At Least 14 Fatalities in Bus Collision in Central Saskatchewan
14 persons are officially reported to have died in a collision between a bus carrying local hockey players and a truck. The collision reportedly occurred some time after 1700 hours on Friday, April 6, 2018. The crash occurred on Highway 35 approximately 30 kilometres north of Tisdale Saskatchewan. Only this general information is available at this time.
As expected there have been a number of emotional pronouncements from investigative agencies, family and various political figures. Yet it is these emotional reactions that distract from the very important focus of obtaining objective information about how and why this tragedy occurred. In the early hours and days of such an investigation the causes become scattered much like mice scattering about so as not to be caught. The result is often that the focus of the news media is upon these emotional reactions and the causes are never revealed. This becomes a double tragedy.
The Cause of a Collision is Not the Same As What Caused a Death
The Hamilton Spectator Newspaper quoted the Hamilton Police Reconstruction Unit when they indicated that the cause of the collision which killed Mohammed Deeb on Lawrence Road in Hamilton, Ontario on March 31, 2018 was a combination of speed, wet roads and drug impairment. There can be a great many half-truths to such reported facts.
A single photo accompanied the Hamilton Spectator article, showing the front end of the Deeb Nissan Altima located against the front end of a Hamilton Transit bus. As typical the actual photographic details were of limited detail however the photo revealed some important facts about the incident that typical readers would not be aware of.
The fact that the Nissan was pressed close to the front end of the bus indicated that this Nissan experienced the vast majority of its change in speed from the impact itself rather than other factors such as sliding to a final rest position. Note that the large mass of the transit bus would negate any change in its velocity as a result of the impact with the small Nissan. This collision was close to the typical barrier impact conducted by safety researchers at government agencies (NHTSA, Transport Canada) and large private agencies (Highway Loss Data Institute). Results of such crash tests report on the severity of the tests and a variety of sensed data from the involved crash dummies. From this it is possible to determine the likelihood of various injuries. Similarly, government agencies (NHTSA, Transport Canada) have been involved in decades of data gathering from real-life collisions where injuries of real-life occupants are also documented along with their associated collision severity.
The bottom line is that a lot can be known about what types of injuries a vehicle occupant should have sustained in a certain collision severity. Thus by looking at the photograph of the Nissan we can expect a certain level of injury especially when that collision does not involve complex dynamics and is similar to a barrier impact.
A lot can be determined from examining the extent of vehicle crush on the Nissan’s front end and this crush is displayed reasonably well in the newspaper’s photo. Furthermore, the rearward displacement of roof pillars and front wheels also provides an indicator of the extent of crush even when that crush has not been measured. In the present case there is no rearward displacement of the roof (A) pillars and there is little evidence of rearward displacement of the front wheels in their wheel-wells. The bottom line is that this collision, although relatively severe, should not have resulted in fatal injuries to its driver. Even if the driver was not wearing a seat-belt, and that important fact was not disclosed, a variety of supplemental safety devices within the vehicle (such as air bags) would be of substantial benefit to the driver in this type of collision.
Furthermore this collision should not have produced any measureable structural intrusion into where the driver was seated and this is a critical factor in considering what injuries should have been sustained.
Furthermore, the extent of injury to the other occupants of a vehicle was also an indicator of the collision severity. The Hamilton Spectator newspaper reported that three other occupants of the Nissan sustained non-life-threatening injuries. For the most part, these three persons should have sustained a similar collision severity as the deceased driver. While there are differences in expected injury due to occupant location these differences are not so large that they would result is such large differences in reported injury severity.
Thus there is a lack of clarification in the story that exists in many similar such incidents and keeps the public from recognizing that something happened that should not have happened. Just because a collision was caused by certain factors does is not the same as saying that those factors caused a person’s death. These are two different things. While speed, wet roads and drugs may have been dominant factors in causing the loss of control of the Nissan they were unlikely to be the dominant factors that led to the driver’s death. Other, unknown, and unidentified factors led to the driver’s death and this should have been explained and pursued further.
It is often not the fault of news media such as the Hamilton Spectator for this lack of information as many news agencies are suffering from a lack of funds to conduct proper investigative journalism. The blame must rest largely on the police agencies that decide what information will be released to those news media. Police Reconstruction units and the Reconstructionists who work for them have an obligation to properly inform the public on issues of public safety. This includes allfactors that relate to the public’s safety. These Recontructionists must possess sufficient training so that they can objectively document and identify crucial evidence. When someone dies in a collision under questionable circumstances it is unethical for any right-minded person to hold back crucial information about how and why that fatality occurred especially if this holding back of information could lead to the death of a future, innocent party.
Clarke Road Russian Roulette Almost Claims Its First Victim
Gouges in the pavement, fluid spray and vehicle debris mark the location of a significant head-on collision on Clarke Road North of Fanshawe Park Road over the weekend.
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.
To a collision reconstructionist, the existence of fresh gouges in the pavement is indicative of a severe head-on collision that often results in major injuries or fatal consequences.
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 pile of vehicle debris next to the point of impact indicated that a Ford and a Toyota were involved in collision.
