Additional Speeding Data & Speed Display Board Evaluation in London Ontario Canada
Background
Recently Gorski Consulting has been involved in a study of speeding and the functioning of a Speed Display Board (SDB) erected on Hale Street in London, Ontario, Canada. Preliminary results of the study were posted on October 11, 2024, in a Gorski Consulting website article entitled “Motor Vehicle Speed Detection in London, Ontario, Canada”. That article discussed the analysis of a two-hour video session conducted on October 5, 2024 between 2050 and 2250 hours. Since then additional video sessions were completed and analysed comprising of 8, 2-hour sessions. The present article will review the results from 7 of these sessions. The dates and times of the 8 sessions are noted below.
October 4, 2024 between 2100 & 2300 hours
October 5, 2024 between 0600 & 0800 hours
October 5, 2024 between 1600 & 1800 hours
October 5, 2024 between 2050 & 2250 hours
October 14, 2024, between 1500 & 1700 hours
October 15, 2024, between 1700 & 1900 hours
October 21, 2024 between 1800 & 2000 hours
October 30, 2024, between 1000 & 1150 hours.
There was a technical problem with a portion of video from one of the cameras in the October 4, 2024 session that prevented last hour of the session from being analysed. Thus the first hour of that session could still be analysed but this has not been done. For the present article only the results from the last 7 sessions will be reviewed.
The table below shows these results.
The SDB was removed on November 4, 2024 or exactly one month after it was erected. Looking at the results in the table there is no indication that the speeds of vehicles were lowed by the presence of the SDB. The average maximum speeds were substantially higher than the Posted Maximum Speed for the road. Also of concern is the high percentage of vehicles found to be travelling at 20 or more kilometres above the posted speed limit.
Because of the erratic functioning of the SDB only a small segment of the northbound vehicles could be included in this documentation. The SDB was confused whenever two or more vehicles existed in the 180-metre detection zone. So the only observations that could be included were those where there was only one vehicle present in that zone. On a number of occasions, even when a single vehicle was present in that zone, the SDB would, inexplicable, fail to detect the presence of the vehicle.
In other instances the SDB would continue displaying a speed well after the observed vehicle had exited the detection zone. In those instances when a second vehicle entered the detection zone the speed from the exited vehicle continued to be displayed and so the data from the second observation had to be aborted because it could not be certain whether the SDB was still showing the speed from the first vehicle or whether it was now showing the speed from the vehicle that entered the detection zone.
In conditions where it was sunny, or partially sunny, the SDB had difficulty detecting a vehicle in the detection zone, even when only one vehicle existed. Thus many observations in those conditions had to be aborted.
In many instances the SDB was late in detecting a vehicle until it was almost leaving the detection zone. It was not clear why this occurred. This often occurred in daylight hours. Yet upon approaching darkness, or in nighttime conditions, the SDB was often able to detect vehicles close to the start of the 180-metre detection zone. Our decision was to include those vehicles in our analysis even though the SDB was late in detecting them, so long as only one vehicle was present in the detection zone and there was no ambiguity as to the vehicle speed being reported by the SDB.
Despite these difficulties previous testing has shown that SDBs were reasonably accurate in displaying speed. This was confirmed on previous occasions by our multi-video camera testing where we could independently compare the SDB’s display to the speed that was calculated from our synchronized video-camera test methods.
So the primary problem is that the results from the SDB would not be reliable if an analyst was attempting to determine the average speed of all vehicles passing through the site. Because of the problems that the SDB had in detecting every vehicle such an analysis would not be possible. It is not known at this time whether the SDBs erected on Hale Street had the capability of recording events and creating a file of all the displays from the SDB. This could be a concern if officials from a municipality were to use such data blindly without knowing that the file would be greatly corrupted by the discussed detection problems.
It is reasonable however, from our experience in assessing the SDB’s functioning, that accurate speed data can be selected from the display by watching its function through video while also watching a vehicle passing through the detection zone, and then selecting those observations where the displayed speed was known to be accurate.
