Important questions surrounding the site where at least 15 persons perished in a bus crash in central Saskatchewan need to be answered now before focus is turned away from this tragedy.

It is now known internationally that a bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos hockey team came into collision with a tractor-trailer at the intersection of Saskatchewan Highways 35 and 335 approximately 30 kilometres north of Tisdale, Saskatchewan on April 6, 2018. Of the 29 persons on-board the bus 15 have now been officially counted as deceased and the rest have been injured. The truck driver was reportedly uninjured.

While the families, friends and even strangers are shocked by the magnitude of this tragedy, focus has to be placed on the objective facts of how and why this occurred and essentially nothing of substance has been revealed. Even the general layout of the crash scene was not provided in any photos except for closer views of the two vehicles at their rest positions.

Progressively it became clear that the two vehicles were involved in a crash at the intersection of two highways, Saskatchewan Highways 35 and 335. Study of the vehicle final rest positions indicates that the truck travelled further from the intersection than the bus and given the truck’s rest position the most likely scenario is that it was westbound on Highway 335 and passed through the stop sign for its direction of travel. Similarly, the most probable travel direction for the bus would be northbound on Highway 35 and this would be consistent with its reported travel destination of Nipawin where a hockey was to take place that evening.

The Google Maps view below shows a general view of the scenario as presently believed to be accurate according to Gorski Consulting analysis.

If these facts are accurate then one must study the grouping of trees and brush on the south-east quadrant of the intersection to determine whether their blockage of the line of sight was inappropriate. Generally, this appropriateness is defined by establishing a “visibility triangle” created by the expected approach speeds of  the vehicles and ensuring that  the vegetation is cut back within the defined triangle. This issue may be discussed at another time.

What raises some questions is what has been found from a Google Maps view of the site shown in May of 2013.

Shown below is a Google Maps Street View image looking south-east of the intersection at an area of the east roadside, just south of the intersection. Two facts become apparent.

Number one, note that there is a flashing beacon attached to the post which holds the stop sign in the foreground. Such flashing beacons do not exist at every intersection. They become installed because someone has made a decision the traffic situation required the installation of this beacon.  We ask readers to consider what traffic situations would have to exist that the installation of this beacon was required?

Number two, note in the background of the above photo that there is a grouping of white crosses erected on the east roadside of Highway 35. The image below provides a better view of those crosses.

Our question is: Why do these crosses exist? What is typically implied by the erection of such crosses?

We will not provide any further comment at this time.

UPDATE: April 8, 2018; 1740 Hours

It has taken us aback as there was actually an analytical media article provided by the National Post newspaper “Staff” with photos of the site attributed to Jonathan Hayward of the Canadian Press posted earlier this afternoon that provided similar comments about the findings at the intersection as we posted here. While sarcasm seems inappropriate in the wake of this terrible tragedy it is all we can muster when we observe the lack of inquiry into how this collision occurred and why it occurred.

The National Post filled in some blanks that we could not fill with respect to the crosses at the southeast quadrant of the intersection. The National Post indicated that the crosses related to the deaths of 6 persons in 1997.

The National Post article focused readers attention to the grouping of trees at the southeast quadrant and referred to the “limiting of visibility on both approaches to the intersection”.

The National Post article also focused its readers to the flashing beacons above the stop signs while also not commenting further.

What we are also impressed about is the National Post staff actually focused it readers on a troubling fact that we also observed but had not yet mentioned. The front of the bus was essentially “obliterated”, the term used by the Staff. What an incredible observation from journalists who are not experts in crash reconstruction. Furthermore this “Staff” also showed a closer view of the front end of the truck demonstrating that there was almost no crush at its front end and the driver was reportedly not physically injured. These are incredible observations that are educational to the National Post’s readers and we  are amazed that this was actually posted.

Now, further about this issue of structural integrity that the National Post introduced. When two vehicles collide the force between them is shared. This is a re-phrasing of Newton’s 2nd law of motion. Those shared forces are equal and opposite. So the impact force that the truck experienced is also the impact force that the bus experienced. Does something not look right here? Look at the photos of the damage to the front end of the bus and look at the front end of the truck. The front end of the truck looks essentially undamaged, while the bus front end has been obliterated. Does that make any sense? Would you like to be the occupant of the vehicle that became obliterated? So where are the questions from the rest of the world, other than the National Post. Why is only one, single, news entity on this planet was able to form these important observations?

