How Did Peel Police Miss Detecting A Dead Body In A Motor Vehicle Collision?
A spokesperson for Peel Regional police asked for “privacy of the families involved” in an e-mail reportedly sent to news media after it was revealed that Peel police investigators failed to detect the presence of a dead occupant in a November 1, 2025 collision near Chinguacousy Road and Queen Street in Brampton. Police reportedly did not begin a search until family members reported the deceased missing and police returned to the collision site and to the towing compound where the vehicle was transported. This is not a matter for “privacy” or requiring secrecy, it is a matter for public disclosure as to how this occurred.
It has been the expressed concern of Gorski Consulting that police investigations are focused on laying charges and their activities are focused on that element of a collision reconstruction. Rarely is it understood that the functioning of police cannot be on this narrowed focus but that protection of the public from all elements that could injury or kill them is an equally important activity. As no other entity exists that is given access to the details of a fatal collision police must take up that role of protecting the public, not just from driver criminal activity, but from common human activities, dangers related to vehicular issues and those dangers related to the roadway. This is just a reiteration of the well-known acronym “HVE” (Human-Vehicle-Environment) in road safety research.
So an important matter is the manner in which police conduct their investigations. Understandably the gathering of objective evidence from various vehicle components and modules that record crash data is an important activity. And such an activity is growing in its importance for laying charges against drivers. But how much of police investigation goes toward a scientific study of how a collision occurred and what objective physical evidence exists that can explain more about that collision? Unfortunately, as police focus on matters such as determining speed they do not focus on understanding the details of physical evidence. In the secrecy of their operations no one can confirm that there is some training toward the scientific study of collisions through a thorough examination of a collision-involved vehicle.
Heart surgeons cannot be expected to be expert in their work by taking a two-week course. And the same must apply to reconstructions of motor vehicle collisions. Proper training in collision reconstruction involves a long period of becoming familiar with the evidence that is supposed to be analysed. It is not as simple as being introduced to a slide-to-stop or a critical-speed-yaw formula for calculating speed. It must include detailed study and understanding of the physical evidence through many years of exposure to it. It cannot be a situation, which is presently common in police circles, where an individual is selected to be the reconstructionist for a period of five years and then he or she is shipped off to another department dealing with fraud or homicide. A collision reconstructionist must be a life-long analyst of collisions and his/her expertise must be based on a very long progression of examining many many collisions. It is that repeated exposure to many similar collisions that makes the reconstructionist an expert who can detect abnormalities when they do not fit the pattern of what has been observed in the past.
What happened with the Peel Regional Police investigation is not a matter to be kept secret. But this is often how the wheels run over the bumpy road and we never get down to fixing it.
Traffic Study: Richmond at Epworth in London Ontario – Part I
In the fall of 2025 the Broughdale Community Association contacted Gorski Consulting with respect to concerns they had over traffic safety in their community particularly on Richmond Street in the area of University Drive and Epworth Ave in London, Ontario. It was described as a “dangerous place” and, with the building of a new 780-unit student residence it was believed that the area would become busier and even more dangerous. Subsequent to this initial notification it was also learned that a private developer was intending to build a 21-story apartment building at south-east quadrant of Richmond and Epworth, across the street from the student residence. Initially the Community Association proposed that a traffic signal at the intersection of Richmond and Epworth might alleviate some of the safety concerns. However representatives from the City of London Transportation Department indicated such a signal would be too close to the present signalized intersection of Richmond and University Drive. Because of these problems the Broughdale Community Association asked whether Gorski Consulting could conduct a traffic study and provide advice as to what options might improve traffic safety in the area. These are the circumstances which led Gorski Consulting to proceed with a traffic study.
General Characteristics of Richmond Street At Epworth Ave
The area of concern is located in the north-west of London, Ontario. Richmond Street is a busy arterial roadway which runs north-south generally between London’s downtown up to its northern suburbs where it eventually turns into Highway 4 which is the main highway running north near the west shore of Lake Huron and toward Georgian Bay in Mid-Western Ontario. Epworth Ave is a short roadway that runs for approximately half a kilometre, east-west and it connects to the intersection of Richmond at its west terminus. Epworth is the roadway that many students at Kings University College would take to transition with the larger campus of Western University located to the west. A student transportation bus is also provided by Kings College to transport students along Epworth back and forth with Western University.
The image below provides a general view of the community and the subject area of concern.