The observations shown in the above table are only those where a driver was not interfered with selecting a speed of their own free will. Thus they were not obstructed by vehicles ahead of them and their reported speed was not corrupted by any other vehicles with the SDBs detection zone. Thus these observations are an accurate reflection of what speeds drivers selected even though a Maximum Posted Speed sign was located, and clearly visible, just beyond 100 metres south of the start of the detection zone. It was noted that of the total of 719 observations there were only 4 in which a vehicle’s maximum speed was 40 km/h or lower. This is only about 0.56%. So one could argue that about 99.5% of northbound drivers on Hale Street were speeding because they were travelling above the posted speed limit. The Maximum Posted Speed sign had been erected in September 2022 or over two years prior to this study.
Discussion
When a maximum posted speed of 5 km/h is posted on any roadway it is highly likely that all motor vehicles travelling through it will be ‘speeding’. But is that a fault of the drivers or is it the fault of posting an unreasonably low maximum speed? Any reasonable person would conclude that the 5 km/h posted speed was unreasonable. So an important component of the issue is whether a posted speed limit is reasonable. Reductions in motor vehicle speed provide obvious benefits. Vehicles travelling at slower speeds are likely to improve traffic safety. But a negative aspect is that they also increase the time required for persons to reach their destinations. These two conflicting issues need to be kept in mind when considering what speed should be legal on any roadway.
Another short-sighted viewpoint expressed by many is that the posting of a lower speed limit will automatically reduce vehicle speeds. This study on Hale Street demonstrates the fallacy of such a belief since the speed limit was reduced over two years before this study yet the observed speeds are elevated.
Even when roadways are designed with speed-limiting features, they may not improve the overall benefit to society. Speed humps, in-lane obstructions and narrowed lanes are believed to improve safety by reducing vehicle speeds. But much of the research does not take into account the complicated factors that are neglected. While average speeds may be reduced there is little information whether the behavior of the small percentage of high-risk drivers is modified. In fact, the reduction of speed by the vast majority of drivers may simply hide the existence of the small percentage of high-risk drivers who continue to drive recklessly.
Also, many ‘minor’ collisions that are caused by speed-limiting features are hidden from official statistics. When a vehicle strikes a hazard marker placed within a lane there could be relatively minor damage but the reality is that it is costly. A vehicle must be taken into an autobody shop to make those repairs. And the owner loses time which is also a cost that is not taken into account. And when such a roadway obstacle is struck it may also sustain damage that needs to be repaired. A roadway repair crew must come to the site and do the repairs but often that cost is not taken into account. Vehicles are also damaged by striking the curb of a narrowed roadway. And collisions can occur when drivers travel too quickly over a speed hump. All these instances are not taken into account yet they are factors in the cost-benefit analysis to society as a whole.
Yet there is reason to be concerned about the elevated, observed speeds on Hale Street. Our estimate indicates that Hale Street has a width of about 11.4 metres. When we consider that most lanes on collector roads would be about 3.5 metres wide, then a typical street would be about 7.0 in width. The additional 4.4 metres of width on Hale Street means that those attempting to cross it will experience some challenges when motor vehicle speeds are high. It is also likely that vulnerable persons might be in danger. Pedestrians crossing Hale Street may have difficulties so there has to be some research done to determine how many pedestrians exist in the area, how many of them cross Hale Street and whether their characteristics (age, frailty) might need additional attention. There is a transit bus route on Hale Street which might also attract pedestrians. And the volume of cyclists using Hale Street must also be taken into considerable.
In all this study has demonstrated some challenges on many fronts. However it also provides some useful data about the existence of motor vehicle speeding in London and how the functioning of Speed Display Boards may need a second look.
