Winter Changes in Road Surface Conditions Remain Challenging To Most Drivers
Recent multi-vehicle pile-ups on Highway 400 and 401 in southern Ontario demonstrate the challenges that exist when road surface and weather conditions deteriorate. The extent of those problems is rarely publicized as government agencies that are responsible for roadway maintenance and control risk being criticized for the existence of those conditions. The propaganda of blaming drivers is tied to the conflict of interest of being sued for the existence of substandard road conditions.
Ontario’s Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) for roadways were enacted principally by the defendants in potential civil litigation. The MMS generally state that actions to improve the surface conditions of a road do not have to begin until several inches/centimetres of snow have accumulated on that surface. In practice this means that, by the time plows or sanders are sent out, there will likely have been several hours of dangerous conditions existing on most roadways. This in the time when drivers are caught by surprise as surface conditions deteriorate unexpectedly.
There may be many combinations of ice, snow and bare pavement on any roadway at any particular time. The traction provided by these conditions can vary greatly. Given a bare pavement a driver applying maximum braking from an initial speed of 80 km/h could bring a typical passenger car to stop in about 36 metres or less. The same vehicle being braked on snow could stop in about 100 metres. And the same vehicle braked on ice would require over 500 metres to stop. These values are based on estimated coefficient-of-friction values of 0.7, 0.25 and 0.05 respectively. The lower the coefficient of friction the less traction is provided. These differences are very large. However, not all surfaces are fully bare, snow-covered or ice-covered. Often surfaces contain a mixture of all three conditions.
The road surface in this photo obviously contains snow but do the dark areas contain bare pavement or are they icy? While travelling at highway speed it is not easy to be sure as the surface may appear blurry.
So a road surface that is predominantly bare may contain patches of snow or ice. But how would a driver be able to tell what level of traction the surface might provide? A braking test could be done but not in the middle of a busy expressway. A reasonable estimate for such road surface might be in the range of 0.6 and result in a braking distance of 44 metres from an initial speed of 80 km/h. But a slight difference in composition of snow and ice might bring the coefficient-of-friction down to 0.4, with a resultant braking distance of about 63 metres. That is a difference in braking distance of almost 20 metres. Converted into the scenario of a bare road surface a braking distance difference of 20 metres would be the difference between travelling 80 km/h and 99 km/h.
And what if we have even worse road surface conditions? What if a driver is travelling along a highway in rain and the temperature is steadily dropping from just above freezing to below freezing. With steady high-speed traffic the wheel track areas of the surface might remain wet due to the heat caused by friction between the tires and the surface. But just outside of those wheel tracks, where there is no such heating taking place, the road surface begins to turn to ice. A driver looking at the reflections coming from a wet road surface has difficulty detecting that a similar level of reflection takes place from an icy road surface. A wet road surface might possess a coefficient-of-friction of about 0.5 but the icy surface might contain levels of 0.1 or 0.05. What would happen if the driver needed to change the vehicle’s lateral position in the lane due to some form of traffic disturbance ahead? At 80 km/h the vehicle travelling on the wet surface would be braked to a stop in about 50 metres, whereas we already indicated earlier that the same braking action could lead to a braking distance of over 500 metres.
A reflection of the red traffic signal on the pavement in this photo shows that the roadway may be wet or icy. That distinction can be difficult to make. Yet failure in a correct identification could lead to dire consequences.
The point of this discussion is to demonstrate that driving in winter where rain or snow may be falling, and where there are combinations of wet, snowy and icy conditions results in a challenging safety environment. There will always be the segment of drivers who are reckless and inattentive thus causing collisions regardless of the weather conditions. But there will also be a segment who are driving in a reasonable manner but whose expectations are violated through no fault of their own. This is not only because the traction conditions of a road surface are difficult to read but also because those conditions change. That change may not only be related to changing weather. Changes may occur due to plowing and sanding actions that are terminated, disrupted or occur only on partial areas of a highway.
