Humboldt Broncos – Where are Road Inspectors’ Log Books?
Road inspectors are required to make records of road safety deficiencies. These log books are as important to public safety as the log books filled out by truck drivers. News media have reported that Jaskirat Singh Sidhu’s log book contained 51 violations of trip documentations and another 19 related to provincial trip inspection regulations. But what kind, and how many, violations existed in the road inspectors’ log books with respect to documenting the visibility obstruction that existed at the intersection of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash?
In 1997 six persons died at the same intersection and a Coroner’s Inquest was held. If the intersection was not studied before that time then such a study must have been required for the purpose of the Inquest. Twenty-one years passed between the six-fatal crash in 1997 and the Homboldt Broncos crash in 2018. Road inspectors are typically required to examine highways at the rate of once or twice per week. Thus in 21 years there could have been at least 1092 to 2184 inspections that were required of the noted intersection. Notes should have been made to document the presence of the trees that blocked the intersection sight triangle. Those notes should have been incorporated into a prioritized list of projects that needed to be completed.
Procedures for prioritized listing of future road works were well established for many years before 1997. For example Gorski Consulting has a copy of an Ontario Government manual from 1991 entitled “Inventory Manual for Municipal Roads” that provides strict instructions for filling out “Road Appraisal Sheets” for every road segment within a municipality’s jurisdiction. Such sheets document every possible safety problem. These sheets needed to be completed every five years. This process was not unique to Ontario. Nor has the need to make these documentations changed.
So where are these log books and what was contained in the Road Appraisal Sheets for the intersection of Highways 35 and 335 where the Broncos bus crash occurred? Official news media were quick to distribute the Government of Saskatchewan report that discussed the various documentation infractions by Mr. Sidhu but they provided no information to the public about the road inspectors’ log books or the Road Appraisal Sheets. The Government of Saskatchewan is not a neutral party in this tragedy. By failing to provide sufficient visibility at the intersection they should be held liable for the collision consequences. So why would the official news media be using the report supplied by the government but fail to obtain the additional data about the government’s liability toward the collision consequences?
Humboldt Broncos Bus Driver Braked Before He Could See Truck?: RCMP
In an agreed statement of facts reported by news media, the RCMP investigation concluded that both drivers in the Humboldt Broncos crash could see each other 2 seconds before impact. The RCMP also concluded that the bus was travelling at 96 to 107 km/h when it struck the side of the truck. Furthermore the RCMP concluded that the bus driver braked for 24 metres before impact. There is an obvious error in these findings.
Maximum braking for 24 meters would result in a speed loss of just over 60 km/h. Combining this result with an impact speed of 102 km/h would indicate that the initial speed of the bus would have been about 118.6 km/h.
The time required to brake for 24 metres from the initial speed of 118.6 km/h to an impact speed of 102 km/h would be just over 2.7 seconds. Thus, according to the RCMP findings the bus driver commenced braking before he was capable of seeing the truck. But that is not the full extent of the problem with the RCMP analysis.
Anyone who performs motor vehicle accident reconstruction understands that there is a certain amount of detection and processing delay that is needed before a driver can commence a braking action. Furthermore there will be a further delay between the time that the bus driver strikes the brake pedal and the wheels of the bus slow down enough to produce visible braking marks. Thus the RCMP analysis is even more inaccurate than what the 2.7 seconds indicates.
When it is obvious that such a crucial error exists in the analysis, why have the journalists covering this story helped to misinform the public? Why would a journalist not take these conclusions reported by the RCMP to any experienced, independent, accident reconstructionist to confirm whether the police analysis made any sense before delivering the RCMP erred conclusions for the public to see?
Was the Humboldt Broncos Bus Travelling at 123 km/h? A simple Question.
Was the Humboldt Broncos bus travelling at 123 km/h before its driver applied the brakes? There should have been a simple answer to this question, almost 10 months after the crash of April 6, 2018. But given that the police report has still not be revealed to the public that answer is far from simple.
Did the police purposely discuss the contents of their report with journalists instead of releasing it to the public? Given that journalists are known for their vast knowledge in forensics and accident reconstruction? Let us look at an example from an article written by Josh K. Elliott, of Global News. Mr. Elliott wrote the following:
“The bus struck the middle of the lead trailer at 96-107 kilometres an hour, despite the bus driver’s efforts to brake and avoid the crash.”
