Zipper Merge Signs at Highbury Ave Construction Zone – Are They Effective?
Do we understand what these signs mean? Or are we just ignoring them?
The City of London Ontario has put up some interesting “Zipper Merge” signs in the construction zone on Highbury Ave. The signs are supposed to encourage drivers to use a “zipper merge” technique that, so far, has been ignored by Ontario drivers.
Below is a frame taken from video during observations of traffic at the Highbury Ave site on September 3, 2020. The green “Zipper Merge” signs can be seen posted along the median of the highway but almost all drivers continue to use the right lane. When a vehicle tries to use the left lane, as shown in the frame below, vehicles, particularly large trucks, will pull out and block the left lane preventing “speeders” and “cheaters” from taking advantage of the left lane to pass the slow or stopped traffic.
The trench warfare continues at the construction site on Highbury Ave, south of Hamilton Road in London, Ontario. Even though green “Zipper Merge” signs have been installed to encourage drivers to use both lanes up to the point where a closed lane ends, drivers continue to stay in the right lane. Many drivers, such as the driver the large truck in this view, purposely pull into the left lane to block any drivers attempting the use the left lane to speed past slow or stopped traffic.
The extent of exclusive usage of the right lane is obvious in the two additional frames shown below.
There are many problems that develop during this warfare, some that become dangerous. When the left lane is free of traffic the few vehicles that use that lane will travel at very high speeds because of the 100 km/h posted speed. This speed occurs just next to traffic that may be stopped in the right lane. At times drivers in the right lane decide to pull out of the right lane into the left lane, sometimes from a dead stop. This leads to very dangerous differences in speed that could lead to high speed crashes. This is just one of the problems that exists in construction zones that is not discussed.
Gorski Consulting has been monitoring the construction zone on Highbury Ave in London this past summer to gain some insight into some of the factors that lead to collisions in expressway construction zones. We hope to post additional articles on this issue on the Gorski Consulting website in the coming weeks.
Cyclist Critical Injuries on Path Illustrates Need For Proper Design & Maintenance
Two cyclists reportedly collided in a bike trail near Lakeshore (east of Windsor), Ontario on September 1, 2020, resulting in life-threatening injuries to one of them. Examination of the site on Google Maps indicates that it contains a severe lack of visibility around sharp curves that are bordered by a tall fence. Neither police nor official news media have provided any explanation whether these path features were related to the cyclists’ impact. Yet the presence of these deficiencies cannot be ignored.
The following three images are taken from Google Maps and they show are area on the bike trail where the collision occurred.
View of the collision site just east of Lakeshore, as indicated by the orange oval.
The two views below provide a view looking west toward the bike path. It can be seen that the path contains sharp curves and a fence that is located immediately next to the edge of the path. This combination would make it difficult for cyclists to see each other as they approach from opposite directions. The specific location where the impact occurred was likely just beyond the views shown in the figures below. Investigating police have not made images of the specific location available to the public. The Windsor Star has provided some images apparently showing two bicycles on the path with police conducting examinations but we are not allowed to show these photos.
View looking west toward the bike path that contains sharp curves that are boarded, extremely close to the path’s edge, by a tall fence.
Issues important to identifying road road safety problems must be made known to the general public but often they are not. In the present instance the investigating police have not provided basic information about how this collision occurred or what factors may have been relevant. Official news media can fill in some of the blanks with on-site photos but it is apparent that they also will not allow their photos to be shown except through their own outlets.
In this context information about serious injuries and deaths becomes a commodity, being sold and traded like pork bellies on the stock market with little regard to the right of the public to be informed about dangers that could kill them.
Wakaw Saskatchewan Fatal Collision Driver Wants Answers That Gorski Consulting Cannot Provide
Understandably the driver of the pick-up truck in the middle of this mayhem wants to know how and why this collision happened but we all work hard to make sure he will never know.