As we indicated earlier, there are important questions that need to be answered in this terrible crash. And there have been numerous important questions that needed to be answered in many previous incidents that we have tried to illuminate many times before, but never quite as horrific as in the present case. While we spill our sorrow can we also not act to undercover why these innocent persons had to die? Is that too much to ask of all of us?

Bus structures have been failing on numerous occasions without anyone saying a word of concern. Our failure to act on those previous occasions may well have contributed to the present tragedy.

But we need more facts. And we should demand more facts. We need to know how much of the damage seen on the bus is related to emergency personnel work to free and triage the occupants. But this stone must not be left unturned.

Thank you National Post Staff for being the only ones to turn on a light in this very dark room.

While the official news media have not mentioned it, a serious, head-on  collision occurred on Clarke Road north of Fanshawe Park Road between the two curves of the S-curve over the weekend. This is the location where Gorski Consulting has been documenting evidence of loss-of-control collisions since 2009. We had just completed uploading an article on this Gorski Consulting website discussing the fact that 96% of loss-control events involving a passage through an opposing lane are never documented in police records. We also indicated that this was a game of Russian Roulette since, up to that point, there has never been a head-on collision with southbound vehicles that keep crossing into the northbound lane of Clarke Road. Well, with the latest collision, this represents the first time that the game of Russian Roulette has met a victim.

The existence of fresh gouges in the pavement of the northbound lane, as shown below, is a bad omen as such evidence is typically found at fatal head-on collisions.

The fact that oil and battery acid were thrown on the pavement at the gouges indicates the extent of frontal damage that was done to the impacting vehicles. The concentration of vehicle debris lying next to the point of impact indicated that the involved vehicles were a Ford and a Toyota and that they were light-duty vehicles (i.e. passenger cars, SUVs, Pick-up trucks or vans).

The seriousness of the possible consequences can be appreciated when we examine the long distance that the southbound vehicle travelled after the impact and therefore the high speed of the southbound vehicle that crossed over the roadway centre-line.

The photo below shows a northward view toward the area of impact and one can see a dark trail of fluid on the east shoulder and driveway in the foreground indicating the path of the southbound vehicle after it left the impact. Some additional tire marks located on the grass of the east roadside may be related to the travel of a third vehicle but it cannot be established at this time whether those marks are related to the present collision.

This northward view, looking toward the area of impact, shows a dark fluid trail leaving the impact and travelling toward the camera. This is the path of the southbound vehicle after the impact.

In the photo below we have swung the camera around 180 degrees to show the dark fluid trail indicating the path of the southbound vehicle between our parked car and the utility pole in the background.

By swinging the camera around 180 degrees to look southward, one can see the dark trail of the fluid as it passes between our parked car and the utility pole in the background.

The photo below shows the fluid stain, looking north, from the approximate location of the utility pole. Just looking that the distance toward the area of impact in the background one should appreciate that the southbound vehicle is travelling at a substantial speed even after the impact occurred.

This view looking north from the utility pole clearly shows the path of the dark fluid stain caused by the southbound vehicle.

The photo below shows how the fluid trail changes direction slightly near the utility pole. There was a slight impact of the pole and this could be why we see a change in the direction of the southbound vehicle. One can see some broken chips of red lens on the ground in the foreground indicating the rear corner of the vehicle may have made the contact with the pole.

This view looking northward shows a slight change in direction of the fluid trail near the utility pole likely caused by a glancing blow to the pole.

The photo below shows a close-up view of the red lens material and horizontal scrapes to the wood confirming that the southbound vehicle made contact with the pole.

In the photo below we see the northward view of the fluid trail travelling past the pole and toward the camera which is positioned near  the south property line near a fence and bushes.

View looking north from a distance south of the utility pole showing the fluid trail coming toward the camera near a fence and bushes at the property line to the City of London water reservoir.

The photo below shows the location at the fence and bushes of the south property line where the southbound vehicle collided and finally came to rest. Dual wheel truck tire impressions in the grass suggest the vehicle was towed from this location.

