Police Pedestrians Struck By Fleeing Vehicles
A recent controversy irrupted in Toronto, Ontario over the findings from a tragic collision whereby a Toronto police officer, Constable Jeffery Northrup, was killed when he was run over by a fleeing vehicle in the parking garage of Toronto’s City Hall on July 2, 2021. At trial the driver of the fleeing vehicle, Umar Zameer, was found not guilty. The trial judge, Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy, became concerned that some police officers may have colluded in reporting that Constable Northup was standing in front of Zameer’s BMW, and visible to Zameer, just before Northrup was struck. The reconstruction evidence of a Toronto police expert and that of the defense expert both agreed that the evidence did not support that Northrup was standing as claimed.
In response Toronto’s Chief of Police, Myron Demkiw, made a bad decision by claiming that he would involve the Ontario Provincial Police in an “independent” review of the court findings. The existence of Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) would signal to anyone that police investigating the actions of other police is highly unlikely to create an “independent” assessment. The subsequent report of the OPP reversed the findings of the trial by concluding that Constable Northrup was indeed standing up just before he was struck.
Having reviewed the OPP report it is my view that it supported an impossible collision scenario. This scenario would have placed Constable Northrup on top of the BMW hood as the impact took place and it could not explain how Constable Northrup would have come to be underneath the BMW and thus run over.
Never-the-less the findings of the OPP report provided the excuse that Chief Demkiw needed to override the matter of police collusion. This was subsequently followed by comments made by Ontario’s Premier, Doug Ford, that the trial judge should apologize, a comment that was also supported by the president of Toronto’s police association.
In my view these developments are a black mark on the reputation of Chief Demkiw, the OPP, Premier Ford and Toronto’s Police Association. The findings of the trial should have been a catalyst toward reviewing the operations of police when they operate under cover, are on foot, and are in the vicinity of motor vehicles. The secrecy with which police conduct their operations makes it impossible to know how they conduct their training in this area. However there are previous incidents over the years that lead to safety concerns for both the police officers and also the public, like Umar Zameer, who may not be guilty of any wrongdoing but become caught up in questionable police procedures.
Confusing interactions have occurred where pedestrian police have used questionable judgment and these can be highly publicized. It can be recalled that in the early morning of May 17, 2024, the world’s top-ranked golfer, Scottie Scheffler, was on his way to the Valhalla Golf Club, in Louisville Kentucky when he encountered a pedestrian police officer who engaged Scheffler after Scheffler had steered into a wrong lane as a result of a police investigation that blocked Scheffler’s progress to the club. It was alleged that sometime during this altercation Scheffler drove his vehicle forward causing the police officer to be dragged and injured. Initially Scheffler was removed from his vehicle and handcuffed and police indicated he would be sent to jail because he did not comply with police instructions. Eventually Scheffler was released to continue with the golf tournament but what actually caused the dangerous encounter was never properly explained. Scottie Scheffler’s public demeanour demonstrated a calmness that did not align with an aggressive action to cause a police officer’s harm. The police officer being “dragged” by Scheffler’s vehicle is something that is commonly described in news media articles but it is not always a result of the officer being caught and attached by some portion of the vehicle. Rather it is often that an officer grabs a hold of a vehicle that begins to move. However what actually took place that led to the altercation was never properly disclosed. And this is a recurring problem when attempting to unravel the Gordian Knot of secrecy surrounding police interactions. Not all incidents are the same and the unique conditions of every incident requires that the details surrounding it need to be revealed. But such details are rarely or never revealed.
The next segment of this article will review incidents, some of them tragically fatal, where police officers, while pedestrians, were struck by fleeing vehicles.
Historic Incidents Of Police Officers Struck By Fleeing Vehicles
Unless one is a police officer who is continually exposed to making traffic stops and conducting other investigations near running vehicles it is difficult to get a clear understanding as to why police become embroiled in life-threatening incidents when they are pedestrians. It can be reasonably assumed that there are dangerous persons in our society and there is an essential need to control those persons for the society’s protection. How often police must deal with such dangerous persons, and how they are forced to perform their essential duties, is simply unknown. And this is not helpful to police and not helpful to the general public.