Jeff Helperl is a fortunate, unfortunate driver who survived the collision shown above where a transport truck reportedly rear-ended a line of stopped vehicles in a construction zone on Highway 41 near Wakaw Saskatchewan on August 25, 2020. He sent the above photo, along with the photo below, through social media, reportedly claiming that he wants to know how a transport truck could have caused this collision. He reportedly saw the truck travelling toward him just before the collision. A valid outcry amongst some is that this is a case that demonstrates more and better heavy-truck driver training is needed.
This photo, like the one above, was reportedly taken and submitted by Jeff Helperl, one of the drivers involved in this fatal collision.
As as road safety researcher and collision reconstruction consultant for the past 40 years I have turned to the internet for the past 10 years or so to provide some of my opinions drawn from my experience of investigating and reconstructing literally thousands of collisions. While I have conducted many investigations for hire by lawyers, insurance companies and private citizens, the advice that is given on the Gorski Consulting website is absolutely free and non-profit. Any website has to contain a degree of self-promotion but its has been my attempt, as much as possible, to give back to society as a whole, and to the very few, forgotten, unfortunate persons who have lost family members, friends or acquaintances to transportation tragedies. For drivers such as Jeff Helperl, or any others involved in this current tragedy, I would feel a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment to provide some answers.
In the official investigations/reconstructions that I have examined, after I have reviewed all police documentation including witness statements, my examinations of the vehicles and collision sites, and various testing, it comes to light that opportunities were missed to identify and collect crucial evidence that would have made determinations of cause so much easier. But in the context of seeing the very small tidbits of information about such collisions coming from the internet, whether from police, official news media or social networks, the problem becomes much more evident. The lack of information is blindingly vivid.
Like any other driver, Mr. Helperl deserves to know what happened in his collision. This is not just a personal need but there is also the right of the public to know what factors could be leading to their potential, future death. We may not all take heart pills but it should be our right to know when someone has died from taking such a medication because, one day, we may be in that same circumstance. The reasoning is no different in motor vehicle collisions. It should be our communal right to be provided with a correct and accurate explanation.
In the absence of such information I have attempted to comment where I can. This is a difficult matter because, even with decades of experience, it is often impossible to overcome the effects that a lack of information creates. While I can provide suspicions based on previous experience that is often not good enough to provide the explanations that the public needs and ought to have.
At the same time the absence of essential information does not stop others from commenting and influencing the understanding of what has taken place. In fact, with the advent of social media such as Twitter and Facebook, “fake news” becomes all that much more dominant. We have now formed tribes of peoples who do not converse with other tribes; we only communicate with our closed group of “friends” who share our own viewpoints. Rarely does it occur to us that our understandings could be biased because we do not allow opposing views to pass our mental filters. The conclusions about collision causes expressed by our friends simply consolidate the strong viewpoints we have already developed from evidence we do not have. There is a general lack of understanding that many are drawing conclusions from very sparse information yet we do not stop to consider that reality.
The unfortunate Humboldt Broncos, multi-fatality, bus collision of April, 2018 in Saskatchewan is a prominent example of the problem. Even though numerous news articles and television news programs have reached almost every Canadian, no one has questioned why crucial evidence has been kept from public knowledge. The official RCMP investigation report has never been made public. Yet the information gathered by the RCMP is unique. No one was in a position to identify and document the collision evidence. Some information provided by the RCMP during the truck driver’s trial showed that crucial errors appeared to exist in the analysis, such as the fact that the bus driver would appear to have started braking before he could see the truck, an action that should not have made any sense. The cause of the deaths of the hockey players in the bus was also never revealed or discussed. The roof of the bus was shown lying next to the bus yet there was no official comment or explanation why, an apparent undamaged roof, could simply be lying detached from the bus body. While my first belief was that the roof had been cut away by emergency personnel others have informed me that this is not so. Simple matters like these could be clarified through the viewing of the official RCMP investigation matters. But it appears that will never happen.