View, looking south, toward the fence and bushes at the property line to the City of London water reservoir. The southbound vehicle crashed into the fence and bushes where it finally came to rest.

The photo below shows where the fluid stain terminates at the gap in the bushes of the property line where contact was made.

As a final note we can return to north curve that the southbound vehicle passed through before it crossed the centre-line. In the foreground of the photo below we can see the end of a thin dark tire mark to the right (west) of the centre-line which could signify the side-slipping of a southbound vehicle. However this tire mark cannot be attributed to the collision events at this time.

View, looking south, from the north curve where a thin dark tire mark can be seen to the right of the centre-line. Such markings can indicate a sideslip but it is not known if this mark is related to the collision event.

In summary, we had just completed an article entitled “Historical Patterns of Loss-Of-Control Events At Specific Road Locations” in which we indicated that 26 southbound vehicles had crossed, out-of-control, over the roadway centre-line between the two curves of the S-curve and that it was lucky that none of these events resulted in a head-on collision. We wondered why this occurred and suggested that perhaps these events were occurring at night-time when there was little traffic and thus there was less opportunity for inter-vehicle contact. However we also indicated that this was a game of Russian Roulette in that, eventually, luck will even out and a serious head-on collision would likely occur. It is a coincidence that, just after uploading this article, we documented the first instance, in 8 years of study, where a serious head-on collision occurred involving a high-speed southbound vehicle exiting onto the east roadside.

If one looks at some of the collisions documented in our article it is revealing how some of the incidents are so similar to the present case. The only difference was that in this case there was a northbound vehicle in the location where the southbound vehicle slid into the northbound lane. We would not be surprised to find a  police report describing the present case and the investigating officer noting that “speed was a factor” and therefore nothing further needed to be noted. This officer would have no knowledge of the history of the site and would be unaware of the many unreported collisions that occurred there in the same manner as the one he/she was currently documenting. This is how investigations have occurred in the several decades of the past.

We have recently provided testimony at several trials where the opposing lawyers has tried to suggest that our involvement in roadway safety issues goes beyond our area of expertise because of a ruling that was made in an Ontario Court of Appeal case ( Johnson v. Town of Milton, 2008). That Court of Appeal ruling was difficult to reconcile for many reasons. For one, the Court of Appeal simply had no knowledge of our background in roadway safety issues. Why it would make a ruling without that knowledge is difficult to comprehend. The Court of Appeal also separated the role of “Accident Reconstruction” into separate compartments such that roadway assessment was one, speed calculation was another, driver perception was another, and so on. It deemed that an investigator who conducted an assessment of roadway issues, speed and driver perceptions was being an “expert generalist” who was trying to present expert testimony on too many issues. Incredibly, that same Court of Appeal would see nothing wrong with a police officer, even a reconstructionist, writing a report and claiming that a collision was caused by high speed and nothing else. It would seem obvious that, by stating the cause was due to high speed , the officer also had to rule out the possibility that the collision was due to a roadway safety issue. But how could the officer rule out the roadway without having some knowledge, training or experience with what is a roadway safety problem? Yet, clearly, that officer has to make such a conclusion at every collision he/she investigates. Is that police officer now an “expert generalist”?

In the court’s eyes is it OK for the police reconstructionist to say there was no roadway safety problem and therefore he/she is not trying to be an “expert generalist” as long as the officer was not stating that a roadway problem existed? But if that same officer then says, yes, there was a  roadway safety problem, does the court now turn around and claim that the officer is trying to be an “expert generalist”? Does that make any logical sense? Clearly there are numerous investigations that have to be made which must include the three primary and general factors as described in the Haddon Matrix: The Human, The Vehicle, and The Environment. That has to be how reconstruction of a collision must occur. When the courts try to stop evidence from being entered as testimony regarding possible roadway safety issues they create a bias that is both illogical and dangerous to the general public. Roadway safety issues  that are hidden from discussion and are not revealed are dangerous to all of us. In our 37 years of collision analysis we have known that to be true and we have high-lighted these problems whenever our objective analysis revealed it was so.

The analysis and findings we have provided from the research at the Clarke Road site demonstrates just how often roadway safety issues can be hidden and the process by which they remain hidden. Yet efforts continue to prevent this evidence from being made public.