The table below is a summary of recent incidents where police in the Province of Ontario were struck by moving vehicles while they were pedestrians. It has not been possible to obtain a complete set of these instances and there is no other resource where such data can be found. Never-the-less the table provides some general indicator of the types of scenarios in which police, as pedestrians, were struck.
In reviewing the scant details of some of these instances it is quite obvious that drivers were aware that they were dealing with police. Regardless of the consequences such drivers have made the decision to flee. And at times those drivers were not intent on stopping just because a pedestrian police officer was in their path. And if such a driver is not stopped he or she may travel anywhere throughout a city or rural area, possibly endangering the lives of many innocent persons. So there is a strong urgency for police to try to stop such drivers as quickly as possible.
One problem is that not all persons who interact with police are criminals, nor are they dangerous. Sometimes, like in the instances of Scheffler and Zameer, misunderstandings develop. As in the case of Umar Zameer he appeared to be just an average citizen who was out with his family when he was approached by under-cover police whom he did not recognize and circumstances escalated. It may be that police believe they do not need obvious uniforms and badges to be recognized as police. It was reported in the Zameer trial that police tried to show their identification to Zameer and therefore he should have recognized that they were police. However it would not be difficult for a criminal to create identification that looks legitimate. How could a typical driver be able to distinguish genuine documentation versus forged documentation?
The image below shows the three under-cover officers who interacted with Umar Zameer on the night of the tragic Northrup collision. It is difficult for me to believe that these persons were readily identifiable as police officers. And this is an important safety problem.
In my review of the scant details of these instances it is apparent that, at a number of times, police made a decision that placed them in a dangerous position. The methods of police training in such instances are accountable to no one outside of the police community yet those methods have to be questioned when a number of officers have attempted to physically interact with a vehicle and driver when the vehicle is running and under the control of a driver.
I should not have to emphasize that a driver in a running vehicle is no different than a person holding a loaded gun. It may be possible for a physically fit police officer to subdue a person holding a gun or knife. But that same officer cannot subdue a 4000 pound vehicle even through the driver might be of minimal size and strength. The officer is highly unlikely to win that battle. There are instances where police officers have attempted to reach into a running vehicle to attempt to shut off the ignition or for some similar purpose. In my view police training should explicitly forbit an officer from such an action. Past experience has demonstrated that this is too dangerous. When police have reportedly been “dragged” by an escaping driver’s vehicle it is rarely because the officer has become physically snagged onto some portion of the vehicle exterior. Almost exclusively it is because the officer has attempted to grab a hold of some portion of the vehicle or has partially entered into the vehicle interior and this decision has placed the officer in greater danger.
In my long career I have had the displeasure of conducting a detailed investigation of a police pedestrian fatality in a traffic stop gone terribly wrong. It was something that I conclude could have been avoided if police had received proper warning about the dangers of engaging a driver in a running vehicle. Not being an expert in these procedures I would advise that the most important matter is to disengage a driver from a running vehicle by asking the driver to shut off the engine and step outside. If the driver does not comply then the officer should never attempt to open the vehicle’s door and attempt to remove the driver or attempt to reach in and shut off the ignition. Reaching into the vehicle is the worse thing a police officer can do. At this juncture the most important action a police officer can do is to disable the vehicle by whatever means possible. There may be some method to deflate or damage the vehicle’s tires. Or there may be some method to disable the performance of the engine. Creating holes in a vehicle’s radiator would be an example where a vehicle would progressively become undriveable. Police ought to have instruments available on their person to perform these actions.
A driver that attempts to escape after their vehicle has been damaged by police can be easier to apprehend. If a tire is damaged and becomes deflated the vehicle can no longer be driven at its highest speed. And the deflated tire becomes progressively damaged the more it is driven in a deflated condition. Incidents have occurred where the path of escaping vehicles can be followed by the roadway markings left by the damaged tire. In some instances the trail left behind can be followed without the necessity of involving a high speed pursuit. As a tire begins to disintegrate the escaping vehicle will begin to ride on the wheel rim and this produces distinctive markings on the roadway which are not difficult to detect. In one instance the path of a vehicle riding on its rim was followed through numerous urban roadways, over several kilometres up to the final location where the vehicle was boxed in by police vehicles.
