Why bother with more studies and statistics and data and ….We are all experts on why pedestrian collisions and their associated injuries and fatalities are on the increase. And there lies  the problem. We always knew what the problem was and we were just waiting for something to back up our preconceived conclusions. This is good science and policy.

Why are police and news media not informing the public that the harpooning of the vehicle by a guardrail where a fatality occurred earlier this morning is not an acceptable consequence?

Police and news media seem to be avoiding the obvious as a vehicle was reportedly harpooned by a guardrail in the northbound lanes of Hwy 400 north of Toronto, Ontario earlier this morning, February 25, 2018. OPP Sgt. Kerry Schmidt was quoted as saying that the vehicle “slammed into a guardrail”. That is a creative phrasing of the obvious fact that guardrails are meant to deflect the travel direction of  a striking vehicle while reducing the vehicle’s speed in a gradual manner. How can the harpooning of the vehicle be called “slamming” as this provides a very obvious misinformation that a penetration of the vehicle occurred.

Yet this is the closest that anyone else has come to saying anything about what transpired as all news agencies appear to be silent on this issue. Where is the informative, investigative journalism that shouts out “Hey wait a minute, this is not supposed happen. How did this occur? Why did this occur?” This was a 19-year-old occupant of a vehicle that had a lifetime to live, and perished under questionable circumstances, does no one care about that?

Oddly, we had just completed posting the news item below regarding the dangers of harpooning when reports of the current tragedy came to light. However the harpooning of a vehicle by a guardrail when the impact appears to be along the length of the rail is quite peculiar. There have been numerous incidents of reported harpooning of vehicles when the end of the rail is struck and this was discussed on this webpage a couple of days ago with respect to the ET-Plus guardrail terminals.

But that does not appear to be the case in the present instance as photos of the guardrail in the present case appear to show that the rail separated somewhere along its length. This would normally suggest that there was a weak point in the anchorage of the rail, possibly where two lengths of rail are joined together. However this is all speculation as there have been no reasonable photos of the rail where it separated and there is no opportunity  for anyone to examine it close up before it was repaired. This is a troubling situation as any defect of the guardrail could be hidden from public knowledge.

This impact damage to the east railing at Wharncliffe Road and Horton Street in London in February, 2018 has not raised any safety eyebrows.

Gorski Consulting has made several references to the dangers of roadside rails that, upon impact, create an exposed end of the rail that can harpoon a striking vehicle. This danger was highlighted in a 1989 research paper co-authored by Zygmunt. M. Gorski and the University of Western Ontario Accident Research Team. Warnings were also provided of the exposed ends of such a rail that continues to exist on the busy Oxford Street at its intersection with Quebec Street in London.

This view of the exposed end of the railing at Oxford and Quebec Streets from October , 2016, remains unchanged to the present day.

We have previously discussed the harpooning of a vehicle by such a railing from an impact in February of 2016 at the intersection of Wharncliffe Road and Horton Street.

View of the undamaged east railing at Wharncliffe and Horton with the impacted west railing in the background (Feb., 2016)

While the possibility of harpooning of an occupant of a vehicle is not frequent it only needs to be demonstrated that its effects can be extreme, as shown in a figure taken from our 1989 research paper shown below.

View showing the passenger and the metal bar that pierced his chest. Likely this person survived but the consequences could easily have been fatal.

As we have essentially no influence on those who install and maintain these systems all we can do is warn the public through this website.

Gorski Consulting has monitored the developments relating to the controversy surrounding the ET-Plus guardrail terminal manufactured by Trinity Highway Products of Dallas Texas since the summer of 2014. At the time we became aware of allegations that the ET-Plus could be defective and dangerous we began conducting surveys of the installations in Southern Ontario and subsequently we examined a number of ET-Plus terminals that were damaged from vehicle impacts. All this has been reported in a number of articles that have been uploaded to this website.

As the saying goes, we have no horse in this race. It is of no particular interest to us whether anyone is found at fault for anything. The closest we came to placing our boots on one side of the fence or the other is that we were contacted by McKenzie Lake, which instigated the Canadian class action law suit against Trinity, and we were asked to document the dimensions of several ET-Plus terminals in the Stratford, Ontario area. We were also contacted by Global News in Toronto where a TV segment was prepared to be aired on their “16X9” documentary series that focused on the ET-Plus. In fact the footage that Global news shot during our meeting and field exercise was never aired on their program: another lost moment of fame, if one cared about that. The point is that we have treated this controversy no differently than any other allegation, civil suit or criminal matter: we simply told the truth based on observable fact.

Our field studies demonstrated that, regardless of whether  there were some secret alterations to the design of the ET-Plus that were not revealed by Trinity to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, there were some results in the in-service functioning of the system that raised our concerns. The ET-Plus was not functioning in the manner in which it was shown to function in controlled testing. In a large number of instances, upon impact, the rear end of the ET-Plus terminal was deforming the top of the guardrail before the rail had a chance to reach the throat of the terminal and this prevented the rail from passing through the terminal as demonstrated in the controlled testing. In fact we do not know if this was the mechanism that caused the result, it is just a suspicion, and other factors could also be at play. But whatever factors were at play the bottom line is that the terminal was not functioning as it was claimed to function.

