Detailed Collision Data Needed To Understand Risk Of Unusual Roadway Behaviours
A Highway Traffic Act cannot solve all of our road safety problems. We need detailed collision information in order to recognize the relative risk of unorthodox human behaviours on our road systems.
As shown in the above photo, an elderly male rider has determined that his best option is to ride his medical scooter the wrong way on Brydges Street in east London, Ontario. This is so even though the sidewalk next to him may be a viable option. It is understood that vehicles should not be driving the wrong way on a city street yet there is some reason to believe that, for smaller mass vehicles such as bicycles and scooters, the rider’s ability to see and react to oncoming traffic could be improved when the rider faces that traffic. There are conflicting beliefs about what would be the safest approach.
This is why it is important to study the details of collisions. And it is important that collisions be properly documented with sufficient objective details so that a proper assessment can be made of their causes. When investigators do not possess the proper training or experience, or when they lack sufficient time and resources to complete a proper investigation, the final product produces error and variance in the collision data. That error and variance is often not understood or recognized by those conducting mass-data analysis. The end result is that we do not fully understand what needs to be done to reduce the risk of collision, injury and death.
Is That A Garbage Bag Lying On The Road?
If you observed this view for 1 or 2 seconds would you correctly identify the object in the road? Hindsight causes many to judge the actions of a driver based on what they know after a collision has occurred.
Cause of Collisions Is Often Not Correctly Detected
Many persons who are deserving of charges are not captured by typical investigations of motor vehicle collisions.
Look at the scenario above which commences when traffic is diverted due to a closed lane. The driver of the BMW SUV has been forced into the left lane along with all eastbound drivers at this Oxford Street location in London, Ontario. When this occurs vehicles become more compressed and visibility ahead becomes more limited.
In the next photo we see that an elderly rider of a limited-mobility scooter is seen in the centre, left-turn lane, and it appears he is intending to cross from north to south. It is possible that our BMW driver could have seen the scooter since, looking at the shadow caused by the vehicle ahead, there would appear to be a clear line of sight. But the BMW driver may not be focused on that area of the road. The BMW driver may be focused on the upcoming opening in the right lane and the opportunity to pass the vehicle ahead using that right lane.
Looking at the photo below it is clear that other eastbound vehicles are moving into the right lane after passing the area of construction. Or perhaps an eastbound vehicle has stopped in the left lane to allow the elderly scooter driver an opportunity to complete his crossing.
Indeed the photo below shows that the BMW driver steers into the right lane. And the elderly driver of the scooter is no longer in the median. So where is the scooter rider? In front of the white SUV? In front of the BMW SUV? Will this result in a death? Note that we see the illumination of brake lights in the white SUV on the left as well as the BMW on the right.
Fortunately the photo below shows that the elderly scooter rider passes through the intersection and the crisis is resolved.
However, consider who would be to blame if the scooter rider was struck.
Most likely the elderly rider of the scooter would be blamed for attempting to cross a busy, four-lane road at a dangerous location.
But what about the driver of the White SUV? Did this driver stop and cause the scooter driver to understand that it was safe to cross?
And what about the BMW SUV? Could a collision be avoided if the driver was more patient or more attentive to the surroundings?
How would we make these assessments?
Event Data Recorders (EDRs) can help. Modern vehicles are equipped with electronic modules that constantly monitor the motion of equipped vehicles. When a sudden change in speed occurs that resembles a collision the module will begin to store the data a few seconds preceding the event as well as for a short time afterward. But the change in vehicle motion must be of a sufficient magnitude to “wake up” the system. Impacts with pedestrians or bicycles would generally not be sufficient to wake up the system. And given the relatively small mass of the scooter and rider a similar situation would occur.
If the BMW struck the scooter and a recording was made, then there might be information about the BMW’s pre-impact speed, if and when braking was applied, and other important facts such as whether the BMW driver sped up by stepping on the accelerator pedal when he ought to have detected the scooter. But the timing of these events cannot always be determined from EDR data.
For example, the EDR can not tell an investigator the precise location of the white SUV that was in front of the BMW. So an investigator would not know the degree to which that white SUV prevented the BMW driver from detecting the scooter rider. Proving that the driver of the white SUV deliberately stopped to allow the scooter to pass might be difficult. In all likelihood the driver of the BMW would be absolved of any wrong-doing because the BMW driver “had the right-of-way”. The right-of-way is an ugly term coded in Highway Traffic Acts throughout North America. It allows for many judicial, bad decisions to be made expediently and unjustly.
