Appalling Secrecy Prevents Mother From Knowing How Her Daughter Died
Checking internet sources such as Google has produced no information about circumstances in which 17-year-old Francesca Savoie died in a reported motor vehicle collision in Bas-Caraquet, New Brunswick. The only knowledge I can gain is from the single news article posted on March 20, 2022, by the CBC’s Catharine Tunney.
Tunney’s deeply disturbing article described how Savoie was killed in a motor vehicle collision in Bas-Caraquet, New Brunswick, sometime in the year 2007. Francesca’s mother, Liette, “has been on a quest ever since to learn more about what happened that night – a quest driven in part by rumours on the Acadian Peninsula about a high-speed chase and a second vehicle“, as stated in Tunney’s article.
In 2012 Liette Savoie requested all information from the RCMP on the crash. Unidentified individuals at the RCMP responded by saying “…only a small portion of their files would be released”. These RCMP individuals cited the portion of the Access to Information Act “…that shields from disclosure information obtained in the course of a police investigation less than 20 years old”.
Savoie’s complaint to the Information Commissioner led the Commissioner to ask the RCMP to explain why the files were not released. The unidentified RCMP individuals “…argued that the personal information of the deceased is protected by law for 20 years after the death and the public interest in disclosure ‘did not outweigh the invasion of privacy that would result from the disclosure'”.
Let me repeat that phrase again. The unidentified RCMP individuals decided that the deceased’s death was personal information owned by the deceased. No one had the right to know how the deceased had died, especially not the deceased’s mother. And this is what strikes to the heart of the bazaar reasonings of the Canadian justice system.
If, by some chance, Francesca had been murdered, her mother would have no right to know. If the RCMP had covered up the murder for some undisclosed reason, Liette Savoie also did not have the right to know.
As a totally independent observer with decades of experience in uncovering the details of police collision reconstructions I am in a unique position to review the case and evaluate, for myself, whether there is any reason to be concerned about Francesca’s death. But the internet has been wiped clean of any mention of Francesca and her untimely death. And, unless you were a local of the Bas-Caraquet region in 2007, you also would have no information about the tragic incident.
Liette Savoie’s dilemma is not unique. Every year thousands of persons perish on Canadian roads. Police come to investigate and close the area where a fatality occurs. Not only is the actual site closed off, but several kilometres are closed off such that any independent reporter can only use a high-powered, telephoto lens to photograph a distorted view of the collision scene, though in many instances such a photo is impossible. Even news media become complicit in this secrecy by claiming that their photos are copyright and cannot be used in any discussion of a collision. For many thousands of persons like Liette suffering is in silence as no one knows that they are given no information about how their loved one passed away. By some fluke of chance a reporter, such as the CBC’s Catharine Tunney, decides to post a single article and suddenly that lonely silence is made known – about that single individual. But many thousands of persons are not afforded that luxury of being made known to the public. They move on in silence, requesting information that is denied, and no one is able to make those deniers accountable for their decisions.
Tunney indicated that recently the Information Commissioner sided with the RCMP. When Liette Savoie when to the Federal Court it also sided with the RCMP. An absolute dead end for a mother who simply wanted some answers.
The federal court’s comment on the matter is also revealing. The justice was quoted as saying, if the information commissioner’s recommended amendments to the Access to Information Act don’t materialize “the eventual expiration of the twenty-year moratorium offers some hope”. How uplifting. We just have to guarantee that Liette Savoie lives long enough to make her request at that future date.
Unreasonable secrecy is a deplorable matter in an otherwise democratic society. It is the method by which many evil deeds are allowed to slither through the weak crevices of a good society. It is more deplorable when many good men and women observe its slither but are more interested in chewing the popcorn on their comfy couch amidst the viewing of their latest soap opera or sports program on their high definition TV.
Springtime Cycling – The Challenges Continue
There are many examples in London, Ontario, like in many cities, where springtime cycling can become challenging due to cycling path maintenance issues. Here a sand-filled pot has been knocked over spilling sand onto the cycling track on Dundas near Wellington Road in downtown London.