A closer view of the Richmond-Epworth intersection is shown in the Googlemaps view below. Descriptions in orange text show the location of the student residence and the proposed apartment tower. There is no infrastructure for cyclists along Richmond and Epworth however there been a new pedestrian and/or cycling path created east of University Drive which connects to University Crescent and toward Kings College, as shown in the image below.
Where Epworth Ave intersects with Richmond Street there is a fourth leg of the intersection extending westward which is named Tower Lane. Tower Lane travels only about 185 metres where it comes to a dead end. On the west side of the dead end is a large parking lot operated by Western University.
Four, 4-storey student-rental apartments presently exist on the land where the proposed apartment tower is to be built at the south-east quadrant of Richmond and Epworth. A view of one of these apartment buildings is shown in the image below, taken looking westward along Epworth Ave. The construction of the student residence can be seen in the background.
on the west side of Richmond Street can be seen in the background.
At the extreme left of the above image one can note the existence of a driveway which services the rear of the four buildings.
The next image shows the same rental building but looking south from the intersection of Richmond and Epworth. The signalized intersection of Richmond and University Drive can be seen in the background.
A description of the proposed apartment tower was contained in a written proposal to City of London staff on behalf of the owner, KAP Holdings Inc. A depiction of the tower was contained in the report and is shown below.
At present the Western University student residence building is in the process of being built. A view of the progress on this construction is shown in the image below, taken on October 16, 2025.
Upon a visit to the site on October 29, 2025 it was observed that a new billboard was posted on the grounds of the KAP Holdings Inc. property, as shown below.
Gorski Consulting Traffic Study
While an initial meeting was arranged with the Broughdale Community Association for the morning of October 2, 2025 Gorski Consulting had already made plans to attend the site in late September, at a time when it was unknown what the safety concerns were with respect to the area. Independent of the Community Association concerns Gorski Consulting observed that a substantial volume of motor vehicle traffic was making turns at the intersection of Richmond and Epworth. Very little traffic was seen turning in and out of the Tower Lane roadway which contains a dead-end a short distance west of the intersection. At this time it was decided that the focus of the traffic study would be at the intersection of Richmond and Epworth, pending what concerns might be raised at the subsequent meeting. Eventually, four, two-hour video sessions were conducted at this intersection. The dates and times of these sessions are noted below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours
September 26, 0730 to 0930 hours
October 2, 1700 to 1900 hours
October 3, 1130 to 1330 hours
In most instances six video cameras were used and these were synchronized. The video was subsequently transferred to video-editting software (Adobe Premiere) and projects were created for each video session. Analysis of these video projects led to the creation of Excel spreadsheets outlining the turning motions of motor vehicles at the intersection. The motions of cyclists and micro-mobility traffic units were also documented. During a second viewing of the projects the motions of pedestrians were documented in separate spreadsheets.
Results from this analysis indicate the large number of motor vehicles turning at the Epworth intersection with Richmond. The total hourly turning motions for each of the 8 hours of observation are noted below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours = 292 motor vehicle turning motions
September 25, 1610 to 1710 hours = 351 motor vehicle turning motions
September 26, 0730 to 0830 hours = 250 motor vehicle turning motions
September 26, 0830 to 0930 hours = 220 motor vehicle turning motions
October 2, 1700 to 1800 hours = 323 motor vehicle turning motions
October 2, 1800 to 1900 hours = 244 motor vehicle turning motions
October 3, 1130 to 1230 hours = 236 motor vehicle turning motions
October 3, 1230 to 1330 hours = 226 motor vehicle turning motions
Pedestrians were only documented if they crossed either of the two roadways. It was reasoned that pedestrians who passed through while walking on a sidewalk should not be a primary safety concern as the possibility of their interaction with motor vehicles, cyclists and micro-mobility units would be minimal. The volumes of documented pedestrians crossing the roadways at the Richmond and Epworth intersection for each hour of observation are noted below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours = 61 roadway crossing motions
September 25, 1610 to 1710 hours = 101 roadway crossing motions
September 26, 0730 to 0830 hours = 27 roadway crossing motions
September 26, 0830 to 0930 hours = 29 roadway crossing motions
October 2, 1700 to 1800 hours = 78 roadway crossing motions
October 2, 1800 to 1900 hours = 80 roadway crossing motions
October 3, 1130 to 1230 hours = 50 roadway crossing motions
October 3, 1230 to 1330 hours = 68 roadway crossing motions
The volume of cyclists and micro-mobility units at the intersection can be described as low, as summarized below:
September 25, 1510 to 1710 hours = 2 cyclists, 1 e-scooter
September 25, 1610 to 1710 hours = 8 cyclists, 1 e-scooter
September 26, 0730 to 0830 hours = 2 cyclists
September 26, 0830 to 0930 hours = 3 cyclists
October 2, 1700 to 1800 hours = 3 cyclists
October 2, 1800 to 1900 hours = 5 cyclists
October 3, 1130 to 1230 hours = 8 cyclists, 1 mobility-assist scooter
October 3, 1230 to 1330 hours = 6 cyclists, 1 e-scooter
At present no documentation of through traffic has been made along Richmond Street because of the very large motor vehicle volumes. Current traffic volume data obtained from the City of London indicates that Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on Richmond Street is approximately 27,000 vehicles south of Epworth and about 28,000 vehicles north of Epworth. The AADT for Epworth Ave is listed at 5,000 vehicles.