In this example, road salt has been applied in the vicinity of an intersection on the basis that such maintenance is of a higher priority at such locations. However the termination of that maintenance beyond the intersection means that the road surface could change from being wet to icy without warning.
While in many instances plowing, salting and sanding actions are deemed helpful, they also create differences in road surface conditions in areas where those actions are terminated or are incomplete. A road segment that receives a fresh coating of salt may seem safe to travel at higher speed. Yet, when that salting is terminated at an unexpected location a road surface may become icy without any prior warning. Similarly plowing actions that are terminated or are incomplete result in unexpected changes to road surface conditions.
In this example, plows have cleared this section of Highway 401 but have failed to clear the snow on the exit ramp. Such changes in surface condition can be unexpected.
Those who are responsible for the maintenance of roadways are often in a conflict of interest. Those who are direct employees of a municipality, or the Ontario government, are not free to discuss the problems that may exist because this could lead to claims from civil litigation against their employers. Similarly, those contracted to do maintenance work for municipalities and the Provincial government may be held liable if problems are revealed with road conditions that they are responsible to correct. Even police share that conflict of interest as they receive their marching orders down from a chain of command that, at its peak, is operated by the government that could be held liable for road safety problems. The primary purpose of many official agencies becomes a case of deflecting responsibility for road safety problems rather than correcting them.
In this milieu of complicated road surface changes, vast differences in driving habits, vested interests, and confusing propaganda the target of improving public safety continues to shift in the winds with striking a bull’s eye being more a matter of luck rather than well-planned intellectual strategy.
Some Police Going 170 km/h Are Charged, Others at 200 km/h Are Not
“The message has to be sent that officers can’t put the public at risk by driving in this manner” (Prosecutor), but what message is sent when others travelling at higher speeds are not charged?
Consistency in the application of the law is critical to the justice system not being viewed as hypocritical and corrupt. When one set of circumstances results in a conviction a similar set of circumstances cannot lead to something vastly different.
Speeding by police cruisers sometimes cannot be avoided. The increased danger needs to be compared to the necessity.
On December 21, 2015 Haldimand OPP Constable Lauren Cheeseman was pursuing a bank robber at speeds of up to 170 km/h. She was operating an unmarked cruiser and did not activate her emergency lights or siren. The bank robber’s vehicle eventually struck another vehicle causing injuries to an occupant of the struck vehicle. Following an investigation by Ontario’s SIU Constable Cheeseman was charged with one count each of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.
In a recent sentencing hearing the prosecutor, Katie Doherty, called the Constable’s speed “outrageous”. Yet the defense lawyer emphasized that the bank robber had “produced a gun and threatened to kill somebody…” . Was the officer supposed to “…let an armed bank robber driving erratically get away and possibly harm someone in another robbery?”. It would seem to be a question that needed consideration. There must be instances where the public’s safety is jeopardized by police but, in the balance, the situation cannot be avoided. It becomes important to study each incident in detail and without bias. Rarely is that possible in a courtroom when both the prosecution and defense are not interested in providing an even-handed assessment of the case.
In contrast to the charge against Constable Cheeseman a collision with very similar circumstances occurred a number of years ago where the speeding officer was not charged, but an innocent driver was convicted.
In 2007 Gorski Consulting was involved in a case involving two speeding cruisers from the Elgin OPP detachment. The first cruiser, travelling westbound, was fully marked and was driving with lights and siren to an emergency along a paved rural highway. A substantial distance behind the first cruiser was an unmarked cruiser also travelling with lights and siren. The important fact was that the cruisers were travelling at about 200 km/h. An elderly female in an SUV was also travelling westbound ahead of the cruisers and she was approaching an uncontrolled intersection where she intended to turn left. There was a hill-crest about 250 metres before the intersection such that the elderly woman’s view of the cruisers behind her was limited. As she approached her turn she heard a siren and then a flash of light as the first cruiser blasted past her vehicle. Somewhat shaken she managed to pull her vehicle slightly to the right and then checked her driver’s side mirror. She observed a small white vehicle in the distance that did not register as anything significant. It did not look like a police cruiser and its great distance behind her led her to believe it was irrelevant. So she steered back into the roadway and commenced her turn. The small white vehicle was actually the second, unmarked police cruiser. As she commenced her turn the female officer in the second cruiser slammed on her brakes and slid resulting in a substantial speed loss before the cruiser collided with the left side of the SUV. Both vehicles then travelled into the roadside ditch.
