Red Hill Valley Parkway – MTO Or Commercial Confidential Document
Revelations regarding a hidden 2014 technical report authored by Golder Associates with respect to low pavement friction data on the Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHVP) in Hamilton, Ontario, are continuing by the hour. According to the latest news provided by the Hamilton Spectator Newspaper, former Hamilton Director of Engineering Gary Moore provided seemingly misleading information at a December 2015 public works meeting when asked about concerns from drivers about the slipperiness of the RHVP’s road surface. The Spectator suggested that further misleading comments were made as part of a 2017 Spectator investigation into the numbers of collisions occurring on the RHVP.
The Spectator indicated that Moore referred to friction tests that were also conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). The Spectator had requested that data from the MTO as far back as 2016 but was told at the time that the study was a “commercial confidential document”. While the apparent hiding of the Golder Associates report has raised much alarm, this latest position of the MTO continues to demonstrate that the problem with secrecy over roadway safety issues is larger than that.
The latest trend in transportation secrecy involves the use of commercial entities to perform various public functions. As a result, the work of those commercial entities are said to be confidential and not publicly available. But if these commercial entities are performing the functions that would normally be provided by the government the argument can be made that their activities, reports and functioning must be made available to public scrutiny.
The issue must be whether the many millions of trips taken every day, on any and all roads, by any an all citizens in Ontario, requires that the public be informed of potentially fatal safety problems. This is a much broader issue than the simple hiding of one technical report. The MTO conducts numerous studies and pays for them through the public’s taxes. Yet those reports are only available to be seen by a select few persons whose identities are not even known. Similar reports are likely prepared by other government agencies and municipalities some of which may contain critical information about the safety of the roads on which the public travels. It could be accepted if the safety condition of roads was a matter of national security that must be kept away from foreign governments and terrorists. But clearly such an argument is ridiculous. Many of these studies are requested for matters of safety or efficiency of the public road system and have no relevance to national security. Thus the need to keep these documents secret must be questioned.
The broader question relates to how the public’s safety may be manipulated by keeping the public in the dark. Clearly there are monumental difficulties and complexities in a modern society ranging from health, housing education etc., that require a delicate balancing of societal systems so that we do the best we can, with the resources we have and the contradictory needs that we have. Keeping matters like the safety of our roads a secret causes an unneeded headwind on the proper functioning of our society.
Red Hill Valley Parkway – No One Ever Releases That Type of Information
Gary Moore, Hamilton’s previous engineering director gave the most honest assessment of what truly goes on in the engineering departments of many municipalities in Ontario. In an interview with the Hamilton Spectator (the interview date was not disclosed) a request was made for the report of Golder Associates which contained the road surface data on the Red Hill Valley Parkway in Hamilton. Mr. Moore was quoted by the Spectator: ” No one ever releases (that type of) information…because it’s the first thing anybody (would use in a) lawsuit”.
Mr. Moore’s understanding that no one releases that type of information demonstrates the true issue at hand. That many road safety problems are kept from the public’s knowledge. And the reason for that secrecy is to protect a municipality from a lawsuit. Does this comment include instances where there is a genuine risk to the public’s safety and the municipality’s representative knows that someone might be killed? Is it the practice to cover up those problems because the protection of the municipality from a lawsuit is more important than the protection of human lives? Is this not a circumventing of the courts’ role to determine which lawsuits hold merit? When staff of engineering departments withhold evidence a correction of a problem cannot occur and, just as importantly, persons who have suffered due to the existence of that problem cannot obtain the justice that they deserve.
Hamilton’s municipal politicians have claimed that they knew nothing with respect to the hiding of the Golder report. That may be so, in this instance, and further investigation may clarify that. But in general there are many instances where municipal politicians meet with engineering and risk management representatives behind closed doors and no one knows what conversations are had. Such a system is ripe for misuse as both entities have a stake in protecting the corporation that either employs them or that they represent. The public is not able to see when unethical decisions are made and who has been responsible for those unethical acts. Checks and balances can be put in place which could avoid the hiding of genuine safety issues in the future. However this requires an understanding of the harm that presently exists and a willingness to find an unbiased solution that benefits society as a whole.