In a large percentage of time southbound Richmond Street has been observed to contain stopped or crawling vehicles in the vicinity of the Epworth intersection. This occurs when the traffic signal at University Drive turns red and a queue of motor vehicle traffic begins to build northward, often as far as Mayfield Drive which is over 200 metres north of University Drive. When southbound traffic is stopped this provides the beneficial opportunity for westbound vehicles on Epworth to enter Richmond. Additionally, when the traffic signal turns red at the University Drive intersection this stops the northbound traffic flow and provides the opportunity for vehicles on Epworth to enter onto Richmond. If the traffic signal at the University Drive intersection did not exist it is likely that there would be a steady, mostly uninterrupted, flow of traffic on Richmond making it difficult for vehicles on Epworth to enter Richmond. However problems develop whenever a large number of vehicles attempt to make turns at any unsignalized intersection and the Epworth intersection is no exception.
The video data also showed that many southbound drivers on Richmond were making left turns to travel eastbound on Epworth. At times this could not be accomplished without delay and this caused the traffic in the southbound passing lane to come to a halt behind the left-turning vehicle. This was a common inefficiency which reduced traffic flow as vehicles could only continue southward using the southbound curb lane.
Pedestrians were vulnerable when they crossed Epworth travelling either southbound or northbound because of the many vehicles coming in and out of Epworth. However more pedestrians were observed crossing Tower Lane and this was beneficial because there were very few vehicles entering and exiting that portion of the intersection. Throughout the 8 hours of observation 294 pedestrians were observed crossing Tower Lane while only 184 pedestrians were observed crossing Epworth. Yet, in the eight hours of observation, of the total 2142 vehicles that were observed making turns at the four-legs of the Richmond-Epworth intersection, only 104 vehicles were observed turning in and out of Tower Lane. Thus there were many more pedestrians crossing Tower Lane than there were motor vehicles entering or exiting Tower Lane. This beneficial result has to be viewed with caution once the student residence is built to see if this pattern is changed as more motor vehicles may begin to use Tower lane from the residence.
Truck traffic is particularly important. If delivery vehicles begin to use Tower Lane to service the new student residence this could pose a potential danger to pedestrians crossing Tower Lane. The importance of this potential safety problem cannot be overstated. It has been known that heavy trucks have high front ends and drivers are challenged to see objects close to the left and right front because the visibility obstructions from mirrors and roof pillars. At the same time if truck drivers need to make a turn onto heavy traffic on Richmond Street their attention will be toward scanning for traffic on Richmond and not on the presence of pedestrians. Many pedestrians have sustained serious injury or have been killed in this type of scenario when at turning truck runs over a pedestrian or cyclist or other micro-mobility unit.
With respect to cyclists the Richmond-Epworth site poses a threat because there is no infrastructure for their safe travel. Furthermore, although only 37 cyclists were observed during the 8 hours of observation, a couple incidents occurred which suggest there could be greater problems as cyclist volumes rise. In one instance a westbound driver made a right turn from Epworth to travel northbound on Richmond and this was done just as a northbound cyclist was travelling through the intersection.
