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)Â 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.
Zygmunt Gorski Gives Virtual Presentation to American Academy of Forensic Science
Sometimes evidence that may be uncommon can break open a case if an investigator/analyst understands that evidence. That was the message given to members of the American Academy of Forensic Science (AAFS) in a presentation given by Zygmunt Gorski at its annual meeting on Friday, February 19, 2021. Given the COVID-19 restrictions the meeting had to held virtually.
The presentation entitled “Roadside Tire Marks: A Useful Source of Supplementary Evidence” described the various types of physical evidence that is created in a motor vehicle collision. That physical evidence is created on the road surface in terms of gouges, scrapes, fluid spills and tire marks. It is also created in the damage to the involved vehicles and used to calculate vehicle speeds, collision severity, and matching of one vehicle to another. It is also created in the vehicle interior with respect to occupant contacts that are used to match injuries to the vehicle interior.
In a select few instances, tire marks on the roadside can help to unravel certain collision scenarios if the investigator/analyst is properly trained and experienced in identifying and interpreting that evidence. This was the focus of the Gorski Consulting presentation.
Is London Ontario Prepared for More Cyclists?
Climate change is the impetus that is forcing more infrastructure to be built to accommodate cyclists. It is believed that more infrastructure will cause more cyclists to use that infrastructure. That simple conclusion may be debatable. But are we prepared for the change? Like many North American cities London, Ontario is facing these changes with limited data about cycling volumes and other essential information such as cyclist characteristics and behaviours. It also does not appear to have a good grasp of the quality of its current cycling infrastructure.
Like many cities, London created a Cycling Master Plan (CMP). The latest version, called “London On Bikes”, was released in 2016. This plan noted that current rates of cycling as a share of all modes of transportation was about 1%, whereas automobiles took up 76%, public transit represented 11% and walking represented an additional 8%. In the CMP the City of London proclaimed its goal to increase the cycling mode of travel from 1% to 5% by the year 2030. Yet this was not deemed sufficient in a 2019 report authored by members of its Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC). In order for the City of London to meet its obligations to reduce carbon emissions to a required level the CAC report indicated that the cycling mode of transportation would have to be increased to “25% or greater”. This is a huge increase.
A review of the 2016 CMP and the report of the CAC report leads to the concern that the City of London has not developed a sufficient process to understand the current status of cycling within the City. And, secondly, there appears to be no defined process to gather cycling data that will accurately follow the changes in cycling while infrastructure changes and improvements are made.
With respect to the selection of future cycling infrastructure the CMP the description below was to inform readers about what actions were taken to select future cycling needs.
It appears from the above description that no actions were taken to gather specific data about cyclists or to review the data that the City possessed. Not only is it important to gather data on cycling volume and speed but also important data such as the rider characteristics (age, sex), what actions cyclists were observed to perform (travelling through, turning), whether cyclists were carrying cargo, and the cyclist locations (riding on the road, riding on the sidewalk), and so on. Selection of the type of infrastructure that will be needed and where improvements or additions are needed must be based on a thorough understanding of the cycling population where those cycling infrastructure changes are to be made.
The CMP provided some pictorial views of the different types of cycling infrastructure being proposed for the City and these are shown in the figure below.
The CMP then provided some maps of the City showing the current infrastructure as well as what was proposed in the short term (0 to 5 years) and median term (6 to 15 years). The figure below shows the cycling infrastructure in a portion of the City map that takes us along Dundas Street (the “Main Street” of the City) in the downtown (on the right) and the central-east portion of the City (on the left). Just looking at the various colours and patterns of lines should indicate just how much disintegration exists in the City’s cycling network. The location of Dundas Street is essentially invisible because no cycling facilities exist on it nor are any new facilities being proposed.
Granted, much construction and installation has occurred but it is mostly piecemeal. A cyclist riding eastward from the downtown would encounter numerous types of cycling facilities and then encounter a sudden “endpoint” where facilities no longer exist. Yet if the cyclist must move on he/she may encounter dangerous conditions not suitable for cycling.