Four-Fatal Telsa Impact & Fire on Lakeshore & Cherry in Downtown Toronto
Not unexpectedly many questions will not be answered regarding the cause-of-death of four occupants of a Tesla that reportedly struck a guardrail and pillar while subsequently catching fire on Lakeshore Boulevard near Cherry Street in downtown Toronto early Thursday morning, October 24, 2024. News media that reported the tragedy did not answer basic questions that ought to have been asked if the public were to be properly advised about what occurred.
The news media were able to obtain a quick response from police when it came to blaming the Tesla’s speed for the results. However there was not evidence provided to support that comment. Any event data that might exist in the Tesla’s control modules would take time to download, more time than normal because the vehicle’s burned condition would make it harder to locate the relevant modules and “dig them out” of the fire debris. So it is highly unlikely that police conducted any such download before commenting on the speed. Traditional methods of estimating speed of a loss-of-control vehicle would involve examining any evidence on approach to the impacts, estimating how much crush existed on the vehicle as a result of the impacts, and then considering what additional speed loss occurred after those impacts. These three areas of evidence are difficult to judge/calculate in a short time so once again, it is doubtful that any proper speed estimate was determined at this early stage of the investigation. But news media seemed to take that information blindly, and report it to the public, without questioning it.
Another issue is that a guardrail was reportedly struck yet the Tesla also struck a “pillar”. Generally, that is not supposed to happen. We spend considerable money to erect guardrails for the specific purpose of preventing vehicles from striking something dangerous that is beyond those guardrails. So why was the “pillar” struck? And did news media even try to find out what pillar was struck? Even without knowing the precise location of the impacts a previous visit to the area in February of 2024 confirmed that the area was under construction and that guardrails were positioned essentially against the pillars that held up the Gardiner Expressway. Anyone with even minimal knowledge of roadside protections would understand that a guardrail is meant to deflect errand vehicles from stiff and immovable objects such as concrete pillars but, in doing so they need space so they can be deformed laterally. This is what protects vehicle occupants during the re-direction phase of contact. But when a guardrail is placed directly against a concrete pillar it is essentially useless because the guardrail has no time or space in which to complete that re-direction. Driving along Lakeshore Boulevard confirmed that many pillars were far too close to guardrails in the area. But news media never seemed to recognize that or question it.
Furthermore there was the issue of road construction and whether it existed at the time that the collision occurred. Nothing was mentioned about this yet it is common that re-directing traffic in construction zones is one of the ways in which dangerous vehicle motions are generated.
And the matter of the occurrence of a vehicle fire seemed to be a commonplace event in the minds of news media. As if vehicle fires should be expected, regardless of any circumstances. Yet one of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSSs) deals specifically with preventing vehicle fires in crashes. New vehicles that catch fire in controlled tests would not be allowed on Canadian roads if they failed those tests. Did the news media ever ask anyone whether it was reasonable for the Tesla to catch fire in this collision?
One of the ways one can assess collision severity is by looking at the extent of deformation or crush to a vehicle. While there was obvious fire damage to the Tesla, what few images of the vehicle existed did not show a massive extent of crush. Nothing that should mean that a fire was inevitable. But did the news media question that?
A lot of questions, no answers and likely no answers ever in the future.
Another Acquittal Seems Like Bad Dream From “Groundhog Day” Movie
A comedic movie from 1993 entitled “Groundhog Day” seems out of context with the latest news of another acquittal of a man who was finally found innocent decades after a murder in Winnipeg, Manitoba in the mid-1970s. Watching the news conference unfold on October 3, 2024, in front of the Law Courts building in Winnipeg, demonstrated that the two have a bazaar relationship.
At the news conference were lawyers for the convicted/acquitted man, Jerome Kennedy and James Lockyer, director of the Innocence Canada.
Bill Murray, who starred in the Groundhog Day movie, became trapped in a time warp such that he kept reliving Groundhog Day, over and over again, until he came to a special realization about life. This realization released him from his time warp prison and the movie ended. While the movie was just fiction, one could believe that what goes on in many courtrooms in Canada is also just that, fiction, with a large spoonful of deception.