In a second instance which occurred on September 25, a northbound cyclist was riding a gas-powered bicycle northbound on the east sidewalk of Richmond and he crossed the Epworth Ave intersection at a very high speed. Although cameras were not set up to capture his precise speed it is estimated his speed was in the range of 45 km/h. Such a speed is clearly dangerous to the cyclist but also to vulnerable pedestrians. This same cyclist was observed approximately 35 minutes later, returning southbound on the east sidewalk of Richmond, again at a very high speed.
As mentioned earlier a path has been constructed near University Drive which leads from the east roadside and connects with University Crescent. This route could take pedestrians and cyclists back and forth to Kings College thus avoiding the busy area around the Epworth intersection. The Googlemaps view below shows the general position of the path.
A view of this path is shown below.
Gorski Consulting examined this area for the first time on October 29th at approximately 1030 hours. The path and University Crescent were generally deserted. This may be a function of the mid-day which might not attract cyclist and pedestrian travel. It may also be a function of the late season for cyclist travel. However this needs to be studied further.
Cyclists and pedestrians focus on the shortest and convenient travel distances when selecting a route. It has been noted that a large number of pedestrians travel on Epworth Ave and possibly not along the path connecting University Crescent. One observation is that the connection between University Crescent leading to Kings College is restricted by a fence which narrows the passage to single pedestrians. This would be prohibitive to cyclist travel. This narrowed passage may have been created on purpose to prevent cyclist usage and this needs further study. However it could be one of the reasons why cyclists might not use this route.
The report submitted for KAP Holdings Inc. to City of London staff indicated that the new apartment tower would contain 57 parking spaces for motor vehicles, 12 short-term spaces for bicycles and 108 long-term bicycle parking spaces. Our examination of the parking lot at the present, 4-apartment complex suggests there are 8 parking spaces for each of the 4 buildings or a total 32 parking spaces.
There is no indication on the KAP Holdings Inc. property if there are any bicycle storage areas, perhaps inside the buildings.
The Kap Holdings Inc. proposal appears to offer substantial storage/parking for bicycles. About twice as many as for motor vehicle parking. What is not clear is how bicyclists will be expected to navigate the area safely. As indicated earlier, there is no infrastructure on either Richmond or Epworth to support cyclists. In fact, riding adjacent to the travel lanes of Richmond Street would be, in the view of Gorski Consulting, unacceptably hazardous. This may be one of the reasons why so few cyclists were observed in the 8 hours of video documentation. While a path has been created south of the KAP property which connects Richmond and University Crescent, there is no connection between the KAP property and that path. And there is nothing shown in the proposed plans for the apartment tower that indicates there will be a connection with the newly created path. This poses a potential safety problem if the number of cyclists is increased in proportion to the increased numbers of parking spaces at the proposed apartment tower.
There is also no information about what Western University has arranged to provide safe cycling in the vicinity of the student residence. At 780 units the residence would have over six times the number of units as the Kap Holdings apartment tower. Thus there is the potential for creating a large impact on travel near the Richmond and Epworth area. There is no parking lot near the student residence so it is not clear how many motor vehicles might be attracted by the residence and where those motor vehicles would be parked. It needs to be determined to what degree traffic on the low volume Tower Lane might be increased by the presence of the student residence. Further information needs to be obtained about how many additional cyclists might be attracted and what routes they might take. If cyclists are attracted to ride onto Tower Lane and then into the Richmond-Epworth intersection this could be a hazardous result if cyclists attempted to cross Richmond in heavy traffic.
It must also be recognized that the Gorski Consulting traffic study has gathered motion data at peak periods of traffic volume but that may not be the most important matter to consider when evaluating traffic safety. The purpose of the 8 hours of video was to explore the potential need for a traffic signal at the Richmond-Epworth intersection. This analysis would generally examine the traffic volume and speeds of vehicles. And this analysis is typically an exploration of the transportation efficiency of the intersection and not necessarily its safety. When traffic is clogged up at the intersection vehicles begin to travel slowly or come to a halt. In such conditions safety is generally improved because there is little opportunity to develop higher speeds and therefore higher severities of collisions. So examining the functioning of the Richmond-Epworth intersection at times of peak traffic volume artificially creates the impression that safety problems are of minor consequence. However collision severity potentially increases with higher vehicle speeds and those speeds generally occur as traffic volume decreases. So an important addition to the study would require an examination of traffic during off-peak hours when traffic volume is reduced and speeds are increased.