Tragic results have occurred when police have discharged their firearms toward occupants of a `vehicle rather than at the vehicle itself. This was evident on November 26, 2020 when OPP officers attempted to stop an escaping pick-up truck that crashed through their road block on Pigeon Lake Road in Kawartha Lakes. This encounter resulted in the death of the Pick-up truck driver but also an 18-month old child in the pick-up truck who was struck and killed by police bullets. While charges against the three officers who shot at the occupants were dropped this was an example of bad police training and bad police performance of their duties.
It is understandable that many times police have no idea who they are approaching and it requires some exceptional thought to consider what may unfold. On a previous occasion an officer may have encountered a dangerous criminal with a loaded gun, so that could colour an officer’s actions in the next instance where the officer does not know the next encountered individual. The difficulty is that not all drivers are dangerous criminals and how they are approached must be an essential part of police training. The tragic death of Constable Jeffery Northrup must be a catalyst for police officials to review their procedures when police are on foot and undercover.
Very Low Female Cyclists Observed This Winter in London Ontario
We behold that certain truths are self-evident: If there are few female cyclists it is likely that a roadway is unsafe. And the first amendment of this truth is that, if very few female cyclists are observed it is highly likely that it has been a very cold winter. These words are somewhat plagiarized from the American Constitution yet there is some truth to them.
The winter season of 2025-26 in London, Ontario was unusually brutal. Much snow and very cold. Last winter season was also unusually brutal. So the past two winter seasons have been reminiscent of those winters of the 1970s in southern Ontario. And many are puzzled over the research findings that there is global warming taking place. However the phrase “global warming” might also include “global extremes” where droughts, high heat, severe storms and every other climate pestilence may be ahead of us.
From the Gorski Consulting viewpoint we have been conducting substantial cyclist observations along the roads of London, Ontario and these are also a barometer (thermometer) giving us an indication of the weather conditions. For several years now we have made comments in various website articles that few female cyclists can be observed riding on or adjacent to London’s roads. We then observed that those female cyclists are even more scarce in winter months. And if a winter is particularly “brutal” even less female cyclists can be found. So we say, without too much scientific rigour, that observations of female cyclists can predict safety concerns and they can indicate seasonal weather patterns. Our latest cyclist data for this past winter season in London, Ontario, is shown in the table below along with data from a few previous years.
The above table confirms that the overall number of cyclists observed riding along London’s roads in winter is low compared to warmer months. The average number of cyclists observed in the winter months (Dec, Jan, Feb and Mar) for the past 6 winters has been about 161 observations. These winter months are about a third of a full year. So if we multiplied the 161 by 3 we could say that, if the trend continued, we should be observing about 483 cyclists per year. But that is not the case. In the past six years Gorski Consulting has been making observations of about 1000 cyclists every year. So, again, this demonstrates the general lack of cyclists riding along the City’s roads in winter. However the trends are even more interesting when we focus on female cyclists.
Observations from previous years indicate that the percentage of female cyclists fluctuates about 13% each year. However the above table shows that, in winter months, the female percentage has been about 7.25%. So, although we are seeing a reduction in cyclists observations in winter months overall, that reduction is even greater for observations of female cyclists.
What is the purpose of our focus on female cyclists? It is because a reduction in female cyclists affects our ability to increase cycling as a mode of transportation. We need to shift our methods of transportation riding in gas-powered, personal automobiles. And we need to increase our usage of mass transit and active transportation. The lack of female cyclist observations is telling us that we have to do better. But we need to understand why females appear to avoiding riding along London’s roads. It could be a safety issue that we may need to correct. It could also be a matter of convenience and comfort. But we do not know. That is the purpose of gathering this observational data.
In late March of 2026 local news media announced that the City of London had a reduction is transit bus usage from 18.4 million rides in 2024 to 17.5 million in 2025. Those are troubling numbers. London City staff have concluded that much of this drop has to do with the reduction in foreign students attending Western University and Fanshawe College. Perhaps. However, what is the ridership situation with cyclists in the City? We had great plans about transitioning into mass transit and cycling but are those plans faltering? From the cycling standpoint there is no real data available from the City other than some broad numbers of imbedded cycle counters which are of minimal assistance.
We have to have a realistic understanding of the challenges posed to cycling in the City of London. Our climate is not helpful and variable/extreme weather conditions are more than inconvenient if cyclists cannot ride except through some heroic effort.
