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.

Just after posting the news item below regarding the drowning near Jarvis, Ontario, news media are now reporting that a vehicle entered the Grand River near Grand Valley, about 20 kilometres west of Orangeville, Ontario where it has been found submerged. A female driver of the vehicle managed to escape however news media are indicating that a child occupant of the vehicle is missing. The vehicle was reportedly swept several kilometres downstream, presumably south, from where it entered. Efforts will now be made to withdraw the vehicle from the river.

Again, the question remains, how did the vehicle come to enter the water? Police are quoted as saying the driver entered onto a closed road and then subsequently entered the water but that says very little. Which road was closed? How was it closed? Was it something where sufficient information was not provided to the driver and a misunderstanding occurred? Where precisely did this entering of the water occur? As per past experience these are important questions that are unlikely to see the light of day.

UPDATE: February 23, 2018; 0900 hours

Further details have been revealed in the last couple of days however majors issues still remain unanswered.

In earlier reports the incident reportedly occurred at 0215 hours however several news agencies reported it occurred at 0100 hours on February 21, 2018. The site where the van entered into the Grand River was reported to be “near 10th Line and Henry Street. It was reported that the van was swept down the river for several kilometres.

In a CP24 News article of 1403 hours of February 21st it was reported that the incident occurred at precisely 0053 hours when a witness saw the headlights of a vehicle bobbing and pointing upward out of the Grand River. A female driver and a 3-year-old child had occupied the vehicle. Constable Paul Nancekivell was quoted as saying “She managed to free herself right away and then the van was swept away moments later”. At approximately 0930 hours a van was reportedly located stuck in the middle of the Grand River however due the fast running water and large ice flows it was determined unsafe for rescuers to reach the vehicle and a cable was attached to it to prevent its further travel down the river. The location of the van was described as “under a bridge in between the 9th Line and 10th Line”.

In a further update by CP24 News at 2018 hours of February 21st, it was reported that a 3-year-old boy was missing as he was swept away from his mother’s grip after their minivan entered the river. The time of the incident was confirmed by police as 0053 hours. Police indicated that the female driver drove past a road block adjacent to the river where water was rushing over top of the road. The van was then swept into the river. Police indicated that the driver was about to exit the van with her son when “the boy was swept away from her grip down the river”. The van was found further downstream and secured with cables. Rescuers were in the process of searching for the boy.

Visibility at the time of the incident was reported to be extremely poor such that “You couldn’t see past the hood of your vehicle”.

There was still no specific information about the location where the van was swept away from the road and where it was found.

In a Hamilton Spectator newspaper article Grand Valley District Chief Kevin McNeilly was quoted as saying that the weather conditions were “treacherous” at the time the mother and son were swept away. It was extremely foggy and at one point the river rose three feet in a matter of 20 minutes.

In a CP24 News article at 0834 hours of February 22nd it was confirmed that the van had already been pulled out of the water however its exact location was still not provided.

In a Toronto Star newspaper article the young boy was identified as Kaden Young and his mother, Michelle Hanson was the driver of the van. Some indication of the location was provided in the phrase “Firefighters found Hanson, hypothermic, at a watery alcove on the river’s bank”. While this information is exceeding scant, at least it refers to an alcove.

In an article published by CBC News at 0919 hours of February 22nd, some specifics were provided. It indicated that the mother drove past a road closure sign and it was foggy at the time but police opined that she knew the sign was there.

In an article published by CJOY, Constable Nancekivell was quoted as saying that Michell Hanson had been “driving southbound down 10th Line and failed to stop at the road closure that had been in place. The woman drove into heavy water and when she tried to back up, the van was swept into the Grand River”. Hanson reportedly pulled her son from the van after it was swept into the river but lost her grip. She managed to pull herself onto the bank of the river but the van was swept seven kilometres down river and got stuck in some silt. Hanson was reported to live in the area.