The problems with this case commenced when the person assigned to investigate the incident was the Shift Sergeant who would have been responsible for the actions of the two officers. In his assessment the Sergeant deemed that the speed of the cruisers had no relevance to the collision and it was the elderly driver’s fault for failing to pull over to allow the cruisers to pass. He did not consider what the elderly woman was capable of seeing through her driver’s side window and whether the cruiser’s profile and lights could be detected at the substantial viewing distance. He did not consider whether the extreme speed of the first cruiser allowed the elderly driver sufficient time to detect it and to move to the right and stop, as required by law. An unbiased approach would have demonstrated that what the elderly woman reported, only seeing an irrelevant white car, was most likely what she was capable of detecting given the circumstances. The fact that the elderly driver was not killed in the collision was mostly luck as the collision was of sufficient severity that a direct contact with her driver’s door could have been lethal.The Crown Prosecutor had an opportunity to examine the police evidence and recognize the bias that existed yet he proceeded with the prosecution of the charge. At trial a series of incredible actions took place, in a purposeful manner, in our view, to prevent testimony in the elderly driver’s defense. The Justice of the Peace refused to allow evidence to be presented that demonstrated the bias of the police investigation. A subsequent complaint was filed with the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and to the Attorney General. Both of these complaints led to no actions being taken.
There were failures in the actions of all officials involved. The two police officers who were speeding towards an emergency situation made an understandable mistake of travelling too quickly without being sufficiently aware that the travelling public could not react effectively to their incredible speeds. While the police actions were mistaken they could have been accepted given the quick actions that need to be taken when emergencies unfold. Rather than taking this approach, an attempt was made to cover up those mistakes. The prosecutor failed to recognize the bias of the police investigation and proceeded with a charge that had no factual basis. The actions of the Justice of the Peace were also inexcusable as he failed to allow evidence to be brought before the court that would officially document the problems with the police investigation. The Ontario Civilian Commission and the Attorney General’s offices failed to accept receipt of documentation of the complaint. All these failures led to the conviction of an innocent elderly woman whose family who became disgusted with the proceedings.
This view of two police cruisers coming over a hill-crest demonstrates that it takes time to detect their special status and, when they are travelling very quickly, there may not be sufficient time for drivers to react to their presence and steer/brake to a stop as required by law.
These are the frames upon which negative perceptions of the police and justice system are laid. It takes considerable time for the turbulence from such injustices to subside. In many instances the events are retold informally among family members, acquaintances, and in other discussions that are not registered by the police community or justice system. When there is propaganda aimed at improving the image of the police and justice system, it is these actions that are the reminders to the public of the hypocrisy that they reflect. Cooperation and support by the public in general is vital to police operations. All must work together to maintain an orderly society, prevent crime and bring criminals to justice. A preaching to the choir of police supporters without the inclusion of major segments of society, and failing to recognize inherent problems with police and the justice system is unhealthy, inefficient and destructive.
However, a just result also applies to how police are treated and how their actions are judged. The injustice shown in the above-noted example becomes the catalyst for the public’s cynicism and unwillingness to be tolerant of a police officer’s honest mistake. Those who have experienced an injustice or have been told of it develop a bias that is difficult to extinguish. These harsh reactions only lead police to hide their imperfections. Our society is not prepared to accept the reality that police are only a reflection of itself, with all its warts and wrinkles. A healthy environment would allow those imperfections to be openly revealed without the extreme consequences that are presently being imposed.
