Pretty Flowers Do Not Help In Understanding Vehicle Fire and Multiple Deaths
Why did a vehicle catch fire after it struck a tree near the intersection of Conestoga Drive and Elmwood Ave in Brampton in the early hours of Saturday, August 20, 2022? Three persons in the vehicle perished. Did they die because of the impact force or because of the fire? Is that important?
Some news media, such as CP24 News, provided photos of the vehicle and the collision site along with their articles. But those photos are copyrighted. So they cannot be shown in an independent site such as ours. And if we had something of importance to convey to the public that could relate to their safety we could not do that with examples from this collision site.
What we can convey, in words, is that the vehicle appeared to strike the tree head-on without any post-impact rotation or travel. So all the pre-impact kinetic energy was dissipated at impact. This would have been a revelation 30 years ago because it would have been an obvious sign of someone attempting to commit suicide. In olden days when vehicles were not equipped with electronic stability control they would travel around a curve, rotate, and then strike a tree with their sides. Although this was not helpful it was sometimes preferable because the impact as not always central, resulting in a less-severe change-in-velocity and allowed some of the vehicle’s kinetic energy to be dissipated in non-harmful post-impact rotation and sliding to rest.
What we see in the present collision is suggestive of the infamous Princess Diana collision of her Mercedes in a Paris tunnel in 1997. That Mercedes was equipped with a primitive, mechanical, stability control system which caused it to straighten out after initial contact with Fiat Uno. While straightening out is often desirable it can also be lethal and undesirable. And these matters need to be discussed.
Another bit of fact is that of Newton’s Third Law of Motion which states that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, might apply here. Rephrased, it means that when the front end of a vehicle is crushed by the impact of a tree, the severity of that impact is not only displayed in the crush of the vehicle, it is also displayed in the damage to the tree. So if we have a severe impact it should be displayed in severe damage to the tree. As much as officials covered up the vehicle with a blue tarp they did not cover up the tree. And some closer views of the tree which were shown by other news media after the damaged vehicle was removed showed less than expected damage except for scaring from the flames. The result is that either this tree was very robust and made of iron, or the impact was not as severe such that three occupants should have perished from the impact force.
Next we are informed by police and news media that the reason why the vehicle crashed is unknown and no one can speculate. Well up to now speculation has not be against the law. And if speculation must be applied because no meaningful information has been revealed, then we will speculate. None of the site photos helped to demonstrate that Conestoga Drive contains a sweeping curve as it approaches Elmvale Ave. And in such circumstances is it very common for vehicles to go out of control and travel to the outside of the curve, as is what happened in the present circumstance. But why did this happen? A single overhead photo provided by CP24 News showed the surface of the Conestoga Drive for some distance before the tree impact. In the corner of that photo, which is furthest away from the impact, the condition of the road surface could been as heavily cracked and possibly patched. If one looked at a current view of the road surface on Googlemaps, which is often several years old, one would see that the road surface was in poor condition. We are not able to travel to the collision site and examine the road. And the police and news media, in their goodness, have not provided a view of the road surface on approach to the tree impact. So, beyond the heightened speed of the vehicle, and or perhaps the inexperience of its driver, was the cause of the collision due to a loss-of-control due to the poor condition of the road surface? We will not know. And this is speculation. But it is speculation from a lot of past experience in examining thousands of serious collisions.
As the State Farm Insurance commercial says “You’re in good hands”. No need to pursue what really happened because you will never know. And without remediation the next, multiple-fatal collision is just around the next future curve.
Grosvenor Street Slope Compared to Other Locations Along Cycling Routes in London Ontario
Proposed construction at the Thames Valley Parkway in the City of London has necessitated a detour route. The original detour, encompassing Talbot St and Grosvenor Street met with opposition from users who proposed an alternate route by way of Gunn Street. Initially the City of London appeared to abandon the original detour in favour of the Gunn Street route. But subsequently the City changed its mind again and indicated that both routes would be posted, allowing users to decide for themselves.