Officials are great at ignoring large gorillas in their rooms. They just pretend they are not there. A very large gorilla is the reality that cycling is more dangerous to persons than if they were riding in a personal automobile. Modern, passenger vehicles have improved tremendously in the last few decades in terms of protecting their occupants. Air bags, seat-belts and a whole litany of standards in the interior that most occupants are aware of. Given a scenario where the severity of impact is a velocity change of 20 km/h the occupant of a passenger could may sustain minimal or no injury. Given the same 20 km/h velocity change for a cyclist the injury potential could deadly because there is absolutely nothing between the cyclist’s body and what is struck and could control and manage those collision forces. As much as we want to encourage cycling, we also cannot ignore this very large gorilla.
OPP Sends Important Seat-Belt Message But Also Sends Misinformation
Gorski Consulting does not dispute most of the message sent in an OPP post on X (Twitter) today with respect to the importance and effectiveness of seat-belt use in a serious collision. However the post also sends some misinformation.
The post was sent by an anonymous representative from the OPP North East Region. It correctly makes note that Ontario’s seat-belt law is approaching its 51st year and that seat-belts have saved numerous lives while reducing the severity of countless injuries. The problem lies with a short phrase in that post as reposted below:
“Did you know? · During a collision, being thrown into a rapidly opening frontal air bag when you are not wearing a seatbelt can carry enough force to seriously injure or even kill you.”
This information is wrong and not necessarily innocuous. A vehicle occupant is not thrown into a rapidly expanding air bag because they are not wearing a seatbelt. A properly functioning air bag deploys before there is movement of the occupant with respect to the vehicle interior. Normally an occupant begins motion with respect to the vehicle interior at about 60 milliseconds after the commencement of a collision. A properly functioning frontal air bag deploys before that time. In newer vehicles the severity with which the air bag deploys depends on whether a seatbelt is worn. This because a full deployment may not be necessary if the occupant is already seat-belt restrained. But unrestrained occupants are not thrown toward a deploying air bag just because they are not wearing a seat-belt.
On a number of occasions I have explained the workings/ benefits of seat-belts in previous articles posted on this Gorski Consulting website. But a refresher appears to be needed.
A primary benefit of seat-belts is that, when they are located properly against the occupant’s body, and they are pressed tightly against the body, the occupant will begin to ride down the collision sooner than if a seat-belt is not worn. Why is that important? Because the earlier that you begin to ride down the collision the greater benefit because the greatest kinetic energy available to be dissipated is at the earliest portion of the collision pulse. When you wear your seatbelt tightly you become a “part of the vehicle structure”, in a sense. And when the vehicle structure begins to “decelerate” you also begin to “decelerate” almost at the same time as the vehicle structure. So part of your ride down occurs during “The First Collision”. In “The Second Collision” your body will eventually move into contact with the vehicle interior. But, by that time, your body will have been slowed to the point where the contact with the interior is not as severe.
But when you do not wear a seat-belt, or if you wear it loosely, you may make contact with the vehicle interior without being “decelerated” at all. So the vehicle could come to a full stop, essentially, and then your body will come crashing into contact at the initial velocity at which you were travelling. That is a bad outcome.
And the second part of this issue is that seat-belts need to be placed over the proper portions of the occupant’s body or they can become dangerous, sometimes as dangerous as not wearing a seat-belt at all. So the torso (shoulder) belt must be worn so that it crosses over the collar bone (clavicle). And the lap belt must be worn below the upper pelvic bone (illiac crest) and not over the unprotected abdomen. The positioning of the lap belt is extremely important.
There have been many instances of “Out-Of-Position” (or OOP) occupants who come to be positioned too close to the air bag before it is deployed. That is a very dangerous result and this is what the OPP should have noted. This is the primary mechanism by which persons sustain serious and fatal injuries from air bags. But this has nothing to do with whether someone is wearing a seatbelt because a person can be OOP regardless of seat-belt use.
Air bags were depowered beginning in 1998. Before that date occupants were being used as experimental fatality dummies because air bags were introduced before a proper assessment was made of their safety. The danger of deploying air bags has not been fully diminished and this is where police are part of the problem from two sources. In one instance many members of the police community have very little training to understand when an injury or death occurs that should not occur. This is apparent in many of the news media reports where persons have been killed in unusual circumstances yet police appear to do nothing. Although this is partly a lack of understanding it is also partly because the bias that police possess in their investigations and this is the second source of the police problem.
