More Car Fires But Still No Alarms

by | Feb 13, 2019 |

The latest unexplained car fire occurred today, February 13, 2019, in a parking lot of a mall in Toronto. Still, no one appears to be concerned.

This image was reportedly sent to CP24 News by Selvaratnam Prithiraj. Cause of the fire to the Chrysler 300 has not been provided.

Gorski Consulting has raised the warning flag on several occasions in the last couple of years regarding the apparent increase in unexplained vehicle fires. Some of these fires occur in minor collisions where fires should not be expected. In other instances, such, as the one above, the fires commence while the vehicle is simply parked and un-attended. Nothing has been said by either Transport Canada or the U.S. NHTSA as to whether there is an increase in the numbers of fires. But then no one in the news media appears to have asked.

Up to now these fires are occurring when a vehicle is unoccupied or the occupants had a chance to escape the vehicle. It is only a matter of time before that good fortune will end. Given the number of times persons become trapped and cannot exit a vehicle following a more serious collision there is a probability that persons could be burned alive before they could be rescued. That unpleasant possibility needs to be considered.

Red Hill Valley Parkway – The Plague of Secrecy

by | Feb 13, 2019 |

The meaning of road surface friction data or that a single report may have been hidden pales in comparison to the overall issue of secrecy that predominates road safety issues.

A local uproar erupted in Hamilton, Ontario when it was revealed that a 2013 technical report authored by Tradewinds Scientific may have been concealed from politicians and the public with respect to road surface testing that was conducted on the Lincoln Alexander and Red Hill Valley Parkways in that city. That report was recently “discovered” by the City’s new Director of Engineering.

The matter is significant because the friction data shows low levels of friction for the surface of the Red Hill Valley Parkway. A 2017 safety study by the local Hamilton Spectator newspaper showed higher numbers of collisions occurring on the Red Hill versus the Lincoln Alexander and there were a number private citizens that were also wondering about the safety of the Red Hill. In interviews by the Hamilton Spectator newspaper with the previous Director of Engineering there was no mention of the Tradewinds report and comments about the surface of the Red Hill and the Director was quoted as saying that the friction results were “inconclusive”. The City of Hamilton has conducted newer testing of the road surface friction but, to date, has refused to reveal that data. In totality it leaves many with the notion that proper disclosure has not been “seen to be done” as many citizens are of the impression that unreasonable secrecy is evident.

While this is not an inconsequential matter, it shows the narrowness of thought that is focused on this single issue, while failing to recognize the much more important, broader issue. There is a widespread existence of unneeded and inefficient secrecy in public transportation safety. There is a constant conflict between those wanting assurance that the public be made safe while travelling on public roadways versus the accountability of those responsible from maintaining that safety. Maintaining safety in a public transportation system is complex. There are many influences that require a juggling of fact-finding, reaction and prioritizing. In the end issues arise where the public’s safety is compromised while in many instances the causes those occurrences are complicated and difficult to unravel.  Inevitably someone does not perform perfectly and could be made accountable for their imperfection. Unfortunately, the results of these imperfect actions or in-actions lead to injuries and deaths. So the consequences are indeed quite serious. While a single impaired driver may be held accountable for a single collision, the public road administrator’s decisions can expose thousands or hundreds of thousands of the public to danger when their decisions are not what they should be. In the wake of this responsibility there is a large incentive to protect from being found at fault. Thus this is the incentive for developing a regime of secrecy where ever possible. A formal process of documenting, prioritizing and acting on safety problems has existed for many years in Ontario. To some degree, in the past,  this documentation has been accessible as it was administered centrally by Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation. However, in recent years that documentation has been allowed to take place on software developed by private firms. Those firms claim that the software is proprietary. Thus, a furthering of secrecy has evolved without the public’s awareness.

