OPP Place Wrong Emphasis on Story of Near-Drowning in Norfolk County
This photo posted on the OPP Twitter page fails to emphasize the danger of standing water near roadways. Sites of such standing water should to inspected to make sure that adequate barriers are installed to prevent vehicles from entering the water.
There is always a need to emphasize the importance of wearing a seat-belt because in the vast majority of cases seat-belt usage can save an occupant’s life or reduce the severity of injury. However there are instances where seat-belt use can be a problem. Those instances are when a vehicle is submerged in water or a vehicle becomes engulfed in a fire and the occupant becomes entrapped by the seat-belt. No safety device is 100% fool-proof and the public needs to have a realistic appreciation of that. And when dangers exist that could lessen the effectiveness of safety systems those dangers need to be clearly spelt out.
The OPP failed in its obligation to warn the public about the danger of a recent near-drowning when it posted the above photo along with the following comment on its Twitter account:
“A #SaturdayShoutOut to a driver in Norfolk County, whose seat belt use and quick thinking saved his girlfriend’s life. His pickup left the road, rolled into a watery ditch that submerged the vehicle. He managed to cut their seat belts and escape”
The emphasis of this story should not have been about the success of the driver who was able to cut seat-belts and allow him and his passenger to escape his submerged pick-up truck. In many instances such a success is pure luck. In many instances of such rollover even glancing blows to the head can cause an occupant to become disoriented. When a vehicle tumbles and then comes to rest upside down such an occupant can become even more disoriented and not even understand which way is up. Darkness only magnifies the problem. Water coming into the interior of an upside down vehicle can be variable in its volume depending on factors such as the status of the windows and whether they have been broken before the landing in water. Al these complications make success unpredictable and often unsuccessful. Suggesting to vehicle occupants that they can successfully escape such a vehicle with the use seat-belt cutters is not helpful. Seat-belt cutters can help but do guarantee a successful result.
A far more important point that should have been made is that standing water near any roadway can be a real danger. Therefore where ever such water exists is it essential that roads personnel, police and others who have control over the characteristics of a site, ensure that the site contains sufficient roadside safe guards to prevent or minimize that chance that an loss-of-control vehicle could exit the roadway and enter the water. In the present case the OPP should have notified the public that they had examined the site where the pick-up fell into the water and made a determination whether the site contained properly functioning roadside protection from such an occurrence. It is not helpful that the OPP Twitter post did not even mention the specific location where the pick-up truck entered the water. So no one else would capable, independent of the OPP, to inspect the site and determine if an unwarranted danger existed.
This is just another example of numerous past instances where police, who are often the only ones entrusted to investigate and reconstruct collisions, fail to document those instances where roadway problems pose an unreasonable danger to the public. There exists in the police culture that they are there primarily to charge drivers with offenses related to the Highway Traffic Act or Criminal Code and that they should have no responsibility to document roadway safety problems. This is one of the factors that prevents many safety problems from being corrected.
Observed Female Cyclists on Streets of London Ontario Remain Low
Despite the appearance that cyclist volumes may be rising, the percentage of female cyclists observed on or adjacent to Streets in London, Ontario remain low.
Observations of cyclists in London Ontario have been made by Gorski Consulting for a number of years along various paths, trails and roads. A segment of those observations are those obtained along London’s streets. These include cyclists who may be riding within a lane shared with motor vehicles, in various cycling lanes or tracks, or on sidewalks. The observations include cyclists that may be stopped waiting at a traffic signal or walking their cycle. The following table shows the results of these observations for the first quarter of each year from 2013 through to 2022.
It can be seen that the number of observations made in the years 2021 and 2022 are greater than previous years. This may indicate that there are more cyclists on or adjacent to these streets. Alternatively we may simply having been paying more attention to documenting these instances in the last couple of years.
The last column in the above table shows the percentage of observations that were female. These percentages are taken from those where the gender of the rider was verified. So the 40 instances where gender was unknown were excluded from these percentages. Overall it can be seen that the percentage of female cyclists observed on London’s Street was found to be about 9.3 percent over the noted years of 2013 through 2022. In the earlier years of 2013 through 2016 there were less observations and the percentage of observed females was very low. This has tended to reduce the overall percentages for the combined years. Yet one can positively say that the overall percentage of female observations is certainly below 13 to 14 percent. This is a low value that does not appear to be changing even if the overall number of cyclists has grown.