It is the purpose of police to lay charges against drivers that they believe are guilty of a certain offence. As part of that bias complications that could compromise those charges are withheld from further inquiry whenever possible. So if an impaired driver is charged police do not want it to be revealed that an additional factor, such as a roadway or vehicle safety issue, had also contributed to the collision consequence. In such unfortunate circumstances safety problems that ought to be revealed and corrected are left unidentified.
So the OPP misinformation in their posting is not necessarily innocuous because it demonstrates that, in many instances, police do not understand when a safety component fails to protect an occupant or they have reason to ignore it.
OPP Zameer-Northrup Report Supports An Impossible Impact Scenario
Much emphasis was placed by Toronto’s Chief of Police, Toronto’s Police Association President and even Premier Doug Ford on a report authored by members of the Ontario Provincial Police with respect to their review of the fatal collision whereby Constable Jeffery Northrup was killed in the underground parking garage of Toronto’s City Hall on July 2, 2021. The driver of the BMW car that struck Northrup, Umar Zameer, was originally charged with murder. In the subsequent trial Zameer was found not guilty. It was explained by Zameer at trial that he did not realize that the two plain-clothes officers (Northup and Forbes) were police but that they were criminals intending to rob him. Thus as the officers surrounded his vehicle he attempted to escape by accelerating quickly out of his parking spot.
At trial two reconstructionists, one from the Toronto Police Service and the other retained by Zameer’s defense both came to similar conclusions as to how the collision occurred. They both opined that Northrup was knocked over near the left-front fender of the BMW while it was reversed by Zameer. Northrup fell down and then the BMW rode over top of his body when Zameer accelerated forward. The presiding judge, Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molley, expressed her concern when two other plain-clothed officers, Constable Antonio Correa and Constable Scharnil Pais, collaborated the testimony of Constable Lisa Forbes that Constable Northrup was standing in the lane with his hands up, in front of the BMW when he was struck.
Justice Molley stated:
“…all three officers would have to be wrong about this detail in exactly the same way for this theory to make sense. That also raises an issue of whether, if they were wrong about where he was standing, they may also be wrong about if he was standing in front of the BMW at all. When three versions of an event are wrong, and wrong in the same way, you must also consider whether there has been collusion between those witnesses. All of the officers denied collusion. As I described to you earlier when dealing with eyewitness testimony, one witness can honestly mis-remember an event, particularly when the event was traumatic or shocking in nature. Ladies and gentlemen, it is possible for one officer to have a memory of Officer Northrup standing in front of the vehicle in the middle of that laneway with his arms raised to his chest level and his palms outstretched, even if that memory is not accurate. It is for you to decide if it is possible for three officers to have that same mistaken memory”
I have not had an opportunity to examine the evidence except through the comments made about the trial and what was contained in the OPP report following the trial. This does not negate the following opinion I express because my opinion only focuses on the specific OPP analysis of the impact contained in their report.
The portion of the OPP report discussing their findings about the impact is shown in the text and figure below.
.
The OPP text accompanying the above photo states “The OPP reconstructionist marked a green arrow that indicated the principal direction of force of the BMW to Detective Constable Northup during the collision”. If the reconstructionist had any rudimentary understanding of Newton’s Third Law of Motion (“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”) he should have understood that the travel direction of Northrup’s body would be opposite to the direction of force exerted on his body. So, clearly, Northrup’s body would travel along the same line as the green arrow but in the opposite direction, or towards the centre-rear of the hood. This is not arguable opinion, this is basic science.
The following set of four photos show a re-enactment of a pedestrian’s motion during a frontal impact by a passenger car typically known as a “wrap trajectory”. Such a trajectory has been well-known for many decades in the collision reconstruction community. Because this re-enactment is from a scenario where the pedestrian and vehicle are both stopped it cannot fully depict the pedestrian’s body moving or sliding rearward up the hood and toward the windshield that would occur in the dynamic scenario where the striking vehicle is in motion. But the general dynamics are there.