An example of the potential safety problems that could exist is demonstrated by a collision that occurred at approximately 0230 hours on Thursday, September 12, 2024 on Richmond Street just south of University Drive. It was reported that two vehicles collided and one of them subsequently rode on the west roadside of Richmond and struck a hydro pole. During these events a 29-year-old male pedestrian was struck and sustained life-threatening injuries. The pedestrian was subsequently released from hospital about 4 weeks later. No assistance was provided by investigating police as to how the collision occurred. Given the vehicle rest positions visible in news media photographs it is likely that a fast-moving, northbound vehicle entered the southbound lanes of Richmond and struck a southbound vehicle before colliding with the pedestrian and hydro pole. What is important to note here is that the collision occurred early in the morning when traffic volume would be low and pedestrian volume would also be low. If the motor vehicle traffic volume was high and congested it is less likely that a vehicle would reach high speeds and collision severity would generally be less. So it is important to examine the Richmond-Epworth intersection at a time when traffic volumes are low and observations of vehicle speeds can be made and evaluated.
At present Gorski Consulting has not been provided with a collision history of the area. London City Police have been contacted and such a history may soon be available. Upon receipt of this information further comment can be made about the safety of the intersection and an opinion can be expressed about possible remedies.
Reminiscent Of Insanity Of Donald Trump, Premier Doug Ford Outlaws Speed Cameras In Ontario
Premier Doug Ford’s solution after removing speed cameras throughout Ontario is that he would replace them with speed bumps, speed cushions, roundabouts, enhanced signage and education. Anyone with any knowledge of road safety and collision analysis would know that these alternatives are not solutions, they are simple folly. This will endanger many innocent lives as police in Ontario will not have the resources to conduct speed patrols. This will give the most dangerous drivers on the road a free ticket to drive at the speed they wish, no different that the outlaw gangs that could roam at will in North America’s wild west before civilization crept in.
Strange Reporting From Trial About Fatal Collision In South-West London Ontario
Due to copyright rules we cannot post photos of the collision site where two vehicles collided on November 3, 2020 in London Ontario. The fact that a criminal trial is underway almost five years after the collision date is strange in itself. Why such a delay occurred has not been explained.
Furthermore we cannot find any mention of the collision from local news agencies on the date that it occurred. At Gorski Consulting we are vigilant to reports of collisions occurring in the vicinity of London Ontario and throughout south-western Ontario so it is puzzling that we have no record of this collision being publicly reported at the time that it occurred.
News of the trial became apparent from articles posted on the local CTV News website, commencing on October 8, 2025. CTV never explained why there was such a long delay in the commencement of the trial.
Several photos of the involved vehicles at the collision site were available in the current CTV website articles. These photos showed the results from a typical angle collision causing both vehicles to travel to the south-east quadrant of the intersection of Southdale Road and White Oak Road in south-west London. It was obvious that a Hyundai Sonata sustained damage to its right side while a Mercedes had frontal damage. Such results would suggest that the Mercedes was eastbound on Southdale Road.
The pre-crash motion of the Sonata was not obvious from the visible evidence. Damage and rest positions like this could suggest that the Sonata was either southbound on White Oak Road or it could have been westbound on Southdale Road and made a left turn in front of the Mercedes. The CTV articles never provided an official finding from the police as to the pre-impact direction of travel of the Sonata.
It has been reported by CTV News that the alleged driver of the Mercedes, Bahaa Ali, claimed that the Sonata turned left in front of the Mercedes and, given the evidence visible in the photos, this could be one explanation for how the collision occurred. But then the situation becomes bazaar. CTV reported that Bahaa Ali claimed he was not the driver of the Mercedes. Bahaa reported that his younger brother, Muhannad, was the driver. Muhannad telephoned Bahaa that he was involved in a collision and Bahaa rushed to the collision site before police arrived. It was reported that Bahaa then told police that he was the driver of the Mercedes. So the public has become side-tracked by these additional complications.
At this point it is useful to introduce the concept of a “red herring” whereby some things are reported to distract the reader/viewer/listener about information to prevent relevant facts from being detected. Another description of this phenomenon is where a shiny red ball in introduced into the field of view to cause the viewer to look at the distracting ball while the magician performs tricks without being detected. It is apparent to us that this kind of trickery is taking place with respect to the relevant facts in this collision.