We can also ask another question: Why would the City of London not face charges in a situation like this? Imagine that an employee of the City’s transportation department had sufficient training and data to understand that there were frequent attempts by pedestrians, cyclists and medical scooter drivers to cross this portion of Oxford Street. Imagine that this employee’s manuals told him/her that certain thresholds were met for the installation of some form of traffic control. Imagine that there were discussions with City politicians about costs and that this ultimately resulted in postponing of such traffic controls. Should the consequences of a death or serious, permanent injury be placed solely upon the drivers of the motor vehicles and scooter? Should the City also bear some responsibility?
In many instances there are multiple factors that, in their combined influence, determine whether a collision will occur and the magnitude of its consequences. Some understanding of these many factors must be had and considered. Collisions are complex matters but their causes are rarely, correctly identified. No education, experience, honorary titles and medals, or fancy equipment can improve this failing if there is no genuine interest in pursuing the truth. Too often cause for motor vehicle collisions is determined using simplistic logic that sounds true, rudimentary calculations that mimic science, and a belief by the general public that there is a Wizard of Oz behind the curtain who has all the answers.
Walking With Your Back to Traffic – Why Is It OK If You’re A Cyclist?
Why is it irrational to see a pedestrian walking within a travel lane with their back to traffic? Let us consider the photo below which shows a pedestrian walking on a cycling lane.
Is this dangerous? Not only is his back to traffic but the next photo shows that he is wearing headphones. Is there anything wrong with that?
If we understand current beliefs toward cycling safety there is apparently nothing dangerous about pedestrians walking in this manner. Even though, through our childhood years, we were told exactly the opposite: walking on the road with your back to traffic is dangerous.
So why is it also just as dangerous for cyclists to ride on the edge of a road with their backs to traffic? If an impact occurs with a motor vehicle do we seriously believe that the cyclist will be better protected than the pedestrian?
The cyclist shown below has difficulty seeing vehicles approaching from behind. While a mirror would help, in many cases typical commuter cyclists do not ride with mirrors.
As demonstrated in the photo below the cyclist below must turn his head over his shoulder and this is not ideal for observing dangers behind or new dangers that might develop in front.
Let us consider a further example. What if a mother was pushing a baby carriage in the same location where we showed the pedestrian above. Would that be dangerous? Consider the view below. Would we consider that the mother and baby in the carriage would safe walking in a cycling lane with their backs to traffic?
What about the child next to the mother walking with the small cycle? Do we seriously believe that this child would be safe riding on their small cycle at the edge of lane of motor vehicle traffic, or in a painted cycling lane? What is the safety difference when we exchange these pedestrians with an adult cyclist?
Some adults who ride in cycling lanes will transport their children in flimsy mini-trailers towed behind the cycle such as the example below. Little do the realized is that, if they were struck from behind the first thing to be struck would be the mini-trailer.
It is important to recognize that these mini-trailers are low to the ground. This means that they are more difficult for drivers to detect. In congested areas drivers may be able to see the taller cyclist but may not be able to see the mini-trailer. And because these mini-trailers are not frequently used drivers do not expect them to exist behind a cycle. Thus drivers may believe they have enough time and distance to avoid striking the cyclist only to discover at the last moment that there is a mini-trailer attached behind the cyclist.
The stiffest portion of motor vehicle is at a low level: the bumper level. And the most vulnerable portion of a child’s body is at the head level. While seated in a flimsy mini-trailer the head of a child is exactly where the stiffest portion of a motor vehicle would make contact. Why is this so wise?
Why has our society continued to create these dangerous conditions for cyclists? In many instances cyclists would be better off riding facing traffic if they are to ride on a roadway or in a painted cycling lane. At least there would be a greater opportunity to attempt an evasive motion should a motor vehicle stray into the cyclist’s path. But this is not a solution. The solution must be to change our understanding of cyclist safety and remove cyclists from such dangerous conditions.
A Lot of Useful Lessons Could Be Learned From Tiger Woods’ Collision – But They Won’t Be
As regrettable as they are, collisions involving celebrities are a time when a large segment of society is interested in knowing what happened. And this can be a valuable opportunity to educate those who may otherwise be unreachable. But those opportunities are almost always lost. The details that could be used to provide that education are kept from the public. Such, unfortunately, will likely be the reality in the latest celebrity collision involving Tiger Woods.
It was reported that Tiger Woods, perhaps the most known and talented golfer of the current generation, was involved in a single vehicle collision on Hawthrone Boulevard in suburban Los Angeles, California on the morning of February 23, 2021. Some Googlemaps images below should clarify where the collision site was located.
The Google view below shows the centre of Los Angeles on the upper right and the orange circle in the centre shows the location of the collision site.