In real life, the news conference was about the acquittal of an indigenous man, Clarence Woodhouse, who was convicted of murder, based on false statements developed by police who reportedly tricked Woodhouse, who was not fluent in English, and “coerced and manufactured the statement from Woodhouse” (statement from Crown Attorney).
This process is a Groundhog Day time warp because it has recurred over and over again, after persons have lived in prisons for many years, before being rescued. Names of past persons who were rescued from murder convictions include Steven Truscott, David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, and Guy Paul Morin. But these high profile cases are just the tip of the iceberg. Many wrongful convictions are never reported, often because they involve lesser crimes than murder.
When news conferences are held announcing an acquittal there is often a collective exuberance, expressing a happy occasion. Little emphasis is given to the point that there was a “wrongful” conviction and therefore that there was a wrongful action, by someone, often in the justice system, who destroyed someone’s life. While apologies are given and government money is passed on to the acquitted, nothing further is ever reported as to who was responsible for the miscarriage of justice.
In the Woodhouse retrial Chief Justice Glenn Joyal reportedly apologized to Woodhouse stating “You were wrongfully convicted, You were innocent”. It was also reported that Joyal determined the conviction involved systemic discrimination. It was reported that the judge then went to some length to discuss past wrongdoings of the justice system.
While I have not spent many days in courtrooms, my three dozen appearances as an expert witness in motor vehicle collision cases have led to my own recognition of what took place during those trials.
In one of the earliest trials in the 1980s I witnessed a female driver convicted of killing another driver solely on the false testimony of “witnesses” who claimed to have seen a red vehicle pass them on a dark and rainy night. In fact, I conducted a detailed study of the two involved vehicles. Transport Canada had purchased both vehicles and brought them to Ottawa. Both vehicles were placed on axle stands, a few feet apart, and I spent a full week exploring the vehicle damage, taking measurements and creating scale diagrams. This led to my typical procedures of identifying “points of mutual contact” whereby I could determine how the vehicles moved with respect to each other. This also led to the determination of the direction of rotation of the vehicles which turned out to be contrary to what the witnesses stated. Yet I recall vividly the reported words of the judge who claimed that the manner in which the vehicles moved was obvious from how the vehicles were positioned at rest. He did not need no explanations from an expert. He believed he clearly understood the evidence even though he never conducted a detailed investigation of a damaged vehicle in his life. He further commented that my report was just a series of unreliable personal suppositions. I later contacted a forensic expert at Toronto’s Centre of Forensic Science and obtained further support from another well-known engineer who also supported my conclusions. Despite our opinions this still did not convince the judge. It took an appeal of the conviction to finally exonerate the female driver who went through years of hell in the process. Naively, I concluded that this case was just an outlier while I continued to believe in the ability of the justice system to perform properly.
It took a number of further incidents in the future where I finally came to the conclusion that, indeed, there are major problems with the proper functioning of the justice system. Some judges, who I believed would be unbiased analysts of evidence, have demonstrated that they are unreliable. And because they are accountable to no one, end up destroying the foundations of the justice system that we must all rely on. Whenever a global comment like this is made it affects the reputation of all judges simply because they wear the same cloth and carry the same title. And that is unfortunate.
In my experience the justice system has always been plagued by inappropriate operators, whether they be civilian witnesses, expert witnesses, police and lawyers (on both sides of the aisle). It was always the judges, who were required to be totally unbiased and independent of these coercions, who kept the system in balance. While I have observed some high-quality triers-of-fact I have also observed the opposite: judges who seemed to purposely ignore objective evidence, or prevented evidence from being entered in as testimony, for the seeming purpose of being able to make their decisions solely on their “inferences”, which do not require any objective evidence for their support. These decisions can be called “Because I Say So” or BISS decisions, because they are based on the often mistaken belief that the judge is perfectly capable of discerning who is telling the truth and who is lying regardless of what additional objective evidence may exist. Many years of bench work can be helpful but it can also be misguiding when a judge comes to the belief that they no longer need to listen to evidence as the conclusion has already been made in their mind.