Many opposed the original route because of the danger of sending cyclists through the busy section of Talbot south of Oxford Street. This location also included a narrowing of Talbot Street as it passed through the underpass of the CP railway line just south of Oxford.
In these discussions there has been no recognition that additional dangers exist in the original detour route. In particular the original detour would cause cyclists to ride down the steep downslope of Grosvenor Street into the large parking lot at Gibbons Park. This route has been taken by cyclists in the past and there is no information about the numbers of cyclist collisions and injuries that might have occurred there. Yet, in general, there is no information that is publicly available in London as to how many cyclists become injured from collisions, where those collisions occur, and under what circumstances.
Gorski Consulting has been conducting a variety of testing in recent years on downslopes where cyclists ride in the City of London. This testing has shown that the speed of cyclists is proportional to the steepness and length of these downslopes. While speed is not the only factor in cyclist injury causation it is one of the major factors that cannot be ignored. Of particular concern at the Grosvenor Street downslope is that, upon reaching the bottom of the slope, cyclists enter into a large and busy parking lot. There is a reasonable likelihood that vehicles turning into and out of a parked position will enter into a conflict with cyclists. Cyclists are likely to be difficult to detect by drivers who may be looking in different directions when backing in or out of parking spots. The potential for increased conflicts exists when more cyclists may be directed into the parking lot as a result of the proposed detour route.
Gorski Consulting has conducted some measurements of the downslope of Grosvenor Street between St George Street and the parking lot at Gibbons Park. The distance between these two endpoints is about 200 metres. The slope measurements are noted in the table below.
In comparison the slope at several sites where previous testing has been completed are noted below:
Meadowlily Rd: Distance = 400 metres, Average Slope = 4.99 %, Maximum Slope = 7.34 %
TVP at Trafalgar: Distance = 300 metres, Average Slope = 3.90 %, Maximum Slope = 9.5 %
TVP W of Richmond: Distance = 80 metres, Average Slope = 6.40 %, Maximum Slope = 11.6 %
Speeds of a Trek, hybrid bicycle, were documented as the cycle was coasted from a stopped position. The maximum speed at each of the above sites is noted below:
Meadowlily Rd Maximum Coasting Speed = 42.4 km/h
TVP at Trafalgar Rd Maximum Coasting Speed = 39.1 km/h
TVP W of Richmond St Maximum Coasting Speed = 30.3 km/h
Maximum speeds were also documented of cyclists riding on these slopes as noted below:
Meadowlily Rd Maximum observed speed = 62.72 km/h
TVP at Trafalgar Maximum observed speed = 52.94 km/h
TVP at Richmond Maximum observed speed = 43.37 km/h
If cyclist speeds, such as those noted above, occur at the Grosvenor site then there should be reason for concern. It can be noted that the steepest slope at the Grosvenor site occurs in the vicinity of 175 metres and this is just as cyclists would be approaching the parking lot. With the recognition that they are entering into a parking lot cyclists may apply higher braking at the Grosvenor site. Alternatively there could be cyclists entering into this area who have not ridden down the slope before or have limited experience with it. They might also not comprehend the danger or riding into a parking lot at high speed. Thus there is a reason to conduct testing to explore this potential safety issue.
Proposed Double Choice Detour on Thames Valley Parkway Ill-Advised
The official City of London stance regarding the direction of a detour around the upcoming Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) construction is to provide two options, their original route via Talbot St and Grosvenor St as well as the route proposed by cyclists via Blackfriars Bridge and Gunn St. Cyclists have warned that the original detour is flawed and dangerous but the City still maintains it as a reasonable option.
In our view, the original detour is dangerous. It proposes taking cyclists through the busy stretch of Talbot St to Oxford St which includes the narrow passage under the CP railway bridge. Additionally, and what is missed by most, is that this route will also take cyclists down the very speed downgrade of Grosvenor St through a busy parking lot into Gibbons Park.