The remedy to date has been the civil courts. This has created further incentives toward secrecy. At present our system is dominated by lawyers on either side of a claim who spend large amounts of time and money to argue for one side of a matter or another. Experts are paid by these these lawyers that further complicate the issue that needs resolution. When experts are paid by one side or another it is not difficult to appreciate that an incentive toward bias could develop. Yet there is a broad, blind eye to this obvious fact. At the top of the pyramid are the judges themselves who are counted on to provide an impartial assessment but whose decisions or the reasons for their decisions are poorly displayed to the public. The documentation of court proceedings by way of public video could expand the public’s access to the actions of the courts but that has never been implemented. In the end deceptions are common mechanisms that exist when a very small number of persons are given the responsibility of protecting the public while having the power to keep important issues hidden.

As matters unfold with the Red Hill Valley Parkway, further evidence may yet be revealed before the public’s expressed disapproval is diminished by the calling of an independent inquiry.  The reality is that the selection of an investigating entity does not guarantee a successful resolution. One does not need to look far to understand that the number of titles, the splendour of the robes or membership in elite circles does not guarantee that a just or unbiased investigation will be completed. While not without its drawbacks, the public’s participation through being informed of the investigation’s detailed actions and the public’s debate, remains the best mechanism for illuminating when an investigation becomes biased.

Red Hill Valley Parkway – Is The Friction Data Corrupt?

by | Feb 12, 2019 |

Road surface friction data at the junction between the Lincoln Alexander and the Red Hill Valley Parkway appears to be strange, at best. Before concluding anything there needs to be an explanation.

There has been much uproar over the revelation that a report of testing performed by Tradewinds Scientific  in 2013 on the surface of the Red Hill Valley Parkway in Hamilton seemed to have been hidden from the public. That issue may be resolved through some form of investigation. Meanwhile a review of the data contained in the report shows some peculiar results.

The main point deduced from the report is that the road friction values along the Red Hill Valley Parkway appear to be lower than those of the Lincoln Alexander Parkway. The friction data of the Red Hill is also below the recommendations set by research conducted in the United Kingdom. But looking at the details leads to some questions about the peculiar results.

For example, the figure below is taken from the Tradewinds Scientific report and shows the values of friction obtained along the Lincoln Alexander Parkway. The data at the far right of the graph is just before it turns into the Red Hill Valley Parkway.

Along the bottom of the figure we can see the distance along which the testing is conducted. So the values go from “0” at the start of the testing to past “9000” metres. It is difficult to determine where the end of the testing is located because the authors have not placed a marker at the end of the graph as they did at the beginning. However one can count the tick marks past the “9000” marker and it would appear that the “10000 ” metre marker would exist at the very end of the graph. The format of the figure would imply  that the data approaches the “10000” or 10 kilometre mark as the Lincoln Alexander begins to be named the Red Hill Valley Parkway. So it makes sense to the viewer  that the authors truncated this figure at the point where the Lincoln Alexander transitions to the Red Hill. The green line represents the recommended value of “48” and the data is above the recommendation up to the “10000” location of the graph.

However, the next figure shows the data for the Red Hill Valley Parkway. Is there not something strange here?

This Red Hill data is just an extension of the Lincoln Alexander data. This conclusion must be drawn because of another figure (“Figure 2”) in the Tradewinds report which is reproduced below.

The caption for that figure reads that testing was performed along the Lincoln Alexander from “A to B” and then along the Red Hill from “B to C”. So the “B” notation is referring to the same location where the Lincoln Alexander testing ends and the Red Hill testing begins.

And this understanding is verified by how the distance is labelled in the figure for the Red Hill data. One can see that it starts at the “10000” marker and this is the same location where the previous graph ended. But look at the purple line that is supposed to show the data from the left wheel location in the left lane. Look back on the first figure and note that at the unmarked “10000” location the friction value was something around “55”. Then returning to the figure of the Red Hill data, at the “10000” marker, the friction shows a value of about “35”. In other words, there are two very different friction values shown for the same “10000” metre location.