The basic point of this enactment is to show that the centre-of-gravity of an adult pedestrian is generally above the leading edge of the grille/hood of passenger cars and this causes the pedestrian’s body to travel onto the hood while the lower legs are struck and carried in the direction of the striking vehicle. It has been reported that Constable Northrup was six feet four inches tall and this would be substantially taller than a typical adult.
If Northrup’s body was on the hood of the BMW and the BMW was reportedly in high forward acceleration Northrup’s body would continue to travel rearwards with respect to the striking vehicle. And if the principal direction of force was at the angle depicted in the OPP figure then Northrup’s body would travel rearward and to the right with respect to that hood.
The additional factor is that the BMW was at a state of being steered hard to the left at the time of contact. If the principal direction of force was as shown, the turning of the BMW would be progressively toward Northrup’s body and this would also be the mechanism by which his body would be expected to move toward the right and onto the BMW’s hood.
In this scenario the body would exist on the hood for a substantial time and distance. Northrup’s body could not just magically fall to the ground in a split second. And if Northrup’s body was carried on the BMW’s hood for a reasonable time the point where Northrup’s body was run over would have to be a substantial distance forward of where the OPP determined the initial contact occurred. However the OPP report indicated the following:
“The OPP reconstructionist concluded Detective Constable Northrup was standing at the BMW’s front left corner when the BMW accelerated forward, struck Detective Constable Northrup, plowed him along the ground, drove over him and fled the scene.“
So how could Northrup’s body end up under the front end of the BMW if his body was moving in a direction toward the right and rear of its hood and his body was being carried on that hood? This is simply impossible. This is not just a bad reconstruction, it is a terribly bad reconstruction.
Who were the police individuals who signed the OPP report and what experience did they have in analyzing pedestrian collisions? This has not been revealed but it is a crucial point. Such basic errors in physics are appalling and why they occurred must begin with an understanding of the background of these individuals.
This is likely why the testimony of Constables Forbes, Correa and Pais was not believed by the court. And this is why both the Toronto Police Service reconstructionist and the defense reconstructionist both agreed on the general scenario that Constable Northrup was not standing up when the BMW accelerated forward and struck him.
Consistent with the previous actions of Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford, he was quoted by news media saying that “Maybe the judge should apologize”. No the judge should not apologize, Premier Doug Ford should apologize for accepting the OPP analysis without understanding that it was flawed. The OPP should apologize to the public for allowing such a report to be written in the name of the OPP.
Toronto’s Police Chief, Myron Demkiw, made a bad decision that made matters worse. He made the decision to invite another police agency to conduct an investigation about members of his own force. Anyone in the policing community would recognize that the public has never trusted a situation where one police force investigates another. This is why an agency such as Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) was created so that there would be some arm’s length separation between police agencies protecting their own kind.
Historically there have been many problems with the SIU and these were going to be corrected by recommendations made by Justice Michael Tulloch in an April, 2017, 263-page report encompassing seven months of research and resulting in 129 recommendations. The liberal provincial government was going to enact the Safer Ontario Act at that time encompassing most of Tulloch’s recommendations and this became law in March of 2018. But the Progressive Conservative party came into power in June and Doug Ford scrapped the law.
In March 17 and 19, 2026 articles posted by CP24 News of Toronto there were a number of views provided about the OPP report. It is not surprising that the lawyer for Zameer, Nader Hasan, reportedly called the OPP report “profoundly disappointing, reckless and irresponsible”. Nasan called out Chief Demkiw who appeared to support the OPP’s findings as Demkiw stated;
“This report is about allegations that our members faced, and it speaks to that investigation, which, quite frankly, again, I’d encourage everybody to read. It is very thorough and comprehensive as it relates to those allegations and the vindication of our members facing those allegations.”
This is an occasion where those collision reconstructionists, whether they be employees of the police, or private consultants, need to speak up and point out that the analysis of the OPP reconstructionist about how the impact occurred is greatly wrong and against accepted, basic science.
OPP Report Into Zameer-Northrup Tragedy
A 55-page report was released today by the OPP with respect the collision on July 2, 2021 whereby Toronto Police Constable Jeffery Northup was killed. The OPP have concluded that the previous investigations and the opinions expressed by the trial judge in this case were in error. We are reviewing this report and will have more to say once we have digested its content.
You must be logged in to post a comment.