It has been reported that Mr. Gord McGuire, the City’s new Director of Engineering, was the one who uncovered the Golder report. If this holds true then Mr. McGuire must be commended for his actions. This is exactly how a person with integrity ought to function. However there are repercussions for such actions and Mr. McGuire could easily find himself unpopular and unwanted when pursuing his career in Hamilton and elsewhere. Those who understand the value of employing persons of Mr. McGuire’s calibre ought to make sure that his career does not suffer for his righteous act.
Red Hill Valley Parkway – Will Rest of Secrets Be Revealed?
Staff at the City of Hamilton have apologized for keeping a damaging report hidden with respect to surface conditions of the Red Hill Valley Parkway. But will they now release the other reports and data that remain hidden?
CIMA is a well-known municipal defense engineering firm that has been retained by the City. While the news media are quoting heavily from its February 4, 2019 report, no one has asked how many times CIMA has been retained on the plaintiff side on a roadway assessment case. If CIMA does work primarily to defend municipalities would it not seem prudent to report its findings with caution?
Furthermore, in their February 4, 2019 report CIMA indicated that it had filed “reports” to the City of Hamilton including a report of 2015 where they “made a number of recommendations regarding the safety of the RHVP”. The CIMA report referred to a January 2014 Golder Report that contained the road surface testing data. CIMA indicated “The Golder report was not part of the materials available to CIMA when completing the above-mentioned reports”.
Not available? How much sense does that make? CIBA completes a comprehensive report on the safety of the RHVP in November 2015 but it does not have access to the Golder report that was prepared almost 2 years earlier? Both Golder and CIMA were supposedly retained by the City of Hamilton but CIBA was not given access to the Golder report?
Will the staff of the City of Hamilton release the contents of the 2015 CIBA report to the public?. Certainly the taxpayers paid for that report. If not, why not? What other details are contained in that CIBA report that have not been revealed to the public?
In March of 2016 Gorski Consulting conducted a survey of impacts to roadside guardrail terminals along the RHVP and these results were uploaded via a March 12, 2106 article entitled “ET-Plus Terminal Impacts – Evaluation of Their In-Service Performance”. Concerns were expressed regarding the performance of these terminals along several locations of the RHVP.
Vertical and horizontal curves, inconsistent roadside barriers, narrow medians and high traffic volumes are just some of the problems that could be plaguing the safety of the Red Hill Valley Parkway in Hamilton, Ontario.
In a January 2, 2016 news article we discussed the results of an incident the Queenston Road ramp of the RHVP where a vehicle became impaled by the guardrail terminal.
In a further news article of May 7, 2017 entitled “Red Hill Valley Parkway Crashes in Hamilton Remain a Topic of Non-Discussion”, Gorski Consulting discussed several safety issues that appeared to be ignored.
There was no indication whether the City of Hamilton was aware of some of these developments.
The problem that exists now is not so much about the specific road surface data for the RHVP, but that the report and data were kept from the public’s awareness. What the public is not aware of is that this sort of manipulation is not just related to the staff of the City of Hamilton. The hiding of safety-related roadway problems occurs on a regular basis, throughout Ontario and this hiding has been occurring for many years. It occurs when police fail to document that a safety-related issue with a roadway was a factor in the cause of a collision. It occurs when road crews remove a safety problem before it can be documented as relevant to the cause of a collision. It occurs when police supervisors give instructions to their staff about what kinds of incidents will be investigated and how they will be documented. It occurs when high-priced experts are retained to defendant municipalities and those experts have a biased relationship with those defendants. It occurs when the courts turn a blind eye to factors that may have influenced the cause of a collision in favour of punishing the driver who made a mistake or who was obviously negligent is some manner. These are all issues that are not being addressed.
Vehicle Fires Continue Without Much Attention
Vehicle fires that occur in minor impacts, or from no impact at all, are occurring without any attention. These are potentially life-threatening events if an occupant is not able to escape.