How is it that, after so many years, Justice Joyal was capable of determining there was systemic discrimination in Woodhouse’s case yet that was not appreciated in the original trial? While many glowing comments are made at news conferences where speakers explain how the system has been changed for the better I, regrettably, do not see it in real life.
What Does It Mean When 99.4 % Of Detected Drivers Are Speeding?
On September 1, 2022 the posted maximum speed on Hale Street in London, Ontario was reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. On October 4, 2024 the City of London erected four Speed Display Boards (SDBs) along Hale Street between Trafalgar and Dundas Streets. Gorski Consulting examined the functioning and data from one of these boards located in front of the residence at 361 Hale Street, which is located about 200 metres north of Trafalgar Street.
Background
A previous article on this testing entitled “Motor Vehicle Speed Detection in London Ontario Canada” was posted to the Gorski Consulting website on October 11, 024. This article described the study and provided results from one of the 2-hour video sessions from October 5, 2024. Subsequently the data from 2 additional, 2-hour, video sessions was analysed and this will be reported in the current article. The three analysed sessions are described below:
- Saturday, October 5, 2024, between 2050 and 2250 hours.
- Monday, October 14, 2024, between 1500 and 1700 hours.
- Tuesday, October 15, 2024, between 1700 and 1900 hours.
Results
The results from these sessions showed the following with respect to the observed maximum speeds of northbound vehicles passing through the detection zone:
- Oct 5/24: Average Detected Maximum Speed in 87 observations = 54.02 km/h.
- Oct 14/24: Average Detected Maximum Speed in 147 observations = 53.90 km/h.
- Oct 15/24: Average Detected Maximum Speed in 112 observations = 55.74 km/h.
The percentage of vehicles travelling at 20 km/h or higher above the posted speed limit (i.e. 60 km/h or higher) was also noted:
- Oct 5/24: 13 of 87 observations or 14.94 %
- Oct 14/24: 16 of 147 observations or 10.88 %
- Oct 15/24: 28 of 112 observations or 25.00 %
It was also noted that there were only 2 observations, in all three sessions of 346 observations combined, where the maximum observed speed of a northbound vehicle was at 40 km/h or lower. Thus 99.42% of northbound motor vehicles were observed to be travelling above the posted maximum speed of 40 km/h. This result has taken place over two years after the maximum posted speed was reduced so it is difficult to argue that drivers needed more time to adjust to the change in posted speed.
Discussion
In the City of London, like in many cities, there is an increased number of speed camera installations which identify a speeding vehicle and a citation is sent to the vehicle owner. If such a speed camera was present along Hale Street essentially every moving motor vehicle could be cited for speeding. While road safety is affected by motor vehicle speed it is also important to document other exposure factors such as the numbers and characteristics of pedestrians, cyclists and characteristics of the road segment. It remains unknown what intentions the City of London has with the posting of the SDBs on Hale Street. Unfortunately the City of London has always been secretive in its operations and has never released any useful data to the public to support its actions.
Doug Ford Government Teaching Ontario How To Cycle Backwards
Politics is creating a greater rift between cyclists and motor vehicle drivers as the Doug Ford government in the Canadian Province of Ontario is threatening to remove previously installed cycling lanes because their installation by local governments has “gone out of control”. Politicizing such issues as cycling safety is a continued demonstration that some governments will use whatever means are available to attempt to stay in power, even if it means throwing flames on a conflict that jeopardizes public safety.
The creation of cycling lanes should not be an emotional issue but it has become so. Opponents on both sides ought to be looking at good-quality, objective data to understand where their opinions should reside.
At Gorski Consulting we believe and understand that active transportation, including cycling, along with mass public transit, are extremely important to nullify the real effects of climate change. Changes in how we move must be made and these changes need to be made in a way that creates the least conflict, including targeted education that informs why change is needed. Regrettably, the government of Doug Ford is a negative influence in these essential changes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.