Further in the article Mr. Elliott wrote:
“The bus was doing 98-108 kilometres an hour when the driver hit the brakes 24 metres before the intersection.”
Is this discrepancy of facts too challenging for the average reader to comprehend? Is this why we have so much difficulty in recognizing the extent of misinformation that is being passed through the “telegraph wires”?
If this is too difficult let us break down the problem piece by piece. Here is the scenario:
The bus driver was travelling at 108 km/h when he saw truck. He applied his brakes and he slid for 24 metres. The bus then struck the truck at a speed of 107 km/h. So the bus lost 1 km/h in the time/distance that it skidded 24 metres. Does that make the smallest amount of sense?
Yet, independent reconstruction experts know that a typical heavy truck or bus often attains a deceleration rate of about 0.6g during maximum braking. The speed lost in skidding 24 metres would be just over 60 km/h. So if the bus was travelling at 107 km/h when it struck the truck it must have been travelling about 123 km/h when the bus driver hit the brakes. Yet travelling at 23 km/h above the 100 km/h speed limit had no bearing on this case – as per the RCMP?
1 km/h versus 60 km/h. Is this what the public is to accept as credible forensic science?
Why has the RCMP report of their investigation not been revealed to the public, and to the eyes of independent accident reconstruction experts who can inform the public about junk science!
School Bus Seat-Belts & Humboldt Broncos Misinformation
Official news and social media stories about school bus seat belts and the Humboldt Broncos crash are creating a large amount of misinformation.
Melfort Saskatchewan is where the sentencing hearing is to begin with respect to the trial of Jaskirat Singh Sidhu. Sidhu was the truck driver who struck the Humboldt Broncos bus in the crash of April 6, 2018 that killed 16 persons.
At the same time the local newspaper in Melfort, The Melfort Journal, also published an article by Andy Blatchford of The Canadian Press, describing how the mother of an 11-year-old son who died in a bus crash 19 years ago was calling on the mandatory installation of seat belts on all school buses.
In both instances there is a large amount of misinformation being spread through various official and social media.
With respect to the Humboldt Broncos crash the focus has been exclusively on the fault of the truck driver. It has been said that an extremely long prison sentence is needed. There has also been a focus on mandatory truck driver training. But no one has said anything about the fact that the collision could have been avoided had the Saskatchewan Department of Transportation cleared the trees located at the south-east quadrant of the intersection where the crash occurred. Such clearing was required to create the essential visibility needed by both drivers to see each other before the crash. Affording such a “visibility triangle” at an intersection is standard procedure. It is known and applied throughout North America.
The Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) confirmed this requirement in their manual of 1986. The manual preceded a multi-fatal collision that occurred at the Humboldt Broncos crash site in 1997 in which 6 persons lost their lives. An inquest followed that 1997 crash and investigators could easily have recognized that the trees at the site posed a safety concern. Yet nothing was done until 21 years later when the Humboldt Broncos crash occurred. Finally, after that terrible crash the Transportation Ministry removed some of the trees.
Yet, no one has said anything about who made the decisions that led to the visibility obstruction. The investigators who examined the collision site in 1997 have not been identified. The various Ministry officials who decided to carry on and do nothing about the visibility obstruction for 21 years have not been identified. Persons employed by the Ministry were required to inspect the highways for potential safety hazards and they should have logged any such dangers. Does such a log exist? Did these inspectors make those required observations? Who were these inspectors? They have never been identified.
Meanwhile the opinions of authors of a mysterious “report” (likely the official police investigation of the Humboldt Broncos crash) were reported in recent summary of the trial proceedings. These authors have been quoted as indicating that the existence of the trees had no relevance to the crash. That is an incredible comment that needs to be examined. Yet the contents of the official police investigation have not been revealed. Even though Mr. Sidhu will likely be given a multi-year prison sentence, the basis for that punishment has yet to see the light of the pubic’s day.