One might say that there is a misunderstanding about where the Lincoln Alexander data in the first figure ends. Perhaps it ends at “9900” metres and not at “10000” metres. But even if that were the case, a drop in friction from about 55 to about 35 would have to occur in about 100 metres. Is it a coincidence that the friction values seem rather constant until the specific point where one figure transitions into  the other?

With respect to the right wheel path in the right lane, the figures depict this as as the blue line. Again, looking at the first figure for the Lincoln Alexander the data are all above the “48” recommendation. This seems to continue into the first few hundred metres shown for the Red Hill data. Then there is a sudden drop in about 200 metres from about “50” to about “32”.

The previous Director of Engineering, Mr.  Gary Moore, was quoted as indicating that these data were inconclusive. While it is possible that the Tradewinds data may contain some unexplained error, this data cannot be described as inconclusive without some technical basis for supporting that description. The data provide a strong indication that something very unusual existed at the point of transition between the Lincoln Alexander and the Red Hill data. The location of that transition needs to be examined in more detail to determine whether it reflects the actual location where the surface of the Lincoln Alexander terminated and the laying of the new surface for the Red Hill started.

Location where the Lincoln Alexander Parkway transitions into the Red Hill Valley Parkway in Hamilton, Ontario.

So when Mr. Moore referred to the Tradewinds data as inconclusive is that because he had a further basis to make that conclusion? It was reported in the news media that other friction testing was conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) but the report of that testing had not bee made public. So did the MTO testing contain results that disputed the Tradewinds results? Is  this why Mr. Moore referred to the data as inconclusive? We do not know. However these are some of the many details that need to be uncovered.

Heavy Rescue 401 Favoured While Professional Journalists Excluded

by | Feb 10, 2019 |

There is nothing wrong with an entertaining television show that highlights the dangers and hard work that police, rescue and towing personnel deal with on a daily basis. It is a question of exclusion of other journalists who are there not just to entertain an audience.

On December 11, 2018 an eastbound tractor-trailer entered the median of Highway 401 just west of the Merlin Road overpass, just west of Chatham, Ontario. This is where a controversial cable barrier had been recently installed instead of a typical, concrete Jersey barrier. There was no cable barrier to prevent the truck from entering the median since the barrier only existed on the far side of the median. As the truck reached the barrier it was launched upward and rode over top of the barrier – a result that should not have occurred. The truck then crashed into two westbound trucks. The cab of one of the westbound trucks was crushed so severely that it was miraculous that a fatality did not occur.

The results of the destruction as the eastbound truck struck two westbound trucks on Hwy 401 near Merlin Road.

This was an important event that needed documentation. The failure of the cable barrier needed to be explained to the public. Yet Highway 401 was closed by the police for several kilometres east and west of the collision site and therefore no one was allowed into the area.

It is standard procedure for police to close roadways around a collision site. It is understandable that some degree of control is required to enable investigators to document the collision evidence before it is destroyed. But the extent of the road closures is often beyond reason. In many instances the closures existing for several kilometres around a site prevent journalists from conducting their work.

Journalists, like police, also have an important role in a democratic society through their independence. They provide the balance that keeps the public informed about matters that special interest groups may want to withhold. The danger in allowing a single entity to tell the public what they should know should not be difficult to understand. Yet in many instances journalists are unable to perform that independent function because they are completely blocked from any view of a collision site. In  many instances journalists use high-powered  lens to photograph a site that may be several kilometres away, but that only provides general features while distorting the view due to the effect of the high-powered lens. Some journalists have come too close to a collision site and have been charged with a criminal act. Even when such charges are dismissed in court it lays a foundation that discourages others from their inquiries.

While Highway 401 was closed for several kilometres around the Merlin Road site it was fortunate that the collision occurred near the overpass. Thus journalists, and others, could stand on the overpass and obtain a better perspective. But looking from the overpass one could detect something different. Unlike previous instances, an actual film crew could be seen positioned at the accident site as shown below.

Unidentified film crew working at the site of the collision on December 11, 2018.