In a Hamilton Spectator newspaper article of 0544 hours, February 22nd, the authors indicated that Hanson “accidentally missed a road-closure sign”, suggesting that she did not do so deliberately as suggested by Constable Nancekivell. The article also quoted Hanson’s family members who stated that Hanson did not see the road-closure sign due to dark and foggy conditions. Fire Chief Kevin McNeilly was quoted to say that his firefighters initially responded to a call about a motor vehicle collision just before 1 a.m. but, while on route, they were notified that a vehicle had gone into the river. If there was a second incident involving an accident it has not been reported by any other agencies. A rescue vehicle was sent to the Dufferin County Road 109 bridge where they heard Hanson’s calls for help.

This would imply that the van must have been carried past the Cty Rd 109 bridge if Hanson was not carried with the van. However it is possible that she also might have been carried downstream for some distance or that perhaps she moved down stream of her own volition. Yet the article indicated the van was found “upstream” where it was secured. This is rather confusing as it would suggest that Hanson was carried downstream, to the south,  past the van which was found upstream, or north of her location at the Cty Rd 109 bridge.

Examination of the photos showing the van’s location one can observe a utility pole sticking out of the water and comparing this to images on GoogleMaps suggests that the pole in question was located on the north edge of the the bridge of Cty Rd 109, although we cannot be absolutely certain. A further examination of the GoogleMaps data suggests that the distance from the Cty Rd 109 bridge northward to the hamlet of Waledmar is slightly more than 1 kilometre and, if the van was swept along the river for seven kilometres as indicated by news media this does not make sense.  Further analysis indicates that the distance northward from the Cty Rd 109 bridge to the point where the 10th Line crosses the Grand River is only 2.3 kilometres thus this is also far short of the seven kilometres that was quoted in the CJOY article. None of this confusion has been clarified.

Having examined further news media photos it is our opinion that the van was swept away from the road at a bend in the 10th Line located 1.5 kilometres north of the Cty Rd 109 bridge. This is a location just a few hundred metres north of Henry Street in the hamlet of Waledmar. In our opinion the van was likely stopped at the Cty Rd 109 bridge where Ms. Hanson was also found. At least this is the best interpretation that can be made based on the confusing information that has been reported. In fact the those reporting the incident could not have made this information any more confusing nor as if there was a purposeful attempt to preventing anyone from knowing the precise manner in which this incident unfolded.

There is an obvious conflict with respect to what happened as Ms. Hanson approached the wash out and why she passed through the reported road closure. If the water at the site had been rising as quickly as 3 feet per every 20 minutes it is not difficult to imagine that an initial placement of a road closure barricade could be overwhelmed by the rising water. The barricade could be partially submerged or even knocked over, as has been witnessed on a number of previous occasions on any roadway. If there was an actual trailer with some mass to it then that interference could be less likely. If   a barricade remained standing then, even in dense fog, it would be difficult to image that Ms. Hanson could not have detected it if it was properly placed a cross the majority of the road width. Granted, with the lack of visibility she might be expected to drive into the barrier but it is difficult to believe she would not actually detect its presence. So what were the actual conditions at the road closure. There have no questions or answers provided on this important issue. As typical there a substantial outpouring of grief and emotion which is detracting form the important quest to reveal how and why this innocent boy likely came to his death.

Ultimately the revelation of how this came about is a societal issue, not a personal one, as we must all be responsible for ensuring that no one dies from unknown reasons by the actions of unknown persons.

13-year-old Avery Kernaghan was killed in a collision on Glendon Drive west of London, Ontario on Saturday, February 10, 2018. Her father, Douglas, remains in critical condition. As noted numerous times on this website, sympathy for the surviving family and friends of those killed and injured in motor vehicle collisions is an obviously natural and commendable human expression. The tragic death of a young girl, Avery Kernaghan, over the weekend is difficult to accept even for those of us who are not directly involved. The unknown outcome of Avery’s father, Douglas,  must also keep everyone hoping for his recovery. At times like these it is difficult to turn one’s focus away from these emotions and focus on the cold facts. Yet these cold facts are also important.