The people or Melfort and those from the rest of Canada have been further misinformed by the second public pronouncement of the need for seat belts on school buses. It has been reported that as many as 50,000 persons have signed a petition and pressure is being applied to have Transport Canada mandate the installation of seat belts on school buses. This need has been perpetuated by a series of CBC documentaries placing blame on Transport Canada for failing to see the obvious need for seat-belts. The conclusion to be drawn by Canadians is that Transport Canada is filled with a multitude of incompetent bureaucrats who cannot understand this simple concept. There is nothing like a very simple and obvious thought placed in the minds of those who want, and are eager to hear that simple explanation. Once again the public has been deceived. Why would Transport Canada wait so long to require installation of seat belts? Is it really that they know nothing about reality, as the CBC and others have led the public to believe? What other reason could there possibly be?
A clue can be gained from a recent Canadian Press article of Andy Blatchford. Transport Minister Marc Garneau was expected to announce the mandatory installation of seat belts on school buses in an address to the media last week. But he did not. Instead he announced that a task force would look into “the implications of mandating the compulsory wearing of seatbelts”.
Implications? What implications? The CBC never told us about any implications. The issue was straightforward. Transport Canada simply could not put one foot ahead of the other. This should have been obvious to all Canadians. Or so we are told.
We see further in the Blatchford article the following phrase: Pilot projects will also be explored as a way to “help Transport Canada develop guidelines to assist school bus operators across Canada to make sure that seatbelts, when installed on school buses, are always worn properly by all occupants”.
That seatbelts “are always worn properly by all occupants”?. What does that mean and why has this been inserted? Is that important?
Well let us consider an example. Imagine that, as a parent, you deliver your kindergarten or first year child to the safety of the school bus. It is winter and you have ensured that your child is safely bundled up in the warmest and thickest coat. Your child is now buckled into the very safe seat belt. And away goes the bus…
What would happen 10 minutes later when the bus is involved in a “minor” frontal collision that has reduced the bus’s speed from 50 km/h to 25 km/h? This is a change-in-velocity of 25 km/h. That change-in-velocity occurs in about a 1/10th of a second. That is equivalent to a change-in-velocity of 250 km/h per second or 69.4 metres per second. The acceleration due to gravity is equal to 9.81 metres per second every second and this is commonly referred to as “g”. Dividing the 69.4 by 9.81 indicates that the bus experiences a deceleration just over 7 gs.
What does 7 gs mean? When we fall from a cliff our speed increases at a rate of 1 g. Thus after on second of free fall (ignoring air resistance) we hit the ground at a speed of 9.81 metres per second or about 35 km/h. So the acceleration of 7 gs is 7 times more severe than that. While this is a simplification for demonstrative purposes it demonstrates that there is a considerable opportunity to cause serious injury when a force equivalent to 7 gs must be absorbed by a vulnerable portion of a child’s body.

How will unsupervised children wear seat-belts on a school bus?
Now, the very safe lap portion of the seat belt that we have been discussing has been placed over the very warm coat of the child. In all honesty would anyone believe that there is nothing wrong with this scenario?
Let us go back a bit. Why do we place children in child seats and booster cushions? Because we like to spend money needlessly? No. It is because seat-belts are made to fit adult bodies, not the bodies of children. Even adults have a difficulty placing the lap portion of their seat belt at a low level, below the illiac crests of their pelvis. A lap belt placed above the illiac crests becomes placed onto very vulnerable organs where there is no structure until one reaches the very rear of the abdomen, at the spine. When we place such a narrow device onto a narrow portion of the abdomen that narrow lap belt now applies a much higher load (higher force) onto that narrow area. In other words, we are asking that narrow point of application to slow at least half of the child’s mass at a magnitude of 7 gs. Without the narrow application the child’s mass might strike the seat-back ahead of them and this broad application of the force could reduce the severity of injury. What becomes critical is that a thick or slippery winter coat only makes matters worse. Pre-tensioners have been developed in recent years whereby the typical slack that exists in seat-belt webbings is reduced when a vehicle sensor detects a sufficient deceleration and fires the pre-tensioner very much like the deployment of an air bag. While pre-tensioners will rapidly pull the lap webbing closer to the body they cannot pull the webbing down onto the illiac crests. So that is of minimal help in preventing abdominal injuries to a child.