If the small numbers of observations shown in our table do not invalidate our conclusions it would seem that some concern should be generated as to why there are so few female cyclists riding on London’s streets in winter conditions. Many have concluded that this is due to safety reasons and that is possible. Is inconvenience another factor? Possibly. It’s an issue that needs further discussion.
Posted Speed, Travel Speed, Impact Speed and Change-in-Speed – Do You Know The Difference?
Speed and its effects is often misreported and misunderstood as the cause of motor vehicle collisions.
There is no shortage of internet crazies with opinions on everything and a long list of brain-washed followers willing to swallow whatever is put before them. The analysis and reconstruction of collisions is no exception. While it is important that members of the public express their opinions and concerns about the collisions reported to them, there must also be a willingness to accept that those opinions may not be fully informed. As such the following is a brief discussion of one aspect of collision analysis dealing with vehicle speed. Knowing the difference between various descriptors of speed is essential if anyone wishes to provide an informed opinion on collision and injury causes.
For example, Posted Speed is the maximum speed seen posted on signage along any roadway. Often this Posted Speed is about 10 km/h lower than the “Design Speed” of the roadway. In the Province of Ontario many urban roads contain a Posted Speed of 50 km/h. On rural highways 80 km/h Posted Speeds are common, and on high speed expressways a Posted Speed of 100 km/h is common. The internet is full of “expert” opinions that road safety is dependent on the specific speed that is posted on roadside signage. Thus, if a Posted Speed of 50km/h is reduced to 40 km/h this will result in a dramatic safety benefit. Presumably the belief is that drivers are religious followers of Posted Speeds and when these speeds are reduced the speeds travelled on a road segment will also be quickly reduced. There is a naïve belief that the reduction of injuries and deaths are greatly correlated to lowering Posted Speed.
Travel (Operating) Speed is another descriptor which describes the speed at which vehicles travel on a road segment. A specific type of travel speed is the “85th Percentile Speed”, or the speed at which 85 percent of vehicle are observed to travel, at or below that speed. The 85th Percentile Speed is often used by roadway personnel to decide whether Posted Speeds are reasonably set.
In my numerous documentations of vehicle motions using multiple video cameras, I am able to obtain a very detailed assessment of the precise Travel Speed of each vehicle unit where my testing is conducted. While some variations exist, average Travel Speeds are often 10 km/h higher than the Posted Speed. I have also observed that a good 20 percent of vehicles possess a Travel Speed that is 20 km/h or higher above the Posted Speed. The greatest difference between Posted Speed and Travel Speed that I have documented is on the 400-Series expressways of Ontario where, in some locations and at certain times, Travel Speeds of 130 km/h are not uncommon.
There are common postings on various social media sites that Travel Speed is directly proportional to the severity of injury and probability of death. The commonly held view is that a vehicle travelling at a certain speed will result in a certain severity of injury or a certain probability of death. These generally accepted points of view never provide the specific basis for these conclusions. Whatever research has been conducted the travel speed of a vehicle would be a difficult parameter to determine unless it was obtained from event data recorders. And it has never been revealed which research has specifically used this source as the basis for determining Travel Speed.
A more reliable parameter in terms of predicting injury causation and probability of death has been the Impact Speed of a vehicle. Travel Speed and Impact Speed are not the same. A vehicle may be travelling at 80 km/h and, without any interventions, may possess an impact speed of 80 km/h. Yet in another instance of a vehicle travelling at 80 km/h the driver may apply his brakes reducing the vehicle’s speed to 40 km/h at impact. Those two scenarios are vastly different in terms of injury/death potential. Meanwhile the concept of “velocity” is put into play when we consider the directionality of that impact speed. Two vehicles coming into a full-over-lap head-on collision at 80 km/h have the potential of causing much more injury and death than two vehicles travelling at 80 km/h and approaching from intersecting roadways. We then must consider, not only the Impact Speed of the vehicles but the Change-in-Speed, or more precisely the “Change-in-Velocity” of those vehicles as a result of the impact.