In another figure taken from the CMP (below) the area being shown is also along Dundas Street from Wellington Street in the downtown to the central-east location at Hale Street. Again the various lines also indicate existing and proposed cycling infrastructure. Once again we focus on the key area of the City along its “main street” which is Dundas. After some scrutiny one might find the label indicating “Dundas Street” but essentially no cycling infrastructure exists or is being proposed for it. However we must recall that this report was prepared in 2016 and, suddenly, plans can change.
When we fast-forward to November 12, 2020, the photos below show Dundas Street in downtown London looking east from Wellington Road. We see construction: It is the construction of a new cycling facility, a facility that was not planned for in the 2016 CMP. This construction occurred over a distance of about 1.2 kilometres between Wellington and Adelaide Street.
And once again, when we fast-forward to January 9, 2021 we see (two photos looking west below) that another section of cycling path has been constructed on Dundas Street in central-east London between English and Ontario Streets. This new path was also not proposed in the 2016 CMP.
The figure below summaries the two lengths of new cycling facilities along Dundas Street. The longer orange line represents the 1.2 kilometres of path between Wellington and Adelaide Streets. The shorter orange line is the 400-metre cycling path between English and Ontario Streets. However there are gaps in the cycling paths along Dundas Street. Cyclists cannot just magically jump over these gaps but they must ride through them.
In particular the blue line in the above figure shows a length of 2.4 kilometres on Dundas Street in east London between the two arterials roads of Highbury Ave and Clarke Road. There are no cycling facilities in this zone and this is where we want to conduct a further evaluation. Let us look at some examples of cyclists riding in this length of Dundas Street.
The photo below was taken in February, 2015. It shows a male cyclist that is riding westbound on Dundas Street approaching Ontario Street. Recall that Ontario Street is where the new cycling path was completed and a photo was shown above in January, 2021. In February 2015 this cyclist is travelling on a fairly well plowed surface but he is approaching a line of parked cars. He will have to veer to the left and possibly into conflict with any vehicles passing him from the rear.
In the next view taken in September, 2015, we see a westbound cyclist riding on Dundas Street west of Second Street. We see how westbound vehicles in the curb lane must move into the passing lane because they cannot pass the cyclist with less than the “1-metre-lateral-gap” required by Ontario’s Traffic Act. Given the typical lateral weaving of a cyclist the loss of this gap is not always the fault of the motor vehicle driver. And neither is it the fault of the cyclist. But it is the fault of the designed infrastructure. If a collision occurs, undoubtedly police will charge either the motor vehicle driver or the cyclist but not the designer of the road or the City of London.
In the next photo taken in September, 2015, we see a westbound cyclist on Dundas Street approaching Hale Street. A male cyclist is seen with an attached mini-trailer that is loaded with a variety of cargo. Ahead of this cyclist is another westbound cyclist. The cyclist with the trailer is attempting to pass the cyclist ahead and must use essentially all of the right lane in order to complete this action. The cyclist with the mini-trailer does not have a mirror so he cannot easily see what traffic may be behind him. Again, this will be deemed the fault of the cyclist if a collision should occur. But how much of the fault is related to the lack of proper infrastructure to protect such cyclists even if they are not fully compliant with the law or lack a full understanding of their danger?
When the City of London commences its campaigns to increase the cycling transportation mode it must understand that it will place itself in a position of higher risk if it fails to provide the proper cycling infrastructure along with that promotion. If the cycling mode is increased from 1% to 5% or 25% there will be an increased risk of cyclist collision that has to be taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis.
Another example (below) is also taken from September 2013 and it shows an eastbound cyclist riding on the south sidewalk of Dundas Street approaching Hale Street. An old building exists very close to the road causing a visibility obstruction as well as difficulties for drivers of large trucks and buses that sometimes make a right turn from Dundas to Hale. For cyclists this arrangement also poses a problem as seen by the presence of pedestrians that must use the sidewalk. If the cyclist choses to enter the right lane to bypass the pedestrians then he places himself in danger from being struck by the large volume of traffic on Dundas. Again, lack pf proper infrastructure along this very busy corridor causes these conflicts. Yet there was no proposition in London’s 2016 CMP to confront these conflicts. The City of London needs to conduct a detailed study of its current and past cyclist populations so that it can better understand what priorities it should chose for the future.