Another bazaar fact introduced into the reporting of this trial is that a police “forensic video analyst” testified that “from collected data from the area” (words reported by CTV) the Mercedes was travelling approximately 129 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. Wow, say the public, this fact clearly indicates that the Mercedes driver was a reckless maniac. Well, maybe, however that is not the full story. What the public does not understand is how collision reconstruction functions and what evidence is gathered and analyzed in the process. So we need a little “Collision Reconstruction 101” course to assess these reports.
A Course In Collision Reconstruction 101
Traditionally, police have used methods such as momentum analysis to reconstruct the speeds of vehicles. Such a method employs gathering information about the pre-impact directions of travel of the vehicles, the area of impact, the post-impact travel directions and final rest positions of the vehicles. This method has worked reasonably well in situations where vehicle pre-crash travel directions are at substantial angles, such as where two vehicles enter an intersection from different roadways. Momentum analysis begins to break-down when the two vehicles approach each other in a head-on scenario such that they approach each other along the same roadway. The scenario is referred to a “co-linear” collision because the both vehicles approach along a straight line. When such a head-on collision occurs investigators must take into account the crush in the vehicles and conduct an assessment of how much energy was dissipated in the collision. This crush analysis provides an estimate of the “Change-in-velocity” of the vehicles. Such a crush analysis helps the investigator with the momentum analysis because the calculated speeds must conform with the severity of the impact.
While Momentum and crush (energy) analysis can be performed via hand calculations, for practical reasons, they are best performed using computerized programs. Such programs have been available for decades, although police have never used them. The most common programs in North America are CRASH and SMAC, both originally developed under contract to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Various private vendors has incorporated this code into their own systems that are sold to various reconstruction and road safety organizations. The PC-Crash program is also popular program and it was originally developed in Europe. The bottom line is that, traditionally these were the methods used to reconstruct collisions.
Commencing in about 1999 event data recorders (“Black boxes”) began to be installed in light duty motor vehicles. Because of their ability to provide a calculated, pre-impact speed of a colliding vehicle event data recorders (EDRs) became very popular in the police community. All that was needed was some “decoding” hardware that could be plugged into the vehicle and a variety of crash data became available without the drudgery of gathering and interpreting the physical evidence. Now almost 100% of light-duty vehicles on the road are equipped with EDRs. However the decoding hardware is not capable of downloading data from every vehicle and here lies an important problem. When a vehicle is encountered where the EDR cannot be downloaded police must use the traditional reconstruction methods. And those who have become focused on reconstruction with EDRs become less familiar with understanding the physical evidence that needs to be gathered and interpreted.
Police also have limited knowledge of mechanisms of occupant injury. What injuries occur at what levels of collision severity and what kinds of collisions produce the injuries that have been observed. Again, police are focused on gathering data for the purposes of laying charges. Injury mechanisms are not viewed as part of that process in the police community. Yet knowledge of injury mechanisms can be helpful in understanding what occurred in a collision and therefore this could help police in their purpose of laying charges. It is just that most police services do not understand that this relationship exists.
Peculiarities In Reported Evidence
So, after reviewing this short summary of collision reconstruction techniques, what can be understood about the present collision? Firstly we see that there is no information about any downloaded data from an EDR. So this should be viewed as peculiar. Why not? One might surmise that police were caught flatfooted as, initially, the collision seemed of less importance because there was no indication of life-threatening injuries. But then that supposedly changed.
If EDR data was not available then the alternative would require the gathering of physical evidence to conduct a momentum and crush (energy) analysis. So was this done? It was not reported so. And if it was reported that speed was calculated from video then it should also have been reported if momentum and crush (energy) methods were also employed. In our view it is highly doubtful that these basic reconstruction methods were employed. However there has been no explanation provided why this was not done. Again, did police believe this was going to be a simple, non-life-threatening result? Did the death of the passenger of the Sonata catch them by surprise? Was it too late to gather the evidence once it was determined that there was a fatality? No information about this has been provided.
For an unexplained reason a passenger in the Sonata eventually passed away. But this is another peculiarity. Looking at the crush to both vehicles it appears that the collision was not of a severity where fatal results could be expected. Several views of the crush at the right side of the Sonata were provided in the CTV news articles and these showed insufficiency for the causation of fatal injuries. However nothing has been officially reported about that. And here is that “red herring”, or bright flashy ball, that redirects the public’s attention away from an important fact. It makes good copy to discuss who was driving, or how fast the Mercedes was travelling but the public does not want to know about the mysterious death of the Sonata passenger.