Sure enough, other products that exist on the roadside might also not function in the manner they are illuminated to perform in controlled testing. Who knows? Certainly we do not have the resources to study all of the roadside structures and this is a major point. No one knows, and no one is in a position to know, except those specific entities with deep pockets who have the resources to know. Trinity Highway Products has the deep pockets to know however they are not the only ones. The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) should have infinitely deep pockets because, like any government agency, they simply reach their hands into everyone’s pockets, regardless of whether those pockets are deep. So did the FHWA administration know what they were required to know?

It has been indicated that a jury’s verdict in favour of Mr. Joshua Harmon, and against Trinity, was overturned by a higher U.S. court citing the fact that the FHWA had “approved” the installation of the ET-Plus on U.S. highways. Thus because of this tacit approval blame could not be placed on Trinity. In our view this reasoning should be of grave concern. It was the FHWA which failed to conduct proper evaluations, including in-service documentations of the ET-Plus, which led to the uncertainty about this structure’s adequate performance. Not until many years later, after Mr. Harmon had commenced his legal actions, did FHWA begin to search for performance data from other entities – data that they should have had if they were the agency responsible for determining which roadside structures would be safely installed on U.S. highways. Even upon request of that data it was clear to us that this data was insufficient and thus this led to a selected group of experts to claim that there was no indication that the ET-Plus was any more dangerous than any other roadside structure.

This is a common fact about data and research. Many official agencies sponsor research not to uncover a specific problem, but rather to create confusing data that, upon analysis, reveals that nothing can be concluded. It is a true tragedy when these actions result in the needless loss of innocent lives.

What remains is that perhaps thousands of installations of ET-Plus terminals remain on North American highways without any proper determination whether they will needlessly injure and influence the death of future road users. If those installations are, in fact, no less dangerous than any others then Trinity has also suffered because there has been an obvious decrease in the number of installations of ET-Plus terminals throughout most jurisdictions. Was this done because of the legal issues? Was it done because those jurisdictions found out that there were safety problems but decided not to reveal them for fear of being sued? No one will know.

In the end this does nothing to provide a proper justice to those road users who have sustained major injuries or to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives. The need, that should be obvious to everyone, is that a proper documentation of instances involving impacts of ET-Plus terminals must be conducted and made public and that has not occurred.

The repetitive circumstances by which another driver died in relatively shallow water has received essentially no coverage in the official news media. The City-Pulse 24 News in Toronto published a brief mention of the incident, written by the Canadian Press, where Jeffery Walker, the driver of a pick-up truck died after his vehicle “rolled over and ended up submerged in a creek in Jarvis, Ont.”. The article indicated that police were notified of the incident at 0930 hours by a passerby. The article also indicated that police did not know exactly when the crash happened. No further information was provided.

The actual location of the crash was on Walpole Concession Road 5 just west of Haldimand Road 55, thou that was not mentioned in the CP24 article.

One would have to go to other news agencies to obtain further information. Such information was found in the Brantford Expositor newspaper which actually showed a photograph of the vehicle still lying upside down in the creek.

One does not need to look very closely to recognize that the depth of the water in which the truck came to rest was actually quite shallow, perhaps a couple of feet at most. While it is possible that the driver was killed as a result of the impact, it remains a very real possibility that he could have drowned, perhaps by being unable to exit the vehicle for example. The scenario is not much different than the one we reported in our news item of February 7th of this webpage where the occupants of a partially submerged vehicle were rescued by a passerby.

In both instances we are dealing with roadways that are of relatively low traffic volume, yet their maintenance requirements can be estimated by noting that the roadways are paved and therefore would not carry the lowest traffic volumes. Yet in the incident in Wolfville, Nova Scotia there was no barrier between the road and the water hazard.

Similarly we can look at the site of the collision near Jarvis by going to Google Maps. Unfortunately Google Maps does not a provide a “Street View” of the site and we can only see an overall, aerial view as shown below.

Google Maps view of Walpole Concession 5, the site of the mentioned fatal rollover into the creek.It should be obvious that there is no barrier at this site between the road and the water hazard.

These are matters that the public ought to be made aware of. There are numerous small bodies of water, such as creeks and even ditches, where a vehicle entering the water could result in the death of any occupants that are unable to escape the vehicle interior. Rollovers can be very mild events, even at high speeds because the deceleration of the tumbling vehicle takes place over a relatively long time. It has been publicized on numerous occasions that, in order to gain the best advantage, occupants need to be wearing their seat-belts so that they stay inside the safe cage of the vehicle. In such instances the rate of deceleration is in the range of 0.5 g which is less than what occurs when maximum braking is applied on dry, hard-surfaced road. When have we ever seen fatal injuries from the force experienced by maximum braking? It is unheard of. So, in a general sense, the forces experienced in a rollover should be of minimal consequence provided that the occupant remains inside the vehicle.

But now we have a different twist that no one wants to talk about: What happens when there is a fire or the vehicle becomes filled with water? If the occupants cannot get out of the vehicle then the scenario becomes extremely dangerous. We need to discuss this issue without emotion but with reason and science. Throwing one’s hands up and concluding there is no reasonable solution is illogical. Putting one’s hands over one’s eyes, such as providing no news coverage, is also just as illogical. It is our duty to make this point known.