Overall observations have been made by Gorski Consulting of cyclists in this area of Dundas Street between Highbury and Clarke have been analysed for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020. Findings indicate that, of those cyclists who travel straight through the area 90% are males and only 10% were female. If the City of London is to increase its cycling population it cannot rely just on young and middle-aged male cyclists. It must understand how to engage a wider spectrum of the City’s population. It is unlikely to do so unless it provides safer infrastructure for cyclists.
Observations were also made of the location of these cyclists with respect to whether they rode within a travel lane or whether they rode on the sidewalk. It was found that 74.4% of these cyclists rode on the sidewalk even though City of London bi-laws prohibit cyclists from doing so. Again, this is an indication of the extent to which cyclists do not feel safe riding through this area. They are willing to face traffic fines by riding on the sidewalk rather than risk their lives and ride in a traffic lane next to the high volume of motor vehicle traffic.
Observations and testing conducted by Gorski Consulting at various sites across the City of London confirm that the percentage of cycling versus other modes of transportation is close to 1% as reported in the report of the City’s Cycling Advisory Committee. Five years have passed since the City introduced its Cycling Master Plan (CMP) in 2016. Only nine years remain before the termination date of that plan in 2030. Yet there must be a very sizeable increase in cycling if the minimum goal of 5% is to be reached in that time frame. While some noticeable cycling infrastructure has been built no results have been reported whether there has been an increase in the cycling mode and by how much.
Gorski Consulting has been conducting videotaped documentations of cycling and pedestrian traffic in London for more than 10 years. This has occurred inadvertently during our collision reconstruction assignments where we needed to analyse the motions of traffic with respect to specific collisions that we were reconstructing. Recently we have returned to analyse these videotapes to pull out the data on cyclist and pedestrian volumes and their characteristics. We have also carried out additional video testing recently with the specific intent of documenting cyclists and pedestrians. Presently analysis of 20, 1-hour, sessions have been completed and more will likely follow. We would have been happy to share some of this data with the City of London however past experience indicates how unreasonable its administration has been. While joining the City’s Transportation Advisory Committee in the fall of 2019 we attempted to bring forth some transportation data for discussion with Advisory Committee members only to be thwarted by City officials who informed us that presentation of such data could not be part of the Committee’s functions. After being treated in this manner several times we terminated our relationship. Subsequently City politicians have recently discussed closing down most of the Advisory Committees altogether.
Members of the City’s Cycling Advisory Committee (CAC) experienced similar treatment after they completed a very thorough review of the City’s CMP in the fall of 2019. Again, some politicians made the point that the CAC had stepped out of its bounds and wanted to stop the report from being filed or considered. Since then there has been a change of mind and the report became public. Incredibly the CAC report was a thorough document provided to the City free-of-charge, and obviously involved extensive work by committee members.
It is these kinds of dysfunctional failures of the City of London to consider outside input that causes inefficiencies, waste and misdirection of funds. Projects that are schizophrenically pieced together, then re-arranged and dismantled only to chase in another direction. This is evident in the piece-meal pattern of incomplete cycling paths that start suddenly, end suddenly and provide minimal continuity. It is evident in the incomplete patchwork of cycling facilities along the City’s main street, Dundas Street, that has been the focus of this article. This dictatorial approach to administration cannot be effective if the City is to achieve its very important objectives of increasing cycling and attacking this vitally important threat of climate change.
Death By Vehicle Impalement And The Silence That Enables It
Needless tragedies occur when we keep road safety problems hidden from public awareness. When vehicles are impaled by roadside structures the results are often hidden. This prevents the public’s momentum to correct those safety problems.
