In-Vehicle Data Becoming More Secretive While Limiting Public’s Knowledge
A number of vehicle manufacturers are downloading and storing copies of private text messages from smartphones when they are connected to their infotainment systems. Software such developed by Berla Corporation does not allow the public to view those messages yet it allows law enforcement access. Some of these manufacturers are selling car owners’ data to various entities that are will to pay. So far courts in the U.S. have failed to control that practice.
Similarly, almost all manufacturers now install event data recorders or “black boxes” that record important information when a collision occurs. While such data is extremely valuable in resolving many collision causes the software and hardware to download the data is very expensive and thus unaffordable to the average citizen, even if they knew such data existed. In many instances of disputes with police or insurers average citizens cannot obtain data that could otherwise support their side of a disputed finding. Nothing is being done to remedy this by creating laws that allow average citizens the right to view their own in-vehicle data.
Most drivers are completely unware of these activities, causing them to drive forever in the darkness of data secrecy.
Collision Survival Needs Early “Deceleration”
A key concept to understand in protection from collision injury is the idea of early “deceleration”. Deceleration is placed in quotes here because, technically, there is no such word. There is only acceleration. When we speed up we have positive acceleration and when we slow down we have negative acceleration. However, we continue to use deceleration here because it is commonly understood.
When a motor vehicle collision occurs we are often influenced by the visible damage to the vehicles. We often believe that visible damage equates to collision severity and injury. While that is partly true, what is missing from this belief is that the damage to the vehicle only describes the severity of the collision experienced by the body of the vehicle and that is not the same as the severity of the collision experienced by the vehicle occupant. The body of a vehicle occupant makes contact with the interior of a vehicle shortly after the start of the impact experienced by the vehicle. When an occupant is unrestrained the occupant begins to move, with respect to the vehicle interior, at about 60 milli-seconds after the start of the vehicle impact. Unfortunately, in many serious collisions, that 60 milli-second delay can be huge and could be the difference between life and death. Since a serious collision can be completed in about 100 milli-seconds the vehicle can slow down greatly before the occupant’s body finally reaches the vehicle interior when contact is made. Remember, that an unrestrained occupant does not begin to slow down until contact is made with the vehicle interior. It is the difference in speed between the vehicle interior and the body of the striking occupant which determines the severity of occupant injury. So we can reduce the severity of injury if we can begin the deceleration of the occupant’s body as early as possible.
There are occupant protection systems in modern vehicles that cause early occupant deceleration. One is a seat-belt. But seat-belt webbings cannot have slack in them or their benefit can be reduced. If we want early deceleration we need to make sure that the lap belt is reasonably snug and positioned low on the pelvis and not high onto the abdomen. The torso webbing can have a little more slack just so that proper positioning can occur during ride-down, Modern seat-belt systems are equipped with pre-tensioners that cause the webbing to be pulled about 4 inches on it is tighter against the occupant’s body. However pre-tensioners cannot stop abdominal injuries the lap belt is positioned too high above the pelvic.
Airbags are also devices designed to achieve early deceleration. Airbags explode so that the bag inflation reaches closer to where the occupant’s chest and head are located. But airbags could be dangerous if the occupant is positioned too close to where the bag deploys, so that injury occurs when the occupant is struck by the expanding airbag.
Other devices such as deploying knee bolsters achieve a similar effect to the lower legs and knees. The combination of these various air bags and seat-belt restraints allows for the occupant to begin decelerating much earlier than if they did not exist and this improves occupant protection.
So remember this important concept of early deceleration. It applies to so many other areas of transportation where forces need to be lessened and controlled.
School Bus Tree Impact In Stratford Ontario
A school bus collided with a tree on John Street in Stratford, Ontario on the morning of Thursday, November 2, 2023. Photos of the collision such as the one above were posted on Twitter by the Stratford Police Service showing the extensive damage to the bus. While the collision was of substantial severity it was reported that 12 students were on the bus when the impact occurred but none were injured. It often begs the question: why did so many occupants appear to have been uninjured when photos such as the one above show so much damage?
In truth, at the time that this collision was reported, it was only a few hours after it occurred. While some students may have been uninjured some may not exhibit symptoms from soft-tissue injuries sometimes until a delay of 48 hours. While paramedics may have examined the students and released them that may only mean that they did not require immediate transfer to a hospital. But soft tissue injuries are often difficult to detect especially after such a short time after an incident.
Yet many would look at the damage in the above photo and draw the conclusion that this was a massive collision because of all the visible damage. After all, persons may have seen impacts of cars striking trees where fatalities occurred and the amount of visible damage was certainly comparable. And this is a false assumption.
