Police spokesperson indicated that “In the hours after the collision” police were notified about the missing person. But how many hours were involved. Two hours, 12 hours, 24 hours? Such a comment is of little assistance in understanding the scenario.
A police spokesperson told news media that the deceased passenger of the Honda Civic was difficult to find because the vehicle was deformed. That explanation may be sufficient for many who are not experienced in examining collision-damaged vehicles. But it is not sufficient for someone with that experience.
I am someone who has conducted numerous detailed examinations of crushed vehicles following a collision. Most of these examinations were done at a time when no one heard of a laser scanner and there was no software available to obtain measurements directly from photographs. There were no event data recorders and no downloads from various onboard infotainment modules. Back then it was all about paying attention to physical evidence, documenting it and interpreting it. Such activities involved many hours of direct contact with a collision-involved vehicle.
The comments I will make at the end of this article will be supported by the detailed discussion of my past collision reconstruction activities and what should be involved in a truly scientific investigation and analysis.
Historical Collision Reconstruction With Physical Evidence
As part of my duties with the University of Western Ontario Multi-Disciplinary research team commencing over 40 years ago, I was out, essentially every day, for 10 years, rain, snow or sunshine conducting vehicle and site examinations. Typically I had just barely enough time in a day to conduct two vehicle examinations and then a collision site. Many a day in January, when the sun would set before 1730 hours I barely had enough time to get to the collision site and take some useful photos before it became too dark to do so. But the vehicle examinations were extensive.
As part of my duties I had to measure the crush on each vehicle. For a collision such as the one being described by Peel police it was required that I place a “measurement Jig” or rectangle made up of heavy posts and a elastic shock cord (the type used in boating) around the vehicle and then take measurements from the rectangle to the crushed metal. These methods were for the purpose of determining the kinetic energy dissipated in the collision and thus to determine a “change-in-velocity resulting from an impact. But my methods went several steps beyond what was required. Not only did I measure the crush but I also took measurements to determine the crushed shape of the vehicle and I also identified and measured specific imprints called “points of mutual contact”. It was this method that allowed for a detailed scale diagram to be completed of each collision-involved vehicle. Such details could also be used to study how the striking vehicles interacted with each other during the contact phase and it also enabled a study of the differences in similar collisions. As mentioned before, all this work occurred long before anyone heard of a laser scanner or software programs used to develop 3-dimensional models of damaged vehicles.
As an example, the crush patterns of vehicles involved in severe head-on collisions were explored with large scale diagrams as shown in some of the figures below.
With respect to angle collisions, such as the one investigated by the Peel Regional Police, similar methods were employed. A large scale diagram could be created from measurements taken at a collision site. In the days before total stations and laser scanners such details were not easy to develop with accuracy. However, with some thoughtful effort procedures were developed whereby redundant measurements were taken to remove the distortion that is created from reliance on just a single measurement. Although not as precise as the current “toys” used by experts, these methods enabled measurements to be within about an inch or two from a true distance. The current “toys” can provide a measurement within thousands of an inch from a true distance but, unless you work for NASA and are developing a spaceship, such precision becomes pointless.
With respect to the interior of vehicles reference lines were also erected using perpendicular shock cords attached to select portions of the vehicle structure. For example a lateral cord could be attached between a vehicle’s two B-pillars. Again, measurements were then taken of existing evidence, such as occupant contact points, to those reference lines and then these data could be transferred onto scale diagrams.
In some instances where gouges were created on a roadway, a vehicle could be tipped onto its side and detailed measurements could be made with reference to certain structural landmarks of the vehicle such as the centre of a bumper or to the wheels. Once again, shock cords could be attached to these structures and the markings on the underside of the vehicle could be measured to those cords. In this way markings on the underside of vehicle could be matched directly to the pattern of gouges on the road surface and thus this was definitive proof of a point of impact and where a vehicle was located at that point of impact.
By these methods the mapped interior could be combined with the scale diagram of the vehicle exterior and the mapped markings on the underside of a vehicle could also be combined that the diagram of the vehicle exterior. When done correctly the vehicle interior, the vehicle exterior and the collision site could all be combined in reasonably detailed scale diagrams.
An Example of a Higher Severity Angle Collision
With respect to higher-severity, angle collisions such as the one investigated by the Peel Regional Police the following figures below provide some details about how these collisions were investigated and analysed.
The image below shows some of the measurements that were taken to enable the creation of a scale diagram of the damaged Parisienne. A location of a single “point of mutual contact” is shown here where a blue license plate transfer was caused by the front end of the striking Chevrolet Chevette.
The next figures show views of the striking vehicle, a small Chevrolet Corvette.
As discussed earlier, a reference rectangle was carefully created around the damaged vehicle so that detailed measurements could be obtained of its shape, as well as the crush.
Once the scale diagrams of the vehicles were created they were brought together to consider how they made contact and how their motions progressed through to the point of separation, as shown below.
Through the use of scale diagrams the vehicle motions could be determined from the physical evidence and enhanced by the specific evidence from the “points of mutual contact”.