It is now approaching four full days since the collision occurred on Saturday afternoon, February 10th, on Glendon Drive, just west of London, Ontario. Yet absolutely nothing has been revealed regarding the collision. Even the sparse reporting that is provided by official news media is often accompanied by a photograph of the collision scene or damaged vehicles so some appreciation can be gained that what has been reported matches reality. But not in this instance. Shortly after the collision occurred the London Free Press provided a long-distance view from Parkhouse Drive looking at an emergency helicopter with emergency vehicles located in the distant background, but nothing more.

Nothing has been reported about the basics of the collision: Was it a head-on collision? Why did Avery and her father sustain their injuries while the other driver was reportedly uninjured? Did the roadway conditions play a role in the crash? Given the very scant information we at Gorski Consulting have some suspicions as to what factors existed. But given the lack of evidence it is understandable that we could be wrong and there is no point in discussing those thoughts at this time.

We drove by the collision site on following day, Sunday, February 11th and the photos below provide some idea of what the site looked like at that time.

In the photo above there is no indication of any collision evidence except for a difference in the shading of the pavement in the westbound lane just in front of the vehicle approaching the camera. This is near the driveway located at residence marker #9224. Obviously the characteristics of the site would have changed as this is more than 24 hours after the occurrence. So what was the roadway like at the time of the collision?

The single photo provided by the London Free Press shows some evidence of the road surface conditions and this shows some snow, of varying depth and position, located on the pavement. Was this varying snow a factor in the collision?

There are a number of questions that need to be answered. It is not just a matter isolated to the family and friends in this matter. We believe that the next Avery Kernaghan is an unknown distance away in the future and we have an opportunity to prevent her death just like we had an opportunity to study previous collisions whereby our actions might have prevented Avery’s death. We have an obligation to thoroughly evaluate how and why the present collision occurred and to cause changes to be made to lower the chance of the next family experiencing such a devastating loss.

On high speed highways not all drivers are able to detect stopped vehicles or construction workers ahead of their path. Automatic detection and deployment of automatic emergency braking could be very beneficial but that technology may take a long time to reach the majority of the vehicle fleet.

In recent days there have been several developments in South-Western Ontario where citizens and organizations attempted to highlight the need for specific safety features. Notably, a group originating from the Chatham, Ontario region has been pressing the Ontario government to install permanent concrete barriers in the median of Highway 401 in the 118 kilometres between Tilbury and London where no barriers exist. Only a few days ago the Ontario government indicated it would proceed with installation of those barriers but not until many years in the future. In the interim, high-tension cable median barriers (HTCMB) are to be installed commencing in 2018. The barriers are needed to prevent median crossover collisions which are often severe and sometimes result in fatalities. That would appear to be a good cause however a large number of collisions also occur when traffic is stopped, or slowed, resulting in serious rear-end impacts. Little concern or thought is given to how this large number of serious collisions could be avoided or reduced in their severity.

On a second front, an inquest has just been completed in St. Thomas, Ontario with respect to the death of a construction worker who was killed while operating as a Traffic Control Person (TCP) at a work zone on Highway 3 in St. Thomas in July of 2014. That inquest led to several recommendations that might be helpful but again, little mention was made of actions that could be taken to prevent such a worker from being struck by a driver who might not have seen the worker in time to avoid the collision.

In both of these instances, and in many others, Automatic Emergency Braking might make a large difference. Rather than relying on a driver’s vision and decision-making to apply deceleration to a vehicle, a variety of “automatic vision” systems can apply braking much earlier and do not need the driver’s involvement. This could have tremendous safety benefits.

However, a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) estimated that only about 5 percent of vehicles in 2021 will be equipped with this technology and 95 percent of vehicles will have this technology by about the year 2045. That is a long time to wait.

At a time when drivers are reportedly lulled into a state of “hypo-vigilance”, as recently commented by Ontario Ministry of Transportation representatives, it becomes extremely important to use automatic braking technology especially when various construction projects exist and collisions cause blockages to major roads such as Highway 401. Where drivers’ expectations may be fooled by unexpected happenings, automatic braking may be there to take control, if vehicles are so equipped. The public’s attention should be turned toward recognizing that we need this safety technology much sooner than 30 years from now.