How could Mr. Helperl expect to understand what happened in his collision when such massive tragedies such as the Humboldt Broncos collision have provided such poor explanations? Mr. Helperl is likely the last person, along with any and all members of the public with no official standing, to know what factors led to his crash. The only saving grace is that he was able to post the two photos of the crash shown above, on his own, and thus allow independent persons such as myself to consider some basic possibilities. Even now I am conducting observational studies of traffic at a construction site in London, Ontario (Highbury Ave at Commissioners Road) to understand how rear-end impacts develop. A couple of articles about this work have already been posted on this Gorski Consulting website. Such work is not sponsored by anyone except myself. It does not go to any personal profit but only to improve my understanding of the underlying issues which I hope to discuss in the future. While deadly rear-end impacts keep recurring the uninformed public does what would be expected, it works with what information is available (which is essentially nothing) and draws conclusions. I would not expect anything else. An important issue such as someone’s death attracts the attention of many who seek explanations. But what we need is something better. We need education from objective evidence and explanations from independent experts who are not paid to provide the public with a fairy tale.
George Floyd & Masai Ujiri Demonstrate Just How Much Objective Evidence Matters
Objective evidence is a huge equalizer to achieving justice, not just in assessment of motor vehicle collisions but in far wider circles.
Can we imagine what the situation would have been like if there was no one to videotape the murder of George Floyd? Or even the less consequential, even though disgusting, treatment of the Toronto Raptors basketball team President Masai Ujiri last year after his celebrations were corrupted by a bullying security officer? It was the ability to provide an objective account of these events via videotape that allowed everyone the opportunity see what actually transpired, rather than what someone would be willing to convince us of what transpired. We spend many years of life molding the filters of bias upon our personal mirror such that it reflects only what we wish to see. And in many of us there is no blindness greater than of those who refuse to see.
Unfortunately, these events have also taken place in the realm of motor vehicle collision analysis and judgment. Police and courts that have accepted the subjective evidence of witnesses who have claimed to see things without objective verification. The danger of such actions has been known and warnings have existed for decades, yet there has been no change. We are now, possibly, at a crossroad where the calls for change may require that objective evidence, such as that provided by videotape, be brought into the assessment.
Similarly, the data from event data recorders (“black boxes”) has been available to the select few since the year 2000. Yet the average driver, or vehicle owner, has had no chance of obtaining that data in their own defence – it is merely used by those who have deep pockets and who can afford the costs of the hardware and consulting fees to obtain the data. Government agencies, research institutes, insurers and police have had the opportunity to use that data but not the average citizen.
There are many persons today that are walking, or lying, in the shoes of George Floyd and Masai Ujiri. And not necessarily because their skin is black but because they are victimized. They are victimized because it is our choice to remain silent. They are victimized because they do not have the resources to defend themselves. If we are truly objective we will recognize that victimization knows no bounds in colour of skin, race, sexual orientation and so many other divisions of life. In that regard individual members of the police can also be just as victimized. But it is the police culture toward the black community that must change. It is many other cultures that also must change.
In our view the only one of the two who can speak right now, Ujiri, has provided a profound statement that we are compelled to repeat below:
“The video sadly demonstrates how horribly I was treated by a law enforcement officer last year in the midst of my team, the Toronto Raptors, winning its first world championship. It was an exhilarating moment of achievement for our organization, for our players, for our city, for our country, and for me personally, given my long-tenured professional journey in the NBA. Yet, unfortunately, I was reminded in that moment that despite all of my hard work and success, there are some people, including those who are supposed to protect us, who will always and only see me as something that is unworthy of respectful engagement. And, there’s only one indisputable reason why that is the case – because I am Black.
What saddens me most about this ordeal is that the only reason why I am getting the justice I deserve in this moment is because of my success. Because I’m the President of a NBA team, I had access to resources that ensured I could demand and fight for my justice. So many of my brothers and sisters haven’t had, don’t have, and won’t have the same access to resources that assured my justice. And that’s why Black Lives Matter.
And that’s why it’s important for all of us to keep demanding justice. Justice for George. Justice for Breonna. Justice for Elijah. Justice for far too many Black lives that mattered. And justice for Black people around the world, who need our voice and our compassion to save their lives.
Those are the ties that bind us.”
