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.
Statements of Defense are Never Based on Specifics of a Case
Statements of Defense have never been based on the reality of a specific motor vehicle collision. They are meant as a “catch all” to cover all the bases in case the legal proceedings turn in an unexpected direction. Persons who ought to know better appear to be unfamiliar with these legal proceedings or are using the various media to incite the public into a frenzy.
These actions are with respect to a tragic fatal pedestrian collision that occurred on the grounds of Western University on October 7, 2015. Andrea Christidis was reportedly walking on the sidewalk of a curve on Lambton Drive of the University campus when she was struck by a Volkswagen driven by Jared DeJong. DeJong was later convicted of impaired driving causing death.
As the civil trial began some news media caught onto the contents of the Statement of Defense of Dejong. The Statement claimed that Christidis was at fault for being impaired and “jaywalking”. It was reported that similar notions were brought forth by the other defendants, the University Students’ Council and Western University.
If the opposing Statement of Claim was examined similar unsupported claims would exist with respect to the actions of Dejong as well as the other co-defendants. As bazaar as these statements may appear to the average person, this is how the legal process unfolds, and has done for the several decades that I have observed it. Several entities are using these motions to set alarm and dismay among the public who are unaware of these standard legal proceedings, blaming the specific lawyers for a process that is standard procedure in civil litigation. The Toronto lawyer representing Western University, Mark Harrington, has since been “dismissed” from the case.
Whether you agree with how legal documents unfold before the courts or not, this is how it is done, and has been done, not just in the Dejong-Christidis matter, but in all civil matters in Ontario. Blaming and attacking the specific lawyers for these standard procedures makes no sense unless you blame all lawyers for these procedures.
Appropriately Dale Carruthers of the London Free Press wrote an article allowing Mr. Harrington an opportunity to defend his actions. Mr. Harrington was quoted as stating:
“It’s an absolutely standard defence and I’ve done hundreds of wrongful death cases over my career,” Toronto lawyer Mark Harrington said of the untested allegations included in the statement of defence.
So lawyers have to plead every contingency, regardless of whether it doesn’t seem nice, because if we don’t plead it, we can’t ask the questions.”
Mr. Harrington followed a procedure that he must follow as part of the legal process that was not created by him. The entrance of emotion into the trial process has never been a good idea. There are many past instances where innocent persons have been victimized by uncontrolled public hysteria. It should be a warning to all that before you lay you head in cement, give it a shake, as those actions may have permanent consequences.
Hwy 401 Rear-End Impact of Tractor-Trailer West of Chatham
The OPP released a photo of a collision that occurred on Highway 401 between Queens Line and Essex Road 42 earlier today, as shown below. News media reported that a Tractor-trailer was rear-ended by a car when both were travelling in the eastbound lanes. Really?
Is that all there is? Was this car dancing?
Why would someone accept that explanation? There appears to be severe damage to the rear of the car which is wedged into the back of the trailer of the truck. With such a limited explanation one would have to believe that the car was travelling extremely quickly, backwards, as it caught up to the tractor trailer that was “moving” in the eastbound lanes. Obviously there is more to this story and the minimal information only confuses the issue.
How fast was the truck moving? Was it moving at 105 km/h like most truck do? Or was the truck travelling at 10 or 20 km/h?
Why did the car strike the truck with its rear end? Was it really “moving” in the eastbound lanes or had it rotated before impact? And if it rotated before impact why did it do so? And how could it rotate so much while remaining within the travel lanes if the road surface was in reasonably good condition?
It is true that this may be in its early stages of investigation but police could have provided a little more information rather that providing the photo and saying both vehicles were eastbound.
The Honourable Dr. Martin Luther King
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
The Honourable Dr. Martin Luther King
Bus Crash Optics Need Better Optometrist?
A slightly faster speed could have led to multiple fatalities in a 1971 bus crash but no one noticed. Even now a photo of the incident was only a novelty for the public’s amusement.
The Hamilton Spectator Newspaper reached into it archive photo footage today to reveal one of several photos from past historic snow storms. Such nostalgic reminiscing brings back favourable memories to many. One of the photos showed a Go bus that reportedly slid into ditch.
The caption accompanying the photo read as follows:
“Passengers leave s Toronto-bound bus after it skidded off Lakeshore Road in Burlington and landed in the ditch. Dec. 30 1971.”
The photo showed a number of mature trees in the background very close to where the bus had come to a halt.
What can we learn about passenger safety from comparing this photo to the Ottawa bus crash of January 11, 2019? The Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) criticized the lack of crashworthiness of buses as a result of observing the results of two recent multi-fatal bus crashes near Ottawa. One only needs to look at the photo of the bus in Ottawa crash to see how much penetration took place into the occupant compartment due to the presence of the overhanging roof of the street-side shelter that was struck. Not only was it a case of lack of crashworthiness but surely the overhang and the double-decker bus were not compatible with each other. They both should not been where they were. So it was a matter of incompatible infrastructure. Drivers make mistakes that could result in minor consequences with good and compatible infrastructure. Those mistakes can turn into multi-fatal disasters when there is bad and incompatible infrastructure.
In the case of the historic Go bus photo from 1971, it can be seen how close the incident was to a massive catastrophe. The bus was stopped at an angle which was close to its limit before commencing to rollover. This presented the soft roof structure to potential impact with the mature trees in the background. Those trees would have been the immovable, narrow barrier that would have cleaned off the roof of the bus and killed many of its passengers. It was only a question of a slightly higher speed. Yet we look at photos such as these with a quiet amusement while we go back to the sports page or catch the latest gossip of Hollywood.
There are many incidents in the current day where potentially dangerous situations are unrecognized on our roadways. Incidents that result in minor injuries or no injuries what-so-ever. Yet, behind them, a trained and experienced eye can see the potential. Those who are in the position of knowing these dangers have to make that known to those who cannot detect them. Public understanding about many unsafe incidents has to change. Our reporting of these incidents has to change. We cannot repeatedly stumble into our optometrist’s office with our eyes closed and complain that we cannot see.
You must be logged in to post a comment.