The differences in the justice system’s reaction to the actions of Constable Lauren Cheeseman and its reaction to the historic example noted above highlights a discrepancy. Constable Cheeseman’s cruiser did not strike any other vehicle. It was the bank robber’s vehicle that was involved in the collision. In contrast the police officer in the historic example was the one who collided with the elderly driver’s vehicle. Constable Cheeseman did not activate her emergency lights and siren and this could be viewed as the increased danger of her actions. However, the ghost vehicle in the historical example might as well have been running with no lights or siren because of the lack of warning it provided to the elderly driver under the circumstances of the case. Coming over a hill-crest and observing a vehicle ahead that was approaching an intersection the Constable in the historic example should have recognized that her speed and the hill-crest would have given the elderly driver a limited amount of time to detect the special status of her vehicle. Proper training should have provided her with information that a ghost vehicle may not be detected as a proper police vehicle and proper training should have instructed her about the effect that a hill-crest would have on reducing a unsuspecting driver’s reaction to her presence. Furthermore there has been sufficient evidence in existence for decades about the inability of drivers to hear a siren or detect where it is coming from and this fact should have been included in the Constable’s training. These differences should make one question why Constable Cheeseman’s actions were so much more dangerous than the actions of the constable in the historical example.
This discussion demonstrates a need for a two-pronged change. On the one hand police wrong-doing cannot be hidden by police, prosecutors and the courts. When such inappropriate actions take place there must be a meaningful process that assures that all officials in the justice system, regardless of their rank or position, are held responsible. Secondly, change must occur in the severity with which police officers, or any members of the justice system, are punished for mistakes that have been revealed. Members of the justice system who admit to making honest mistakes are exactly the types of persons that should be members of the justice system. In contrast lying and deception cannot be accepted. But society is partially at fault for the cover-ups that occur when even the smallest signs of failure could mean the end of a long career of honesty and good deeds.
Staying In Your Vehicle After A Collision Is Irresponsible Advice
An irresponsible news item shown on the local CTV News channel in London Ontario claimed that police and “experts” both advise motorists to stay inside their vehicle after an accident because the vehicle is designed to take any additional impacts. Furthermore a local driving instructor was quoted as saying “Don’t go behind guard rails because vehicles can smash through guard rails”. This commentary is irresponsible and dangerous for the fact that persons could be killed because they took this “expert” advice from someone who does not know what he is talking about. These comments were made with respect to several multi-vehicle collisions that have occurred in the last few days on the major expressways such as Highway 401 and 400.
A driver listening to this advice is now likely to say in his or her vehicle when it spins out and stops in the middle of an expressway on a night of poor visibility and poor road surface conditions. Yet a highway like the 401 may have as many as 50% of its traffic volume made up of heavy trucks. The so called vehicle that is designed to take an impact will now take the impact of this massive truck while its occupants are seated inside in the belief that the “experts” are correct and they will be saved. It is completely irresponsible to place that thought in drivers’ heads who do not understand the folly of that advice. A vehicle can withstand a variety of impacts with minimal or no injury to its occupants because most impacts will be much less severe than being struck by a massive tractor-trailer at highway speed. Vehicles are not designed for that kind of impact severity. Anyone inside a passenger car which is struck by a tractor-trailer at highway speed will most surely be dead, unless the impact is a glancing blow, and that cannot be guaranteed.
The advice given that one should not jump over a guardrail because a vehicle could drive through that rail is also irresponsible. Again, one must understand what is the best option for the given circumstances. A passenger car or light truck that strikes a guardrail at highway speed may displace it by several feet but in most cases it is unlikely to pass through it. So one can jump over such a rail and move away from it for that reason. Again, individual circumstances differ. If a large truck strikes such a guardrail then yes it is likely to drive through it and/or roll over top of it and you need to be aware of that. You are safer if you climb over high-wall, concrete, Jersey-type barrier that is stronger. But again, nothing is fool proof and you need to understand where you need to stand or which direction you need to run to when these events appear to be commencing.