Visible damage is an indicator of the kinetic energy that was dissipated, or used up, in a crash. Kinetic energy exists because objects (i.e. masses) are in motion. Kinetic energy is a product of the velocity of the object as well as its mass (or “weight” for easier understanding although not technically correct). Two vehicles travelling at the same velocity may possess different quantities of kinetic energy because they may be of different masses. So a school bus, because it “weighs” so much more, will possess a lot more kinetic energy than a passenger car. When an impact occurs kinetic energy becomes dissipated in order to bring a vehicle to a halt. But a vehicle which is more massive, like a school bus, needs to get rid of a lot more kinetic energy to stop than a passenger car. So when a school bus strikes a tree it may cause more damage to itself, and to the tree, because it had to get rid of that extra kinetic energy. So this can be confusing to some. The logic is that more damage must mean higher severity and that is not always the case. You must consider mass before you come to a conclusion about collision severity.
Some Unimpressed With Speed of Cyclist Infrastructure Expansion
Many citizens are cynical about many improvements in their neighbourhood. We hear those comments all the time: Something not done right. Something done not fast enough. Something done by someone that cost too much. And so on. This is very visible along roadways where workers cannot hide from the public’s view. Workers appear to be doing very little or nothing at all.
The cynicism is apparent in the comments of many cyclists about improvements to cycling infrastructure. Cycling lanes are not being built fast enough. Cycling improvements are not only inadequate but dangerous. Whose decision was it to do it that way?
In the image below we encapsulate that cynicism through a photo of an elderly cyclist watching workers on Bradley Ave in London, Ontario where a new cycling path is being built. Not that the elderly cyclist is cynical, but he can be made to look that way.
For many weeks the traffic along Bradley between Wellington and White Oak Road has been disrupted and lanes were closed and heaps broken concrete and asphalt werre strewn everywhere. Then came the sand and gravel that laid the bed for the new lane. And finally the asphalt was laid. Pretty trimmings such as grass will likely follow just in time for the winter snow, when few cyclists will venture out to use the new path.
But when no one is looking some cyclists take advantage of the unfinished work, as shown in the photo below.
Signs such as the one below don’t always work.
Sometimes impatience reigns. When will this construction ever be finished? Our elderly cyclist might seem to be thinking that way.
Not what it used to be in my day. Work got done in the old days. Workers do nothing these days. Construction never gets done. Bah humbug. And off we ride away…
Hydro-Vac Truck Fatal Rollover Trial Is Complicated
The complexity of a heavy truck rollover will never be properly discussed in any news media reports of trial proceedings. This is due to the fact that, in many trial proceedings, that complexity is rarely acknowledged or properly evaluated.
A trial is presently underway with respect to a fatal collision that occurred on January 6, 2021 at the intersection of Bradley Ave and Jackson Road in the south-east industrial area of London, Ontario. It has been reported that Christopher Hamilton was driving a Hydro-vac truck which rolled onto a passenger car causing the death of the car driver, 39-year-old, Sarah Jones.
Official news media covering Hamilton’s trial indicate that he was charged with dangerous driving causing death. A focus of the news media was that certain “mandatory safety forms were not filled out on the day of the collision”. While not irrelevant, this fact should have little to do with whether Hamilton’s actions were dangerous and caused Jones’ death.
Not unexpectedly, the official news media also reported that the defense lawyer, Phillip Millar, spent considerable time grilling a health and safety manager for Royal Fence Ltd., Terry Didluck, for his actions in attending the collision site. Millar suggested that the company had sent Didluck to the site to conduct his own investigation. Even if Didluck did precisely that, it can hardly be called an unexpected activity. As an employee and company-owned vehicle was involved in a fatal collision it would make complete sense that a health and safety manager of the firm would attend the collision site to get further information as to how the collision occurred.
Official news media reported the Crown’s contention that the truck had working brakes but that it had “extreme weight” and that Hamilton’s speed was too fast. The Crown Attorney was quoted as saying “He didn’t leave time or space enough to brake”. These comments and allegations cannot be evaluated without more detail. What was meant by the comment “extreme weight”? Was the truck loaded above the provincial legal requirements? That was never clarified. And the comment that Hamilton did not leave time or space enough to brake, was there evidence that Hamilton did not brake? These are very important facts that have not been explained.
The travel direction of the truck was never revealed in the news media articles. However from the evidence at the site it is clear that the truck would have been travelling southbound on Jackson Road and then was in the process of making a right turn onto westbound Bradley when the truck rolled over. Some of the characteristics of the site and remaining evidence are shown in the following photos taken on October 29, 2023.
It would also seem unusual that, upon approaching the intersection with Bradley Ave, Hamilton would not stop for the stop sign since his view to the east would be limited by trees as shown in the two photos below.
Even if he did not come to a complete stop it would seem unusual that Hamilton would travel into his right turn at any great speed since he would need to evaluate the approach of westbound vehicles on Bradley. Many turns performed by drivers of passenger cars are done at speeds of about 20 km/h and a speed of a 30 km/h would be above average. However a heavily-loaded hydro-vac truck would need to make the turn at a slower speed.
The location of the gouges in the centre of the intersection pose an unusual situation because of their location. Presumably these gouges were caused when the Hydro vac truck began to rollover. However, why is the truck rolling over so early in its right turn? In typical rollover scenarios the rollover should begin after the truck has been turned to a critical angle which would be expected to be further to the south and west.