In the most recent case which occurred on February 10th, 2021, a driver sustained mysteriously fatal injuries after his vehicle struck a chain link fence along the property of Hanna Memorial Public School in Sarnia Ontario. Although the vehicle remained on the school grounds a large tarp was placed over its complete perimeter as the body of the victim was still in the vehicle. While there was good reason to cover the vehicle there was no reason to hide other portions of the scene such as the condition of the chain link fence which had been struck. The obvious fact that “a section of the school yard fence along Russell Street was damaged”, as reported by local news media, was not accompanied by any photos of that fence. In fact, a photo of the tarped vehicle was so closely cropped that it prevented any view of the damage to the fence. No mention was made by any official party as to how the driver sustained the reported fatal injuries. So, in fact, the public would know nothing about the possibility that the vehicle might have been impaled by the fence and that the fatal injuries could have been caused by that impalement. This type of concealment causes the enablement of injury and death that could be prevented if such tragic results were known.
At Gorski Consulting the dangerous existence of roadside structures that have impaled vehicles has been reported in several articles on this website. Despite our efforts there has been no other entity who has provided a similar warning. The result is that many of these dangers continue to exist, and remain uncorrected, waiting for the next unfortunate driver to experience a tragedy.
Warnings have exhibited themselves in relatively minor collisions where the danger has been ignored. As an example, in the summer of 2011, a London city transit bus was involved in a collision with a passenger car at the busy intersection of Wellington Road and Commissioners Road in London, Ontario. Following this impact the bus crashed through a chain link fence, as shown in the three photos below.
Yet nothing was mentioned about the metal post of the chain link fence that had penetrated the windshield of the bus, as shown in the two photos below.
Nothing was said because there was no injury directly related to this occurrence. Yet the potential of injury was obvious if anyone cared to consider it. The photo below shows a close-up view of the upper tube that ran along the top of the fence. The connections of these tubes were easily separated when the fence was dislodged.
The photo below shows the deformed end of one of these tubes. This would be the harpoon that could pierce into a vehicle interior and impale an occupant.
In another incident that occurred in February, 2016, at the intersection of Wharncliffe Road and Horton Street in London, Ontario, the photo below shows a horizontal tube from a roadside railing that pierced the windshield of a striking passenger car.
Closer views of the struck railing are shown below. Again these horizontal tubes become the harpoons that penetrate through a striking vehicle.
And again, at a location at the intersection of Oxford and Quebec Streets in London, Ontario, another railing has existed as the edge of traffic for a number of years, as shown in the photo below.
Because the railing is so close to the passing traffic it is especially dangerous. As shown in the photo below, in winter conditions the roadway can become covered in snow and therefore slippery. A vehicle could easily slip on the snowy surface and slide into the railing.
Safety problems like these exist because the general public is not aware of them and how they can cause injury and potential death. When collisions like the one at the Hanna School in Sarnia are not properly identified to the public there is no impetus to make corrections. Senseless and needless injuries and fatalities occur because of this secrecy.
Preventing the Public from Knowing How & Why A Death Occurred at Hanna Public School Grounds in Sarnia
Why is the public not allowed to see the damage caused to this fence at Hanna Public School in Sarnia and how it relates to the fatal collision there this morning?
Some information does not need to be hidden from public knowledge, but it is. An unexplained fatal collision occurred this morning at a chain-link fence at the property line of the Hanna Memorial Public School in Sarnia. It was reported that a single vehicle collision occurred and the Ontario Special Investigations (SIU) Unit has become involved. A photo of the vehicle in which the fatality occurred was shown in various news media with a blanket covering its complete perimeter. That may be understandable. But the photo was closely cropped in a manner such that the status of the nearby fence, which was likely involved in the collision, was not shown. Why was that done?
This is an area of a school ground where children would most likely be present. We care about keeping children safe by reducing speeds, using cross-guards to help children cross streets and we employ various monitors to guide children as they come in and off of school buses. In this realm of concern, why is there no concern about how this fatality occurred and whether it could affect the safety of children around the school’s vicinity? Clearly children could also be riding in vehicles where the fatality occurred. Is that not a relevant matter?
The police investigators, SIU and the official news media need to make the public aware of what took place and why the danger existed without being corrected before the tragedy occurred. Hiding this important information is reminiscent of the operations of a third-world, banana republic and not the actions in a free democracy where the reasons for someone’s death need to be made public.
You must be logged in to post a comment.