The City seems to misunderstand the influence that downgrades have on cyclist speeds. Our data from testing at several hill sites throughout the TVP has been previously published on this Gorski Consulting website. It clearly shows the heightened speeds of cyclists observed when travelling along downslopes. It is of additional importance that the downslope at the Grosvenor St site ends at a busy parking lot to Gibbons Park. There will be motor vehicle drivers pulling out of parking spots or travelling toward the Grosvenor St exit exactly where cyclists will be racing down the slope. Drivers will not expect or detect high speed cyclists approaching at unexpected angles toward them. Unless major enforcement and signage efforts are engaged there is a heightened probability that a collision will occur.
Our data from our Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS), conducted this summer, provides an indication of the types of cyclist and non-pedestrian users (e-scooter, e-board, medical carts, mini-trailers, e-bikes) that travel northbound along the TVP toward the area of construction. Some of these users include the transportation of children in mini-trailers or wider than normal cargo bikes which do not function in the same manner as a single-manned pedal bike. Braking and acceleration characteristics are different and important when travelling down a steep down-slope or when trying to travel through the narrow confines of the railway underpass at Talbot St.
Not all users of the TVP have an intimate knowledge of its characteristics. As such they may listen to the advice of expert-sounding, officials who would seem to know the quality of the advice they provide. The City has never explained what knowledge they possess about the characteristics of the users of the TVP and whether they know how many vulnerable persons might be placed at risk along the original detour route.
More generally, when collisions occur with cyclists they are rarely publicized in local news media such that the general public is unaware of the safety risks at certain locations. A recent example is the case of the owner of the Smiley’s Pizzeria who was found unconscious somewhere along his cycling route, in the early morning of August 7, 2022, either on Adelaide St north or Sunningdale Road, a location that was never official disclosed. While news media indicated that it was unclear whether the cyclist fell off his bike or whether it was a hit-&-run, nothing was disclosed about the police investigation. Such lack of disclosure could place other cyclists at risk if they are unware of the dangers that may exist at such unknown sites in the City.
It has also been recently disclosed by the Canadian Institute of Health Information that cyclist injuries, identified by visits to hospital emergency wards, have increased dramatically in Canada and in Ontario: “The jump was especially big in Ontario, which logged 1,579 bike-related hospitalizations and accounted for about 30 per cent of all cycling traumas”. Why has this fact not been disclosed in the City of London which, most likely, would not be immune to the developments in the rest of Ontario? Lack of disclosure of where/how/why cyclists have sustained their injuries means that sites dangerous to cyclist travel continue to exist without proper knowledge of the cycling public. If injuries occur to cyclists from travelling along the originally-proposed detour route of the TVP will the public be made aware of that or will that information remain hidden?
Our advice to the City is to stop advertising this original detour as a safe and reasonable option for cyclist travel.
Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study – Summary of Results From Session #5
Gorski Consulting continues to gather data from the Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS) in London, Ontario. A fifth videotaping Session was conducted on Tuesday, August 9, 2022 commencing at 0918 hours. This video has now been analysed and this article will report the results of this study.
The table below shows the results of volumes of all traffic units in Session #5 compared to the previous 4 Sessions conducted earlier this year.
As suspected, Session #5 resulted in substantially more non-motor vehicle observations as compared to motor vehicles. Although 66 motor vehicles were observed (lowest of all 5 Sessions) there were 358 observations of cyclists, pedestrians and non-pedestrians. The ratio of motor vehicles to non-motor vehicles is well more than 1:4, more like 1:5.4.
With respect to the speed of motor vehicles the table below shows the completed table: an incomplete table was shown in a preceding article.
We speculated earlier as to why only about 7.6 percent of motor vehicles were “speeding” in Session #5, the lowest of all 5 Sessions. We suspected that larger numbers of non-motor-vehicles were slowing the speed of these vehicles. Another possibility is that the shadows existing at the pedestrian crossing at the east end of the bridge caused drivers to be more cautious as they approached from the bright sunshine on the bridge.
