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.
Police Officer Impairment Conviction Demonstrates Complexity of Issue
Not all impaired drivers are the same. There are unique circumstances that lead unique individuals to make bad choices.
It has been reported that a 19-year-veteran of the London City Police was convicted of impaired driving following tests of her breath registering readings of 0.2 and 0.21, which are well over 2 times the legal limit. As an investigator with the major crimes unit the officer would have dealt with crime, criminals and bad choices on a daily basis. So why would such a seasoned member of the police become involved in such a senseless act.
Unreasonable expectations that police officers must be perfect at every occasion lead to unreasonably harsh judgments when that unattainable threshold has not been met.
There could be many reasons and those reasons could be complex. Stress, personality disorders, financial crisis and addiction are only some of the influences and causes of impaired driving. Those factors could envelope the life a police officer no less than any other person. For police officers it is not too difficult to recognize that the stress of the job could be an influencing or causal factor. But equally many of us have stressful jobs and could equally be affected.
In recent years an executioner mentality has evolved where some have developed the belief that trials and rights are a waste of time. When charged, these impaired drivers are obviously guilty and should be thrown in jail for a long, long time. When the results of an impaired driving incident become catastrophic expressions of anger and wanting of vengeance have prevailed. Patience, tolerance and a willingness to dig deeper have been replaced by impatience, intolerance and a quickness to judgment.
Yet the appearance of the individual seems to matter. The same crime caused by a prominent politician, police officer or other respected member of the community does not elicit the same response as the ragged, dirty and poor individual with no meaningful employment.
A recently completed trial demonstrates the complexity of impaired driving incidents. On December 3, 2011 To Ha Phan was driving on Highway 401 near Islington Ave in Toronto, Ontario when he struck and killed a pedestrian. He was charged with impaired driving causing death. However the young female pedestrian was also drunk. Yet the story is more complicated. She had been in a taxi when she reportedly needed to relieve herself and she insisted on exiting the taxi. The taxi driver reportedly called 911 and then left the scene. He left the female pedestrian on the highway rather than driving her to an exit of the Highway where she might be safer until emergency personnel arrived. The scenario was even more complicated as the deceased had been at an office party and her co-workers, recognizing she was impaired, placed her in the taxi so she could get safely home. The trial judge determined that the impairment charge to Phan should be successful however he determined that Phan did not cause the pedestrian’s death due to the unpredictable actions of the pedestrian on the expressway. So who was at fault? Were there multiple persons at fault? Was the restaurant where the pedestrian was served her alcohol at fault? Was the employer at fault for organizing the office party? Were the co-workers at fault? Was the Taxi driver at fault? Was the pedestrian herself at fault? Some might have the opinion that the matter is straight forward. To a select few everything is obvious and straightforward.
A key item that is missing in these judgments is a detailed history of the individual. How has that person behaved in the past and how that compares to the offence that has taken place. In some instances it could be as simple as an innocent drink or two among friends where alcohol dulls a person’s judgment. A normally reliable person who has had a stressful day suddenly takes more alcohol than he or she is accustomed to taking. Suddenly that person is no longer reliable and makes crucial judgment errors that they would not normally make. Is that possible? While it may not describe the scenario for a large number of impaired drivers it may be an explanation for some. It would be a good approach to understand what that specific person’s history is before grouping him or her with others. Again, what is important are the details. The history of the individual’s character and what led them to the actions that took place.
Whatever happened with the convicted police officer needs to be judged equally, in the same context as any other individual is judged, but most importantly, fairly. Whether a priest, beggar, alcoholic or politician. Regardless of who the person is or what the person does. That approach is not easy to attain and maintain especially when the impaired driver’s actions become personal. Yet anger and vengeance, much like alcohol, only cloud the mind, and prevent a person from making good decisions.
Vengeance is candy, and dandy as liquor, but there’s no human vice that causes wrong any quicker.
Worst Roads Season – Evaluation Fails to Use Objective Facts
Every year a province-wide evaluation of road problems is publicized based on subjective complaints. Why does the evaluation not use objective data instead?
An example of road surface problems on Wonderland Road near London, Ontario where Gorski Consulting conducted testing to determine the extent of the problem.
Every year the official news agencies publicize the results of a Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) “Worst Roads Campaign”. The custom asks citizens to report complaints to the CAA about roadways that, in their opinion, are the worst in their area. The CAA complies the data and the news agencies publicize it. The claimed benefit is that this process applies pressure on various politicians and road agencies to repair the roads and keep them safe. The problem with this campaign is its subjective basis. It means that, if enough persons in a specific locality complain about a specific road then it will be advertised as the worst road, regardless of whether it is the worst road. In fact, there is no indication that the CAA actually follows up with the complaints and conducts some form of objective testing to confirm whether the complaints are legitimate. One could see it theoretically possible for a group of “conspirators” to flood the program with complaints, simply for the fun of it. While such a action could seem amusing it could have real consequences.
Road repairs must be prioritized based on standardized procedures. Prioritization looks at the severity of the road deficiencies as well as the frequency of usage of the road. As an example, a safety problem on a high speed freeway like Highway 401, that could experience a 100,000 vehicles a day, would be prioritized for repair quicker than if that same problem was observed on a local, rural lane than experiences minimal traffic. When public campaigns interfere with that scientific process of prioritization bad things can happen that could affect the public’s safety.
Yet there is a simple correction that could be made to the CAA’s Worst Roads Campaign. Citizens could continue to make their complaints however, after those complaints are tallied objective testing could be conducted to determine if the top 3 or 5 roads merit the label of Worst Roads. While the CAA may believe that they do not have the ability to conduct such testing, there are simple remedies available.
For the past 5 to 6 years Gorski Consulting has maintained and updated a “Road Data” system on the Gorski Consulting website. This road data is gathered using a test vehicle that is driven along a road and the motion of the vehicle is sensed using the sensors of an iPhone. While one might think that a “cell phone” cannot be very accurate or reliable, that is not true. The iPhone is used around the world and its sensors must be capable of reliable operation with various gaming, computer programs. The test of their reliability is in the success with which such gaming activities are conducted without complaint or competition from other manufacturers. The iPhone is able to sense the tri-axial acceleration of the unit as well as its motion is space. This means that when the iPhone is attached securely to a test vehicle it will also sense the acceleration and motion of the test vehicle. This is the basis of the Gorski Consulting Road Data. Multiple video cameras are also attached to the test vehicle when the testing is performed so that very specific information is stored about the qualities of the road, not just the numerical data.
The iPhone is capable of sensing and storing a vast amount of data from a surprising number of parameters. Whenever it is used in a test vehicle all this data becomes stored and then sent to a spreadsheet. Yet it would be impractical to display all these mountains of data in the Road Data file. Thus Gorski Consulting has chosen to display the values from just one parameter in the Road Data file. That parameter indicates the rate of change in the vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral motion. In simple terms the test results indicate how much the test vehicle is “bounced around” as it proceeds along a road segment. While the remainder of the stored data is not reported it is available at Gorski Consulting should someone have a wish to study it. The data that presently exists in the Road Data file can be used as a comparison to the data obtained from any future testing.
Thus a testing procedure like the one conducted by Gorski Consulting could provide the objective facts to either support the subjective complaints of citizens or deny them. This could provide the legitimacy to the CAA Worst Roads Campaign. Without such objective facts a program based on subjective complaints can be of limited benefit while also being potentially harmful to road users.
You must be logged in to post a comment.