In a Twitter post earlier today, police stood before their camera and expressed a warning about losing control on the icy highways. A passenger vehicle had lost control and spun out into a Jersey barrier on Highway 401 near Winston Churchill Blvd. In the background of the Twitter video was the vehicle that had caught fire after being struck by a transport truck. While the impact was not insignificant it should not have resulted in the fire that occurred.
While police express concern about loss of control on icy roads no one warns of the fire that erupted.
The fire was sufficient such that a fatality could have occurred if the driver was unable to exit the vehicle. Thus this was a significant danger that needed to be highlighted.
The fire was sufficient such that, if the driver was unable to escape in time this would have been a fatality.
Meanwhile at another location along Highway 401 near Windsor another vehicle had caught fire without any apparent impact. It was reported that the vehicle had just be newly purchased but no explanation was provided as to why the fire erupted.
A newly purchased vehicle caught fire on the side of Highway 401 near Windsor without much concern.
In another incident that occurred a could of days ago in Toronto, a vehicle burst into flames while just sitting in the owner’s driveway. Similarly no information was provided as to how the fire could have started.
This vehicle erupted into flames while just sitting in a Toronto driveway.
Meanwhile, in an earlier post of January 25, 2019 we showed the result below where a minor collision with a transit bus in London, Ontario resulted in a similar eruption of flames for no known reason.
A number of parked school buses were destroyed in Nova Scotia without any indication of the cause.
These events have been documented even without much searching in the various news media. Yet no one appears to what to address the issue.
Neck Injury of Small Stature Females in Frontal Impacts
Research with respect to neck injury potential can be conducted to provide a variety of conclusions for the purposes of supporting or denying an injury claim. Those in the courts that are presented with the results of such research are neophytes in understanding the details of the methods and procedures used to produce those conclusions. Furthermore, the purpose for conducting the research is not always benign. Special interest groups are known to provide the funds to researchers who will likely develop conclusions that will support the interests of those groups. It is a small wonder that court decisions can be confused by these influences. With respect to soft tissue neck injuries the issue is hard fought. Such injury is notoriously difficult to quantify objectively. Reliance on experts is often in danger of providing substandard assistance on both sides when such experts become friends of the purchasing agents.
A recent research study from the 2015 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Experimental Safety Vehicle (ESV) conference is used here as an example. One of the presented papers was entitled “Are Small Females More Vulnerable to Lower Nick Injuries When Seated Sufficiently Away From the Steering Wheel in a Frontal Crash?” The paper was authored by Chandrashekhar Thorbole of Thorbole Simulation Technologies LLC in the U.S. The study used the well-known MADYMO simulation software to conclude that: “…small females are vulnerable to high lower neck flexion moments with increase in the steering-chest distance (SCD)”. As illustrated in a figure (see below) taken from the study the theoretical flexion moment is increased at lower vertebrae of the cervical spine due to the mass of the head, the position of the seat, the position of the torso webbing and other factors.
The red triangle in the above figure is meant to demonstrate the increased force as we proceed along lower vertebrae of the cervical spine.
The selection of this example paper is not meant to condemn or support the conclusions. But it demonstrates the need to understand the details of how the conclusions were drawn. What methods and procedures were used and whether the conclusions might be appropriately used to support or deny an injury claim in the courtroom. The above illustration is rather simple to understand and provides some basic principles that most judges or juries might grasp. However this process is not always easy and simple . In more complex issues there is not enough time allotted for an expert to take the court from ignorance to expertise. Not due to the fault of the expert, but due to the characteristics of the study involved. The expert’s discussion often involves commencing from the very basics of a technical matter and building from those basics through a complex process that must be substantially understood if the end product is to be appreciated. The reality is that, in many instances, the superior abilities of the adjudicator become insufficient and the adjudicator is simply incapable of grasping substantial and essential portions of the technical evidence. As the complexity or our world expands this problem becomes more and more evident. How this problem can be resolved in a matter for the courts to decide.
You must be logged in to post a comment.