The view below outlines the path that Tiger Woods would have taken if he travelled along several kilometres of Hawthorne Boulevard up to where the collision occurred at the orange circle. Note that there would have been many sharp horizontal curves along this path that were much sharper than the one approaching the collision site. We would what to know how vertical curves (up-grades and down-grades) might have related to the safety of the roadway. Whenever horizontal and vertical curves are combined this can be a challenging environment for many drivers, especially when environmental factors such as rain or snow are introduced. It was noted that the roadway was dry at the time of the Woods’ crash.
The view below shows the collision site with a measurement taken from the centre median to the approximate final rest position of the SUV. This distance is in the general range of 130 metres. This distance is not exceptionally large. But we have no information about what events occurred prior to the median impact.
The news media provided many photos of damaged SUV lying on its side and we were told that this was a rollover collision.
The use of the term “rollover’ to describe the collision is a misnomer. While Woods’ SUV obviously came to a stop on its side the most important characteristic on the damaged SUV was the major frontal crush that occurred at a low level. This is why Woods reportedly sustained his leg injuries. The rearward displacement of the front wheels was an important identifier of the large amount of kinetic energy that was dissipated in this region. The right front wheel was pushed back further than the left-front, again indicating this is where the greatest force was concentrated.
But there was also minimal crush of the hood. And the left-front fender also sustained very little crush. Such facts help to identify how the frontal impact occurred. This damage is more common when a vehicle plows into an embankment. Such an embankment impact would occur at a typical T-intersection where a driver fails to detect the end of the road and drives through the intersection striking the embankment that might exist on the opposite side of the road. The greater crush at the right front would indicate that the vehicle was leading with its right front corner when the impact occurred. The force was likely oriented upward from the ground as if the SUV was diving down into the earth. Obviously Tiger Woods did not travel through such a T-intersection so we would want to know what conditions existed causing an impact of a similar nature.
There were other areas of damage to the rear corners of the SUV which were not as severe as the frontal impact. While it was stated that the SUV rolled over several times there is little evidence on the vehicle exterior to support that claim. While it is possible for a vehicle to make isolated contacts with the ground and the lifting off the ground, it would be rare that scrapes and scratches to the painted surfaces would not exist. Also the side roof rails of the vehicle do not appear to have been damaged and such damage would be very common in a rollover. Again, we are not saying that multiple rollover events did not take place, but the evidence of the exterior of the vehicle requires that further explanations be provided.
As typical, police and news agencies have provided little information about the path of the SUV from the road to its final rest position so the specifics of how and why the collision occurred cannot be known. Some comments were reportedly made by investigating police that no tire marks were found in the northbound lane preceding the SUVs impact with the centre median. Such a fact is not surprising. Modern electronic stability control (ESC) systems that would exist on the Hyundai Genesis SUV would become activated preventing the yaw-type rotation that would have occurred if such systems did not exist. Such activation would prevent any tire marks from occurring that could be detected by the naked eye. Many events could have occurred for several hundred metres before the impact of the centre median and we would be completely unaware of them. Fortunately modern-day vehicles are equipped with event data recorders (“Black Boxes”) that would capture a variety of data for several seconds leading up to the crash. Some vehicles can also capture snap-shots of those events. This is why news media should be asking police to release this data for public consideration. But, as has been customary, such useful information is unlikely to reach the public.
Many lessons could be learned during this time when the public’s interest is high. As an example, an understanding could be had that modern safety systems are geared for typical impacts where horizontal forces exist or where lower-severity rollover forces exist. But these systems are not well-adjusted to impacts where the force is applied upward from the floor pan. Air bags protect the head and chest areas. Three-point seat-belts also protect much of the upper body. But there is little done to protect the lower portion of an occupant’s body. Generally, leg injuries are not very life-threatening.
Using a coding scheme such as the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) we can code the severity of injuries according to this six-point scale whereby level “6” would be untreatable (decapitation for example) and level “1” might be a soft-tissue neck stain. For injuries to the lower extremities the highest magnitude of injury could be coded a level “3”, or serious, if a femur is fractured. And with other uncommon complications even a level “4” code might be possible. But these would be quite uncommon. It is generally not possible to sustain a level “5” or “6” lower-extremity injury. So those agencies whose mission it is to prevent death are not as eager to focus on lower extremity injuries even though they may be quite debilitating.
Injury causation must be a part of our societal understanding and training so that we can better select how we function and what we do to prevent injury. This understanding and training is continually lost when essential information about collisions is kept from the public.
You must be logged in to post a comment.