Computer reconstruction programs such as CRASH were used to examine the severity of the collision. CRASH focuses primarily on the circumstances at impact. However any software program creates a model of a collision that does not precisely replicate the details exhibited in the physical evidence. It is the scale diagrams and the “points of mutual contact” that anchor the model to the precise manner that the collision occurred. Alternatively in some instances the results from a CRASH analysis could reveal that the interpretation of the physical evidence was not consistent with the physics. This is how this combination is used through progressive adjustments until a result is reached which comes close to reality.
The continuation of the analysis with a simulation program such as SMAC is also enhanced when the model is anchored to the physical evidence that was identified. A simulation program like SMAC brings the striking vehicles from their point of contact through to their rest positions. When such a simulation is successful at replicating the vehicle paths to rest then that is a pretty good indicator that the reconstruction of a collision was performed correctly. When the simulation results are also consistent with a CRASH analysis and with the detailed physical evidence the results become fully reliable.
With respect to injury issues, a through examination of the interior of each vehicle was conducted. The figure below shows the results from an examination of the interior of the Chevette.
Typically measurements of various occupant contacts were taken along with detailed photos. These data could then be matched with medical information identifying the specific injuries of each occupant. Physical evidence from other sources such as loading marking on seatbelts could provide further information about the mechanisms that caused injuries and if some injuries were suspect.
Again such details cannot be obtained from a vehicle interior without spending considerable time being present inside the vehicle. This is not pleasant work and not for the squeamish. In all instances my work was carried out after the injured or deceased were removed from a vehicle. Yet in many instances my work would commence very shortly after a vehicle was removed from a collision site to a towing compound, sometimes only hours after the collision took place. Such a circumstance would not be much different from the required actions of a police reconstructionist who may not attend a collision until several hours had passed and some investigative activities would need to be completed at a towing yard.
Current methods of police investigation have been adjusted from these historic methods discussed above and this is revealing. Police may now use a laser scanner to document evidence and/or they may use a drone. They will also use hardware such as a Crash Data Retrieval kit to connect to a module which is an event data recorder to download crash data. They may also download crash photos from newer vehicles that store those images on a separate module. And they may interrogate infotainment data stored on in-vehicle communication devices. Such evidence is valuable and contributes to understanding some aspects of collision causation. However these activities become a negative when they take the investigator away from an examination and understanding of the physical evidence on the roadway and on the vehicle interior and exterior.
Working with physical evidence is a key component of any collision investigator’s toolbox. The detection of relevant physical evidence requires that the investigator have substantial experience from many years of contact with it. The ability to detect and identify relevant physical evidence is not a simple matter of reading a book or taking a short course. An effective investigator must be exposed to many instances where that evidence may vary from case to case. Multiple exposure to such evidence allows the investigator to observe how that evidence changes. And these multiple exposures allow the investigator to develop an understanding why that change exists and how it relates to previous observations of that evidence. However when persons in a position of power and limited accountability, take someone with limited experience, give someone a badge, uniform and title and suddenly designate someone an “expert”, bad results are bound to happen.
Comments On Peel Police Collision Investigation
The purpose for conducting a motor vehicle collision reconstruction is to identify factors that caused harm. In police circles that definition of harm is largely focused on driver behaviors and punishment for those behaviors. Such a focus is necessary and important but it is also narrow.
Injury is also an example of harm. It is also important. It is a benefit to society, that we attempt to prevent, or lessen, collision injuries including their consequences.
What should be concluded from the above discussion about historical methods of collision reconstruction is that, in order to conduct a properly scientific analysis of a collision, vehicle interiors must be included in that analysis and examined in detail. When a proper examination of the interior of a collision-involved vehicle is conducted there should be no reason for an injured occupant in that vehicle to be unidentified. What led to the lack of identification a a deceased inside a vehicle has not been explained. Beyond police, medical personnel and even fire department personnel have responsibilities for identifying occupants in a damaged vehicle and why their failures occurred also needs to be revealed. Up to now there has been no photo posted of a reasonable quality that could reveal the extent of damage to the Honda Civic and provide some explanation as to why no one detected the deceased passenger.
It has been a long-expressed concern on this Gorski Consulting website that police forces in general often fail to understand that they have an obligation to identify and report to the public whenever an incident exposes a danger to the public. That obligation should be obvious because often police are the only ones with the ability and authority to conduct a thorough investigation of an incident. Dangers related to motor vehicle collisions that are not publicly reported expose the public to future preventable incidents that could be life-threatening.
Collision dangers can come from a wide variety of sources and road safety researchers often us the acronym “HVE” to refer to those broad factors involving the Human, the Vehicle and the Environment. When police fail to inform the public that humans are increasingly speeding, drug impaired, inattentive etc. they are failing in their duty. When police fail to inform the public about the presence of a vehicle defect, a vehicle maintenance danger or any vehicle factor that may cause restricted visibility or attention then they fail in their duty. When police do not report incidents where improper roadway design, maintenance or signage have influenced a collision they have failed in their duty. These are exemplar components of HVE.
While the undetected body of the deceased in the present incident may be described to the public as an isolated matter in our view it is not isolated. It is a failing that has revealed itself in this one incident but it is also a failing that is more systemic. Police must change from their presently narrow focus on driver behavior modification to a wider focus on identifying and reporting all matters than may cause harm to the public. Such a wider focus will lessen the occasions where obvious duties, such as detecting the presence of the body of a deceased, fail to be achieved.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.