The bottom line is that seat belts will not be worn properly by children on school buses. Transport Canada researchers know this. They have known this for decades. This why they had to make a hard choice that would injure some children but would reduce the overall level of injury severity. The choice was to keep the children in a compartment made up of the tall seats and “softer” padding so the impact force would be distributed. It also increased the difficulty for children’s bodies to be flung out of the side windows. This does not mean that there was no chance of this occurring: it means that the possibility of ejection was reduced as best that it could be reduced.
So what the public has not heard about is that seat-belts that are not worn properly can be dangerous. In some instances they can be more dangerous than not wearing a seat-belt at all. What the media are not understanding is that, overall, school buses are massive compared to the other objects that they may strike. School buses are likely to hit smaller vehicles such as passenger cars and light trucks. This means that the overall severity of the impact (i.e. the Change-In-Velocity) is going to be lower in comparison to cars and light trucks. This is why, in the overall picture, riding down high levels of deceleration is not as important on school buses than it is in smaller vehicles. This is the point that the public does not understand.
On the other hand Transport Canada has painted itself into a corner by not admitting that a problem exists, and has existed for decades, with respect to abdominal injuries caused by the lap portion of seat-belts. This danger has been kept quiet so that the public would accept the importance of wearing seat-belts that will benefit them in the vast majority of situations. The problem is particularly acute with respect to children and this is why child seats and booster cushions have become the norm. Transport Canada is now in a difficult position of trying to explain why they do not recommend the mandatory use of seat-belts on school buses without revealing the problem that exists. The true danger that presently exists is that Transport Canada would yield to public pressure and require mandatory seat belt usage on school buses without having a plan of how they will deal with improper seat-belt usage. It only needs one instance where a school bus full of young children is involved a crash resulting in a large change-in-velocity and the results could be catastrophic. Can one imagine 20 children with severe abdominal injuries that require immediate surgery? How will those children be transported to a major hospital in time and how many surgeons will be available to perform those like-saving surgeries. It simply will not happen.
It is important to think clearly about those issues that appear to be obvious and simple. When someone sells something that sounds too good to be true the old adage has always applied. Many obvious solutions are not obvious nor are they solutions. The Humboldt Broncos collision needs a full explanation of all the factors involved. Not because we want to punish the Saskatchewan government. It needs a full explanation so that we can make government officials accountable for their actions and so that future Broncos are not needlessly killed.
Similarly the discussion of seat-belts on school buses needs a properly educated discussion. The discussion is needed so that we do not endanger the lives of children who cannot protect themselves from the bad decisions that are made by persons who ought to know better. A plan must exist to protect children on school buses from sustaining abdominal injuries before we rush into buckling them into non-fitting seat-belts.
Fires After Low Speed Impacts
Fires after low speed impacts have been mentioned on a number of occasions on this Gorski Consulting website. Fires are occurring far too frequently. Fires are occurring in minor collisions when they should not. We can only issue this warning. If there is no one that wants to hear or read of the warning there is nothing further we can do.
The latest reported fire erupted on Culver Drive in London, Ontario earlier today. It was reported that a car slid on the downgrade of the icy road surface and “bumped” into the front of a London Transit Commission (LTC) bus. The only reason why it became reported is that a passenger on the bus happened to produce a video. If not for the video this incident would likely not see the light of anyone’s day.
The local news media reported it as non-event because there were no injuries. No one asked any one why the fire started. And no one seemed to care.
The obvious question to any parent: Would you be happy to have your children “safely” buckled into a child seat of this burning vehicle. Would that be a non-event to you? How fast do you think you could get more than one of your children out of the back seat of this vehicle and would it be enough time to save them? Would you feel comfortable with such a science experiment?
The point we have tired to make is that fires after low speed impacts are occurring far too often in recent years. They are occurring when they should not be occurring. They are occurring because no one wants to ask why they are occurring. And the next tragic event when a child is burned alive will rest on the shoulders of all of us who failed to act when we ought to have acted.
Vehicles fires are not inevitable. They are not a required outcome of a crash. They should be preventable except in the most unusual circumstances. If fires occur in a collision they may be caused by a safety related detect that needs to be documented and investigated. Ostriches bury their heads in the sand, reasonable humans should not.