One might conclude that the gouges in the centre of the intersection were caused by the underside of the car that was eventually pushed to the southwest and then crushed by the truck. Since there has been no indication by anyone as to the position of the car before the impact this possibility cannot be nullified. However the gouges begin north of the centre-line of Bradley and it is difficult to believe that the car would have been in the wrong (westbound) lane as the collision unfolded. So it appears more likely that these gouges are from the Hydro vac truck.
One might also argue that the gouges at the centre of the intersection were caused by another major collision. However there has been no news report of a major collision at this intersection since January, 2021. Also if the gouges we caused by another collision it would be a large coincidence that the involved vehicles could have been travelling westbound and southbound and, after impact, they would have to travel into the same area where the Hydro vac truck was found.
Thus important questions about this collision need answers but these have not been provided in any news reports of the trial.
The official news media also reported that “In an agreed statement of facts the court has heard the industrial vacuum truck was travelling too fast in the intersection when the crash occurred”. While that may be the case, the fact that these facts were agreed upon by the opposing lawyers should not leave one with reasonable assurance of reality. Lawyers are not technical analysts and what they agree upon may be totally illogical. There has been no information provided as to how the speed of the truck was determined. The simple fact that it rolled over does not necessarily mean that the speed of the truck was unreasonably selected by Hamilton.
Many modern trucks are now equipped with engine control modules (ECMs) which are capable of retaining collision data, very much like passenger cars. But even when such trucks are equipped the recording ability is often shut off by the vehicle owner/operator. Even when such a recording is available specialized hardware is required to conduct the download and such hardware is less available than a download for a passenger car. So there is strong doubt that police ever conducted a download of collision data from this truck.
Why the truck rolled over may only be partially related to its speed. The propensity for motor vehicle rollover is affected by two parameters, one being the vehicle’s track width and the other being its centre-of-gravity. The track width is the lateral distance measured from the centres of two wheels, the right front and the driver’s tires for example. The centre-of-gravity of vehicle is a vertical measurement of how high the centre of its mass is from the ground. The track width does not vary from one journey to the next, but the centre-of-gravity can change depending on the cargo being carried and this is particularly important with heavy trucks. The news media reported Hamilton’s assertion that “…he had no way to safely check the load he was carrying” and, in a roundabout way, that comment is true. He might have some idea whether his truck was carrying a load close to the maximum allowable but he has to be able to appreciate how that weight would affect whether his truck would rollover. And there is no training or data that could tell him that.
With respect to many light vehicles the track width and centre-of-gravity has been studied for many years to the point that a specific measure, the Static Stability Factor (SSF), has been developed so that light vehicles can be compared to each other for their propensity to rollover. The SSF is determined by dividing the vehicle’s track width by twice the vehicle’s centre of gravity, or SSF = t/2h. Most light duty vehicles possess a SSF somewhere between 1.00 and 1.50. The lower the value of the SSF the greater likelihood that the vehicle could rollover. Agencies such as the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) have published such data to inform consumers about the safety characteristics of the vehicles they might purchase.
But what about vehicles such as Hydro vac trucks? There is no such data available. Certainly neither Mr. Hamilton nor Mr. Didluck would be aware of the SSF for the Hydro vac truck. And more importantly, the SSF value would change drastically depending on whether the truck was full or empty because the truck’s centre-of-gravity would change. But there is more.
The characteristics of the cargo being carried also has a relationship on the propensity for truck rollover. When a solid mass is carried the propensity for the load to shift can be rectified by strapping the load solidly to the truck. But when a liquid cargo is carried it cannot be strapped down and it has the propensity to slosh back and forth within the container in which it is stored. This is why for tanker trucks that carry liquids on a regular basis, baffles, or partitions, are purposely built into the tank to reduce the amount of sloshing and therefore reducing the potential for causing rollover.
But vehicles such as the Hydro vac truck do not necessarily carry liquid cargo. Sometimes the cargo may be substantially liquid and sometimes it may not, depending on what is sucked up. If the cargo on a particular day is more like a liquid it will slosh back and forth no differently than any liquid in a tanker truck. And this is where Hamilton’s comment is correct. How could he know the liquid character of the load he was carrying? He could likely know the cargo’s weight but not the percentage of its liquid form. When liquid sloshes in a holding vessel it has the effect of changing the lateral force that tips a vehicle over. Did the opposing lawyers who agreed “on the statement of facts” understand this? Unless there was an expert there to guide them it is likely that they would know nothing about this issue.
And so what about expert involvement? Will Hamilton’s trial include testimony by competent and unbiased experts who can guide the court through technical issues that they do not have the ability to determine on their own? Even when such expert opinion is available too often it is seen as an impediment to the court’s previous and obvious knowledge of who is innocent or guilty.
And here is the application of “lawn mower justice”. Lawn mower justice is where the justice system rides over top of all persons whether they are innocent or guilty. Without the public’s knowledge and intervention, the lawn mower continues to run because there is minimal accountability. The importance of catching and punishing guilty persons supersedes those instances where an innocent person’s rights are violated.
You must be logged in to post a comment.