The proper advice to give is that persons involved in a collision of multiple vehicles on a major expressway in poor weather need to understand what their best options are depending on the circumstances of the actual event. For example, in the early stage of such an event there is a potential that the impacts may not have been completed within the vicinity of the stopped vehicle because upcoming traffic has not had a proper chance to be forewarned of the stopped vehicles. One needs to assess the likelihood of higher-severity additional impacts that might occur. If those additional impacts are likely to be severe it is absolutely critical for vehicle occupants to exit their vehicle quickly and move, either laterally to the roadside, or over a guardrail or concrete median barrier. If this is not safe then they need to consider moving, as quickly as possible, in the direction that traffic is moving, past the stopped vehicles, if there is sufficient blockage of the lanes that other traffic is not likely to pass the stop vehicles and strike them. But you need to understand that you cannot simply stand around in the vicinity of stopped vehicles on a expressway and expect to be seen. You cannot stay within your vehicle because you cannot guarantee what damage may be caused to it from additional impacts that might jam the doors while also leading to a fire. Too often one vehicle catches fire and soon that fire progresses to others. If the doors of a vehicle become jammed anyone in a vehicle that catches first is obviously in grave danger regardless of the severity of any initial impact.
Bit these are general comments. They cannot be global such as those made by the so-called “experts”. Persons need some education in understanding what is dangerous and this cannot be taught through a few quotes in a news item provided by someone who claims to be an expert. Scenarios must be presented and the various alternatives need to be discussed. These alternatives will vary depending on the context of each collision.
But by no means should the public take the words of the so-called expert mentioned in the CTV news item as gospel. Sitting inside a stopped vehicle on a major expressway in poor weather conditions is the worst advice that could be given.
Collision Avoidance When Design Safety Reaches Its Limit
Although great improvements in vehicle design have saved many lives, for those incidents where design has reached its limit, modern collision avoidance is taking a giant step forward.
The classic angle collision with direct impact to a driver’s door is an example where vehicle design is greatly challenged. In collisions that are potentially fatal there is substantial opportunity to protect occupants when the direct contact is to a broad portion of a vehicle’s front end. Much of that opportunity has been taken care of with front end crush zones, prevention of intrusion into the occupant space, and protection systems such as seat belts and air bags. The fact that a car or light truck may have up to 1.5 metres of structure ahead of the occupant compartment to dispose of during a head-on collision is significant. It has resulted in the development of an ingenious array of successful devices that protect occupants from fatal collisions that were unheard of just four decades earlier. But that success has its limits in side impacts where the width of usable structure is far less.
The OPP have provided a couple of photos of a recent fatal collision that exemplifies the extent of the difficulty. it was reported that a 77-year-old driver of the sedan shown the photo below sustained fatal injuries when the van struck the sedan in the driver’s side.
Results of a fatal collision on Highway 7 reported by the OPP.
This would not be listed in the category of the most severe side impacts, yet it was not minor. The most crucial fact is that the front end of the van penetrated into the driver’s door of the sedan. The location of that direct damage is the deciding factor. If the direct contact was just one metre further toward the rear we would not be discussing this as a fatal collision.
The photo below shows that the driver’s door of the sedan has been removed, likely because emergency personnel had to attend to the injured driver. The steering wheel air bag has deployed. Yet there is no evidence that a side curtain has deployed. This in an important factor.
The deployment of side curtains is necessary for precisely these kinds of collisions. The front end of a van is taller than a typical passenger car. Therefore when it impacts the driver’s door the hood of the van is located up higher into the driver’s side window when the crush occurs. Meanwhile the head of sedan driver moves in opposition to the impact force, or toward the location of the front edge of the hood of the van. This typically causes the head of the driver to strike the intruding front edge of the hood and it results in serious or fatal injuries. The deployment of a side curtain is designed to provide a protective wall to prevent that head contact. Thus the deployment of a side curtain might have been a critical factor in this incident. Unfortunately the driver of this sedan was a 77-year-old female and her likely frailty might also have been a factor.