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.
A close-up view of the pole shows some red lens material clinging to it and there are some fresh horizontal scrapes to the wood indicating the southbound vehicle’s contact.
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.
View, looking north, at the end of the fluid stain at the gap where the vehicle broke through some of the bushes. This is the final rest position of the southbound vehicle.
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.
Historical Patterns of Loss-Of-Control Events At Specific Road Locations
Further to our earlier news post of March 25, 2018, where we reported that 96% of loss-of-control vehicles travelling southbound through the S-curve of Clarke Road in London are not documented, we have now finished a detailed article discussing the research and its findings. This article has now been uploaded to the Articles page of this website. As the research method is unique it also provides evidence about the quality of officially reported collision data that has never been revealed by traditional methods. We encourage readers to visit the Articles page and review these compelling findings.
Speculation Is Typical As Eight-Member Hart Family Perishes Over West Coast Cliff
Eight members of the Hart family were reported killed when their vehicle travelled off the Pacific Coast Highway near Westport California.
We should come to accept that speculation will always exist, in one form or another, in the thoughts of many persons when objective facts about a tragedy are not available. This is the case when a SUV was reportedly “discovered” at the bottom of a 30 metre cliff of the Pacific West Coast highway just north of Westport, California on Monday, March 26, 2018. The news reports would suggest that 5 members of the eight-member Hart family were found with the vehicle while police were still looking for the remains of the other three.
Reports indicate that the Hart family was uncommon. Led by two, 39-year-old women who adopted six children. Some described them in glowing terms while others did not. The news media report that a children’s agency was in the process of investigating the possible mistreatment of the children when the collision occurred. The obvious speculation is that the collision was caused on purpose as some kind of mass suicide. Yet, up to this point, police have reported nothing unusual which would suggest a purposeful act. Regardless, the damage has been done.
Matters like these are not uncommon, not just in collisions but in all walks of life. If not for the bazaar behaviour of an American president we would not have been exposed to the term “fake news” nor would we have begun to think about its meaning. We are truly a unique species in that we can create our own reality and make ourselves believe things that have no rational basis. While many of us profess to be non-religious, we follow a religious-like belief system that is made up of certain superior beings with titles and robes and pagentry in whom we have total faith. Whether these be news representatives whom we have come to trust, police who can always be trusted, or doctors or priests and so on. All with titles and positions whom we have come to believe and trust not because of the facts they tell us, but solely because of who they are. That is not a wise or healthy approach.
In the analysis of motor vehicle collisions we are constantly provided with the observations of witnesses. Some are very reliable and truthful, and some are not. The problem is that, without proper confirmation by objective analysis, we have no idea which witness is reporting reliable information and which is giving us a fairy tale, or whether the truth lies somewhere in-between. It is the meticulous process of identifying and gathering objective evidence that gives us the opportunity to be “quite sure” that the witness information is reliable.
Unfortunately, those gatherers and identifiers of objective evidence are not of equal capability, training and experience and here lies a second quagmire. There are many who like to be looked upon as capable, well-trained and experienced and who gather many credentials, much like the titles, robes and pagentry noted above, so that this smoke and mirrors will prevent a properly detailed study of what they have gathered and identified. Unfortunately, our experience is such that we cannot accept what previous investigators or analysts have reported on face value simply because of the many times that those investigators and analysts have provided unreliable information. In 37 years of analysis and through the review of the actions of a large number of witnesses, investigators and analysts, we have come to this conclusion not because of our bias but because our experience demonstrates this.
Going back to the incident of the Hart family’s tragedy, all we have of (seemingly) objective information is that the family perished due to their vehicle’s fall from the highway cliff. We cannot be certain of even this one item since any kind of purposeful action by others could make this tragedy seem like an accident when it was not. So a close study of the evidence such as the injuries sustained by each occupant would be needed along with evidence inside the vehicle. Obviously a downloading of data from the vehicle’s event data recorder (“black box”) might provide useful information If it is interpreted properly.
The matter of the reported lack of tire marks must also be viewed with caution as many investigators simply do not have enough experience in using proper procedures or understanding what it is they should be looking for because they simply lack the experience. Identification and recognition of such evidence does not become a reliable skill just over a matter of a couple of years or through the study of a few short courses. At Gorski Consulting we continue to compile photographic documentation of various tire marks so that we can become better identifiers and interpreters of that evidence.This is no different than any other evidence that is cataloged so that it can be used to uncover the truth in future cases.
What is obvious at the collision site is that the Pacific Coast Highway in this region is accompanied by many cliffs and the border between the cliffs and roadway are not protected by guardrails or other devices that would limit the opportunity for vehicles to accidentally wander into danger. That may not mean anything in the details of this specific case however any investigator might keep that in the back of their mind while not causing one to develop tunnel vision.
In all, the presence of speculation in this incident is not uncommon. While many attack those who engage in it, our view is that speculation develops when there has been insufficient objective information disclosed about an event. Those who formulate those attacks often fail to ask why more objective information is not revealed as, in so many previous incidents, the insistence on maintaining secrecy is the ultimate problem.