None of the CTV news articles ever indicated the seating position of the Sonata passenger who passed away. There was a greater threat to her if she was seated in the right rear seat because this was the location of the greatest exterior crush. But if she was seated in that position then it would be very peculiar if there was no one seated in the right front seat. But no one has mentioned if there was another passenger in that right front seat. What is visible in the photos is that there was minimal crush at the Sonata’s right front door, so if the deceased was seated in the right front seat her death would be quite unusual and unexpected.
There are ways to examine physical evidence that could also provide information to police about the identity of the driver of the Mercedes. Again, many police are not familiar with studying injuries and patterns of injury, yet that information can be used to identify a seating position or if a person was present in a collision-involved vehicle. But nothing has been said about what was presented at trial on this point.
The CTV news articles also described how a police video expert performed an analysis to estimate the pre-crash speed of the Mercedes. Again, no information was provided to examine how this was done so one has to surmise what was actually done. If video camera views were available, say, from property surveillance cameras, then analysis of that video can provide such a speed estimate. If so, it has not been explained where, long Southdale Road, that Mercedes was observed and its speed was calculated. What can be known is that the speed of the Mercedes was nowhere near the 129 km/h as estimated by police at the time of impact. So if the Mercedes was truly travelling at such a high speed this would have be at a substantial distance west of the intersection, or there should have been physical evidence on the roadway that the Mercedes was braked heavily on approach to the area of impact. But again, nothing of any such information has been publicly disclosed. So why would such speeds be publicly reported without an explanation of these peculiarities?
As a final comment, recently the Premier of Ontario Doug Ford said he would remove all speed cameras in Ontario because they are a municipal “cash grab”. And many persons would support this, likely because they were caught “speeding”, possibly only a slight amount over the posted speed limit. But rather than removing speed cameras altogether, municipalities could adjust their operation so that detection and ticketing could occur at a higher threshold.
However this collision is an example of the consequences that await the Ontario public if speed cameras are removed. Who will monitor traffic to prevent very dangerous drivers from travelling 129 or even 100 km/h in a 60 km/h zone? Police are not prepared to suddenly increase the numbers of officers positioned along numerous roadways in the hope that the select few dangerous drivers are apprehended. But speed cameras are much more efficient for that purpose. Speed cameras can remain operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Without such cameras there will be incidents where innocent drivers are killed by dangerous speeding drivers. Sorrow and sympathy counts very little after someone has already been killed. Preventative action through speed cameras will reduce the need for sorrow and sympathy.
Speed Camera Politics In Ontario Will Cost Lives
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to remove all speed cameras in Ontario. Despite opposition from numerous municipalities and safety organizations Ford has refused to change his mind calling the cameras a “cash grab”. However no one has explained the details about why this criticism might apply. Official news reporting agencies could have explained those details but they have not.
Who is the private vendor who operates the cameras? How much does the private vendor earn from this ticketing activity? How much do municipalities earn from this ticketing action? Is there a conflict of interest in purposely lowering the speed threshold so that more ticketing money can be generated? How many drivers were ticketed for going, say, 5 km/h above the posted speed limit? The answers to many such questions would clarify whether the speed cameras were being used to generate income rather than to improve traffic safety.
If Premier Ford was genuinely interested in improving traffic safety he could have required that speed camera operations be adjusted to a higher threshold and this has been called for by many organizations responding to Ford’s illogical threats. A higher threshold would mean that only the truly dangerous drivers would be apprehended rather than a large portion of the travelling public who are not a major safety threat travelling just over the speed limit. From the viewpoint of someone who has studied collision causation for over 40 years, it is of less importance to reduce the average travelling speed of the entire population of drivers at a site. Rather what is more important is to apprehend that small segment drivers who are travelling at very high and dangerous speeds. From the experience of Gorski Consulting it is this small segment of dangerous drivers who cause a much higher percentage of the safety problems and only speed cameras can detect them efficiently. The cost of sending a police speed enforcement unit to catch such select dangerous drivers is prohibitive and current police forces are not geared to increasing their speed patrols when so many other emergencies take up their time.
The removal of speed cameras is a dangerous act which will give many dangerous drivers a “wild west”, open road, to speed without much consequence. It is the combination of municipal lack of accountability for speed camera operations along with Premier Ford’s illogical reasoning that will cause this dangerous situation to develop.
You must be logged in to post a comment.