There was no identification on the clothing of these persons to indicate who they were. Their reflective clothing made them appear no different that the towing personnel that were working at the site. Were these persons part of the police investigation? One would expect so since no other persons should have been allowed onto the closed site.

The extent of the free reign these persons had can be seen in the two photos below. They could actually come close to the damaged vehicles and obtain very detailed views of the evidence, if they so desired.

View of film crew walking around the collision site without supervision.

View of the unidentified film crew taking an unsupervised examination of the collision evidence.

If these persons were in danger of obstructing the operations of towing personnel it did not seem like it. Communications could easily be made when potential obstructions might occur: ” Can you just step back for a moment as we have to hook up to this truck?”. That’s all that was necessary and the film crew would likely cooperate. Similar conversations could easily be had between police and journalists at any accident site. Knowing the important role that journalists perform it could be possible for police to work around them just as they work around the police.

So what was so special about this particular instance where the film crew was allowed free reign while everyone else had to stay many kilometres away? The difference was that this film crew was part of the TV series “Heavy Rescue 401”. This TV series documents the actions of towing operators as well as emergency personnel as they perform their official duties. It is obvious that the show has caught the attention of many viewers. Various police and towing operators have become “hollywood movie stars” as the show has become good entertainment. The OPP even advertise the show on their Twitter accounts.

It is no wonder that the Heavy Rescue film crew was given free reign at the Merlin Road accident site. But is that all that was needed? Was it just a case of providing celebrity status to the officials at accident sites? Were regular journalists previously prevented from documenting these accident sites because they did not provide that celebrity advertising?

Although the producers of the Heavy Rescue series focus their audience on dramatic instances where large trucks are pulled out of various “dangerous” predicaments it demonstrates the potential of what other issues could be addressed. It could be possible to use a similar template to discuss more important issues related to collision causes and injuries.

As an example, there are times when the TV crew documents how vehicles pass by an accident site at high speeds and close to where the towing, police and rescue personnel are located. Comments are made about the recklessness of drivers who endanger those around the accident site. Why these incidents occur is a complicated matter. It is not as simple as the commentators in the series make it to be. Obviously those comments are coming from those who are directly affected and endangered and the opinions are understandably one-sided. What is not reported is how the situation is viewed from the common driver approaching such a site and why such dangerous situations are created. What is perceived is relative to the observer. Why drivers drive a certain way, what they perceive and how they react is far more complicated than demonstrated by various irritated judgments being made by those endangered by those actions. There is a need to examine such issues in a more scientific manner. Unfortunately the commercial nature of the entertainment business conflicts with this need for public education. This conflict can be injurious in providing a platform for uninformed fake facts to be distributed.

Similar educational opportunities are lost in possible discussions about how collisions were caused  or how persons sustained their injuries. These discussions remain taboo for the obvious reasons that they could become part of the evidence in any criminal proceedings or civil lawsuits. This is perhaps one of the greatest liabilities in how our society functions. That information that could educate the public about important matters related to their survival, cannot be discussed because of these criminal and civil proceedings.

Professional journalists have some degree of immunity when they approach these delicate matters. They must be the whistle-blowers as there is no one else who has a legal access to the whistle. However professional journalists need a base of quality evidence to be gathered so they can study a situation and develop an informed plan of action. There is often little sympathy for journalists who get it wrong.  Yet it is difficult to write or broadcast a news story when the base of it is made up of speculation and conjecture. Boots need to be put on the ground. The journalist needs to be out in the field, where the event has taken place, and document the evidence. When journalists are excluded from that activity it can be argued that this affects the freedom of the press.

The example of the Heavy Rescue 401 crews at accident sites demonstrates the truth that journalists can work next to official investigators and workers at accident sites. Exclusion of journalists from documenting collision events is an artificial excuse for controlling what information is available to the public for their independent consumption. The true reason why journalists are kept away from accident sites becomes questionable when entertainment crews such as Heavy Rescue 401 are given free access while others are not.

Archives

Recent Posts