With respect to cyclists the table below shows the travel directions they took in Session #5. As explained previously, the column “Source” is the direction from which cyclists entered the study area and the other columns indicate which direction the cyclists travelled upon exiting the study area.
And the next table takes all the cyclists from all 5 Sessions and groups them together.
About 83% of the cyclists in all 5 Sessions were observed riding on the TVP. Of those TVP riders only about 6.7 percent turned off the parkway to travel onto Blackfriars Bridge. In terms of the 80 cyclists who were eastbound on the Blackfriars bridge their exit directions appeared to be somewhat equal (SB TVP=23, SB Ridout=33 and NB TVP=24), although there was a slight increase in numbers continuing southbound onto Ridout Street.
Next we look at pedestrian motions in Session #5 as indicated in the table below.
And again we combine all the pedestrian observations from all 5 Sessions in the table below.
With respect to pedestrians their approach into the study area was not as dominated by the TVP as they were for cyclists. A substantial number of pedestrians (NB Ridout=163, EB Blackfriars=247) came from either northbound on Ridout or eastbound on Blackfriars Bridge. There seemed to be a slight increase in the number of pedestrians southbound on the TVP (332) versus northbound (275). In terms of departures, 302 pedestrians of the total 770 chose to exit from the other three travel directions (SB TVP, NB TVP, NB Ridout) to travel westbound on the Blackfriars Bridge.
Discussion
Recent notification by the City of London indicates that the Thames Valley Parkway will be closed from August 22 to September 30, 2022. This development will likely mean that observations at the Blackfriars Bridge study area will likely be affected and no further Sessions can be completed during this time of construction. For cyclists it can be noted from our previous tables that 331 cyclists were observed travelling northbound on the TVP in the 10 hours of our observations or about 33 cyclists per hour. A detour map suggested by the City of London is shown in the image below.
This detour will take cyclists through the busy and narrow areas of Talbot Street south of Oxford Street. This is not a safe route. Readers have suggested an alternate route taking cyclists westbound/eastbound across Blackfriars Bridge and along the path on the west side of the Thames River. It is not clear where this route might take cyclists back onto the TVP. Either way cyclists and perhaps some pedestrians will experience some dangerous situations during this construction period.
It is unclear at this time whether a sixth videotaping Session will be attempted before the construction begins on August 22nd.
UPDATE
A map showing an alternate route was posted by a reader on Twitter and this map is reproduced below.
Blackfriars Bridge Traffic Study – Preliminary Results of Motor Vehicle Speeding in Session #5
Preliminary results are now available from Session #5 of the Blackfriairs Bridge Traffic Study (BBTS) with respect to the number of observed motor vehicles and their speeds. The analysis is incomplete such that the only speeds available are those as eastbound vehicles travel the 10 metres approaching the pedestrian crossing at the east end of the Bridge. As analysis continues calculations of speed in the two preceding segments of road along the Bridge will be completed.
For now the incomplete table below is a comparison of Session #5 against the results of the other four preceding sessions.
As can be seen in the table, the smallest number (only 66) of motor vehicles were documented in the two hours of observation in Session #5. Yet this compares fairly well with the 68 observations in Session #4.
The most striking revelation is with respect to the number of “High Speeders” in Session #5. Only 5 motor vehicles were observed travelling at 25 km/h or higher as they approached the pedestrian crossing. One of the reasons for this may be that there were a large number of cyclists, pedestrians and non-pedestrians who interfered with the motion of these vehicles. Although no official count has been made yet it was observation, while standing at the site, that there were many more cyclists, pedestrians and non-pedestrians than motor vehicles. We have already indicated from previous Sessions that motor vehicles were out-numbered by almost 4-1. However it is possible that this ratio might even be higher in Session #5, although that remains to be officially determined.
We are continuing our analysis of the relevant facts in Session #5 and will continue to report these details as they become available in the next few days.
You must be logged in to post a comment.