Much like general roadway maintenance, the maintenance of cycling paths, trails and tracks is needed on a constant basis. Many cities like London have reduced their roadway inspections over the years, especially with the advent of the Municipal Act and the so called Minimum Maintenance Standards. With no accountability municipalities are free to chose their level of acceptable vigilance while relying on their Risk Management departments to handle claims in an aggressive manner.
When cyclists collide with obstructions within a cycling path Risk Management departments in Ontario municipalities find creative ways of blaming the cyclist for failing to be sufficiently vigilant. With large resources at their disposal municipalities use tax payer money to fight the individual taxpayer rather than to improve safety for the taxpayer.
The creation of obstructions within a cycling track is often explained as necessary because various segments of the road and cycling track need rehabilitation from time to time. Never is it possible for individual taxpayers, including cyclists, to question if the obstructions were reasonable for the circumstances.
A large traffic cone is seen here placed in the eastbound cycling track of Dundas Street at Colborne Street in downtown London. In the background, across the street, is another obstruction as City maintenance vehicles have parked within the cycling track preventing it from being used.
Some obstructions are so prominent that cyclists are completely expelled from a cycling facility and must find alternate ways to bypass the area.
This view shows maintenance vehicles parked within the cycling track of Dundas Street at Colborne Street, completely blocking the track. Cyclists must find alternate ways of avoiding the obstruction, sometimes resulting in unexpectedly dangerous results.
Your cycling track is blocked Mr. Cyclist? Well that’s your problem, we have the right to conduct maintenance activities as we please. And you don’t have the right to question if it could be done in a better way.
So, cyclists beware. You have the right to cycle but not the right to complain. Try fighting City Hall….ha ha ha!
Bicycling in Winter Conditions – How Can We Make It Happen?
This view of the Thames Valley Parkway in Springbank Park in London, Ontario, is taken on a beautiful fall day. Numerous cyclists share the path with pedestrians and pets. While crowded it can be a pleasant experience for all. But these pleasant conditions do not last. winter conditions are a starkly different story.
When the days are warm and sunny, cycling can be a beautiful experience for all ages. And climate change requires a vast number of Canadians to take up this pastime. But that pleasant weather is not always there. In fact, even in the southern parts of Canada like south-western and south-central Ontario the weather can be challenging for most cyclists almost half the year.
In London, Ontario, multi-use trails such as the Thames Valley Trail (TVP) are in constant use. But when snow falls, and is not cleared, the TVP becomes impassable for many cyclists.
This view of the Thames Valley Parkway in Springbank Park in London, presents a starkly different scenario to the pleasantries of a warn fall day. The path has not been cleared of snow and there is absolutely no cyclist or pedestrian in sight.
How do we make cycling in winter conditions happen?
A look at past history and other regions of the world tells us that great societal and political changes have occurred by brutal force. In other words, autocratic regimes can make things change quickly and efficiently. As was the case of Joseph Stalin and his changes to the Soviet agrarian system in the 1930s, collectivization was simply imposed. Literally millions of Russian and Ukrainian citizens were staved to death to achieve Stalin’s success. So change can be achieved, but at what cost?
Some Stalinist thinkers can easily be convinced that cycling can be imposed by brutal attacks on the driving public. Reduce the efficiency of driving, penalize drivers of cars at every corner, until they have no choice but to ride bicycles. Others like myself believe that you can gain more with sugar than you can with vinegar. Rather than making it a difficult world for car drivers, we can make it more comfortable, convenient and safer for cyclists. We can achieve this in many positive ways.
The cost of e-bikes could be made cheaper through government incentives. A much greater emphasis could be placed, not just on building new cycling paths, trails and tracks, but on improving their maintenance so that they are truly usable throughout the Canadian year. Safe ways of securing cycles from theft can be introduced so that a rider can be assured that, at the halfway point of their excursion, their cycle will still be there to take them back home. More cycle designs are needed to protect riders from the elements such as rain through development of water-resistant, light-weight cages. No one can feel comfortable travelling to a workplace in soaked clothing when the alternative of a warm and dry, gas-guzzling automobile is present. And we need to improve the design of those paths, trails and tracks to separate pedestrians of cyclists, and cyclists from motor vehicles.
Cycling can be achieved in winter conditions. It is possible to make this happen without autocratic, dictatorial punishments. It just needs a few positive persons to create positive change.