If Posted Speed, Travel Speed and Impact Speed were such complete predictors of injury and death, federal agencies such as the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or Canada’s Transport Canada would have used these parameters in their decades of inquiry into the mechanisms of injury. But that is not the case. On a general level NHTSA determined long ago that, over a broad number of collisions, the documentation of collision evidence for the purpose of calculating a Change-in-Velocity (or Delta-V) would be a useful exercise. Therefore hundreds of investigators spent numerous hours measuring the extent of crush on vehicles, estimating the stiffness of those involved structures and then calculating the Delta-V experienced by those vehicles. Upon completing that process investigators would also document the specific evidence of occupant contact visible in the vehicle interior or exterior. By obtaining reliable medical information on the specific injuries sustained by involved persons, investigators could then match the injury to its source. Now a second process of considering the “Second Collision”, that is the collision between the human body and the vehicle, could be begun. So not only is it important to calculate the Delta-V of the collision-involved vehicle, but the calculation of the severity of impact between the human body and the vehicle is equally important, if not more so. And, eventually, the calculation of a third collision, which is the collision of the internal organs of the body within itself is completed. It is the acceleration, or the rate of change in velocity, that describes how injuries differ from one instance to the next. And further, it is the rate of change in acceleration, or “Jerk” which has a further influence.
So, understand that Speed, in whatever way it is described, can be a useless value in understanding how and why collisions occur and how injuries and deaths occur. Speed has really nothing to do with injury causation or death except that, in a sense, Speed creates the potential for injury because it is what causes vehicles and persons to possess kinetic energy that must be dissipated. Dissipation in a controlled manner is what is desirable and this is accomplished in many ways through the design of vehicle structures, the use of safety devices such as seat-belts and air bags and through the design of the highway structures that extent the time of vehicle deceleration while also reducing the possibility of intrusions into the occupant space or reducing the chances of unpredictable chaos when vehicle rollover is initiated.
Yes, when an inappropriate Travel Speed is chosen by a driver that can increase the probability that a collision may occur. But that has nothing to do with what severity of collision will occur. There are far too many factors involved in this relationship to enable Travel Speed to be used as a useful predictor of injury or death.
Additions to Road Data Webpage of Gorski Consulting Site
Road conditions are a factor in the causation of motor vehicle collisions. An objective method of comparing one road to another is the objective of the data contained in the Road Data webpage of the Gorski Consulting website.
The Road Data webpage has been updated on the Gorski Consulting website to explain additional testing that has been conducted in recent years.
As a result of an unexplained hacking of the Gorski Consulting website in early January, 2022 we have removed our hosting account from Godaddy to a more local company, Nerds-On-Site. Mr. Mike Barry of Nerds has been very helpful with this transition and has been patiently explaining how Gorski Consulting site will operate with their firm.
One of the complications is that the data files on the Road Data webpage may become unlinked and these links will likely need to be re-connected shortly. As a result of this need it became apparent that the text on the Road Data webpage has not been updated for quite some time. So this has been the impetus to update our text along with explanations of what additional testing has been completed and uploaded to this page.
If you now visit the Road Data webpage there will be new additions of data regarding testing from 2021. This testing involved driving an 18-passenger school bus over speed bumps in a number of locations throughout London. The purpose of this testing was two-fold: to demonstrate how the motions of the bus might be comparable to the previous testing using a passenger car, and secondly, to demonstrate what reactions are caused to vehicles which pass over speed bumps.
Another set of data includes testing with two school buses, a full-size school bus and an 18-passenger school bus, over a number of roads in London, Ontario. This data should demonstrate that, although small differences occur in the vehicle motions, there does not appear to be a major difference in the data whether the testing vehicle is a passenger car or something very different such as a full-size school bus. Thus the methodology that we have employed over the years appears to be valid and can provide an indication of the “goodness” or “badness” of the road regardless of what kind of test vehicle is used in the testing.
Happy Trails My Friend – To Our Hikers & Bikers
Happy trails my friends. For you bikers, we appreciate that spring has sprung but 2 inches of morning snow in London has us searching for our snowshoes. In the meantime remember what lies ahead in this upcoming season. May you have a safe, relaxed and healthy season.
Our Blessing to You: May you eat and drink all this bad food. May you eat and drink it all, and may you never recover.
A stop along the Thames Valley Parkway to view the fountain at the forks of the Thames River in downtown London, Ontario.
A peaceful ride with your buddies along southern Ontario numerous rail trails. If you want to ride with us bring some cheap jokes and sarcasm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.