So this discussion has provided an indication of the problem that, when a driver’s door is struck, it is difficult to protect the driver from significant injury, even with the deployment of a side curtain. This has been a fact for many decades. But there is new technology being developed that could make a drastic improvement on the results of collisions like these, even for the frail elderly.
When vehicle design has reached its limit new technology that senses the presence of vehicles in the vicinity of each other means that preventive actions can be taken automatically without any driver’s involvement. Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) is such a technology. In the example case shown above, the van would be braked automatically long before the driver recognized the need to do so. This would reduce the severity of the impact or perhaps prevent it altogether. More generally, the development of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications means that vehicles can “talk” to each other and transfer a variety of critical information.
The question remains whether this technology can operate reliably in the vast number of complex collision scenarios that might exist. Drawbacks to this technology are several. As vehicle “knowledge” increases there is a need to ensure that it not become intrusive and used for nefarious purposes. As these systems become more complex those who design and access their functioning become fewer. Thus the power to keep their functioning secret becomes ever greater. There has to be some assurance to the public that they can stay informed when these systems fail or perform in a manner that is illegal.
Secondly when these advanced systems gather information there is a threat that personal information can be gathered and used without the driver’s/owner’s permission. Without control this could open a massive Pandora’s Box of Peeping Toms.
In all, whenever technology advances improvements are experienced while new dangers and potential failures are brought with them. Getting it right means our society encourages development of new technology while also controlling its misuse and exposure to new dangers.
Witness Sent Innocent Man To Prison For 40 Years
Judicial systems cannot continually reply on witness evidence as the basis for convictions without supporting evidence. That was made clear once again in the case of Craig Coley.
It has been reported that Mr. Coley was released in 2017 after serving nearly 40 years in prison. He had been convicted of killing his girlfriend and her son in 1978 in Simi Valley California. Reports indicated “Coley had an alibi for the time of the slayings, and investigators later disproved testimony from an eyewitness who placed him at the scene” (Associated Press).
“Later”? What does that word “later” mean? Coley was in jail for almost 40 years before investigators disproved the eyewitness testimony. How was the eyewitness testimony disproved and why did it take 40 years to disprove it? Surely it did not require the DNA evidence to finally resolve the matter because that appeared to be a separate issue. If Coley had an alibi why was that alibi not accepted? Was it because the court believed the eyewitness?
If it was the first time that witness evidence was in error then the judicial system could be excused. But that is not the case. History is filled with judgments where innocent persons were convicted solely on the basis that a witness appeared to be credible. But no one is willing to review the Coley file to explain where and why the system went wrong.
The Associated Press article on this case indicated that Mr. Coley will receive a $21-million payment for his imprisonment. The City Manager was quoted as saying “While no amount of money can make up for what happened to Mr. Coley, settling this case is the right thing to do…”. Settling this case without further inquiry is not the right thing to do. It only releases those from blame whose actions ought to be reviewed. No further inquiry means that the judicial process can continue without further scrutiny and without correction. It means that many other jurisdictions in North America will not asked to reflect on their policies and procedures to insure that injustices like these are not repeated.
Are there similar problems in the Province of Ontario and Canada? Just ask Mr. James Lockyer, a prominent lawyer who has handled many cases of misapplied justice resulting in innocent persons spending decades in prison before they were exonerated. Steven Truscotte, Guy Paul Morin? There is a list of many who have paid dearly, yet the failures of the justice system remain silent. As in the Coley matter, pay-offs only mean that those who fail to conduct themselves properly escape notice and are free to continue to destroy innocent lives.
It was high time, decades ago, that the issue of acceptance of witness evidence be examined and corrections made to how that evidence will be dealt with. Many prominent researchers have explained how witness information can be in error, or even deliberately untrue. Yet there is little that has been done in the justice system to focus on the problem. Whenever witness information stands alone, without collaborative evidence, there is a substantial likelihood that it could be wrong. Those who claim that a witness appears to credible and proceed with a charge or conviction, based on that opinion alone, are the ones whose actions need to be addressed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.