A cycling we will go, through the cold and winter snow…
Another Post-Impact Fire on Main Street in Hamilton Claims Four Lives
Another post-impact fire has occurred, this time in downtown Hamilton, Ontario. Four persons, including three pedestrians perished in the incident yet there has been no explanation how and why these fatalities occurred. Police and news media have made it difficult for anyone to examine any meaningful evidence as the only views of the collision-involved vehicle has been shadowy, partial glimpses.
It was reported that the collision occurred at approximately 0200 hours on Saturday, March 19, 2022 when stolen vehicle went out of control on Main Street and collided with a concrete lamp standard. It is not clear how three pedestrians came to sustain fatal injuries as it is not common for this to occur from just a single impact. When a group of pedestrians is struck there is generally a difference in the patterns and severity of injury and it is common to observe one or two fatalities along with several injured parties. It is not common for all three persons struck to sustain fatal injuries without anyone surviving. Thus the role of a post-impact fire in those deaths would need to be examined. But none of this is occurring at present.
How Many Persons Died From Post-Impact Fire in Texas?
The elephant in the room is being ignored again. No sooner did I finish posting an article on the tragic death of a young female driver in a post-collision fire on Highbury Ave near London, Ontario, then another fire in Texas occurred, without any official explanation or acknowledgement.
What has been reported is that a 13-year male, driving a pick-up truck, caused a head-on collision with a 2017 Ford Transit van on Farm-to-Market Road 1788 in Andrews County, Texas. The location was reported to be about half a mile north of State Highway 115 in west Texas.
An Associated Press article on the crash focused on the age of the young male driver whose pick-up truck crossed the roadway centre-line just before the crash. The fact that seemed important to the reporter was that “this was clearly a high-speed collision” quoting NTSB Vice Chairman Bruce Landsberg. Yet the maximum posted speed for the highway was reported to be 75 mph. So if the pick-up truck was travelling at 85 mph just prior to the collision would that mean that this was a major negligence on the part of the young driver? My many years of documenting average speeds in south-western Ontario has shown that average speeds on any highway are at least 10 km/h over the posted speed and anywhere between 10 and 30 percent of drivers travel 20 or more km/h above the posted speed.
And how would investigators know, with any degree of accuracy, what the speeds of the vehicles were at this early stage in the investigation? Even detailed measurements of vehicle crush and post-impact travel distances would only provide a range of speeds that might easily encompass the 75 mph legal limit.
What seemed less important to the Associated Press reporter was that “The truck’s left front tire, which was a spare tire, also blew out before impact”, as reported by Bruce Landsberg. But that is an uncommon pre-crash factor and could be of no fault of the young driver of the pick-up who may have limited experience with vehicle safety and maintenance.
What is obvious to me from reading the Associated Press article, is how the occurrence of a post-impact fire was minimized. It failed to acknowledge the very obvious fact that many of those who died, likely died from the post-impact fire and not from the severity of the impact itself.
I am not so naïve as to be deceived about the relevance of so many deaths in one vehicle so that I would believe those deaths were from the impact alone. Having studied the patterns of injury from numerous serious and fatal collisions I am acutely aware that, in an impact of a rather voluminous vehicle, it is not easy to kill everyone inside. Instead, each occupant experiences their unique collision based on factors such as their seat positions. The collision experienced by a driver, lets say, is not the same collision that is experienced by a back-seat passenger. That is why we may see the death of the driver but there is a high likelihood that passengers in other parts of the same vehicle might sustain moderate or even minimal injuries. Thus multiple fatalities in the same vehicle, or instances where a high percentage of occupants in the same vehicle sustain fatal injuries, are an alarm bell that should be ringing in the ears of any experienced investigator. It is a sign that the severity of the impact is likely not related to the cause of death of those occupants. But this understanding is foreign to reporters who are unfamiliar with such issues.
It is imperative, as I have continually stated, that the cause of post-impact fires be properly acknowledged as the source of a fatality whenever it occurs. It is imperative that a properly detailed investigation be carried out to uncover the origin and cause of the fire. Often this cannot be done by collision reconstructionists who are unfamiliar with the techniques of fire analysis. Specialized fire investigators need to be called in to make that determination.
You must be logged in to post a comment.