Speed Can Be Irrelevant In Injury Causation
Was this vehicle travelling “fast” or was it involved in a high-severity impact? Is there a difference? Does the difference matter?
While the title of this article sounds completely wrong it is an important lesson to understand why it is mostly right.
It is never convenient to discuss the results of real-life motor vehicle tragedies because they always involve real people. Yet a failure to educate ourselves from these results often leads to future tragedies that could otherwise be prevented.
The lesson in the present article is an attempt to clarify a common misunderstanding that the travel speed of a vehicle is what causes injury. In other words, if you are travelling faster you will sustain a higher severity of injury. This fallacy has been growing deeper roots in some recent research and has been picked up by news media resulting in unreasonable demands for policy change that hinders true improvements in road safety.
The above photo shows a recent tragic scenario where an SUV carrying 3 occupants crashed into a tree on Webb Road in Durham, Ontario resulting in one fatality. The photo of the vehicle at its final rest position shows that its driver’s door was pressed against the large tree and there was massive crush into the driver’s seating area. Most persons looking at the photo would conclude that the SUV must have been travelling at a tremendous speed in order to cause the resulting damage. In reality these views of the vehicle cannot be used to draw that conclusion.
Let us examine a typical scenario where an SUV is travelling on a typical Ontario highway with a posted maximum speed of 80 km/h. Let us say that we know its speed was 100 km/h. As it passes through a curve the driver loses directional control of the vehicle and it begins to rotate while the driver steers left and right to regain control. This action may take place over a distance of 100 metres. While this “yawing” motion is taking place the vehicle is losing speed, often at a rate between 0.2 and 0.4 g. Taking an average of 0.3 g in that distance of 100 metres the vehicle would lose a speed of about 87 km/h. The vehicle then strikes a tree with its driver’s door and the vehicle comes to rest against the tree. The relatively low speed of impact results in relatively minor damage but because the tree is pressed against the driver’s window, and because the driver’s body moves toward the point of the application of the force, the driver’s head strikes the tree and the driver dies. Looking at the minor damage to the vehicle many would scratch their heads and say “there must be something wrong here. A driver should not die from such a low speed impact”.
We then look at a second example, the same SUV is driving the same road at 100 km/h in wintertime and the same loss-of-control takes place due to an icy road surface. Because of the ice the vehicle might slow down at a rate of only 0.05g over the 100-metre distance. Calculating the speed loss we obtain about 36 km/h and the vehicle is still travelling at about 64 km/h when it strikes the tree. But due to the luck of chance the impact occurs just behind the driver’s door and the massive intrusion to the structure is located behind where the driver is seated. The driver survives and everyone wonders: “Wow, how could this person survive such a high speed impact?”.
What can we learn from these results?
In both instances the SUV was travelling at the same speed. But in the first instance the vehicle lost a substantial amount of that speed due to its sliding on a surface that was able to dissipate (remove) its kinetic energy. Thus the initial speed of the vehicle was not relevant. What was relevant was the speed when it struck the tree. Not only was the impact speed an issue, but also the location of the application of the force: directly at where the driver was seated.
In the second impact the SUV’s speed was not reduced appreciably before the tree impact and the impact speed was much higher. But because the impact was behind the seated position of the driver the crush or structural intrusion was not applied into where the driver was seated. The collision appears to be very severe but the driver survives.
This illustrates the fallacy of using initial speed of a vehicle in discussing the danger of sustaining significant injury. The initial speed in not the important factor, it is the impact speed that is important. Furthermore it is the change-in-speed that is important. As we dig deeper we then begin to add the fact that it is how quickly that change-in-speed occurs that is the critical factor. And we then add that it is also the direction of force, the existence of pre-impact rotation, and so on, that need to be taken into consideration.
Now, before ending this discussion we need to clarify some additional points. When we talk about injury causation we do not discuss change-in-speed. Instead we use the term “change-in-velocity”. Speed is a scalar term that does not give an indication of the direction of that speed. Velocity is a vector and is a more complete term because it has the associated direction applied to its definition. So a speed may be “100 km/h”, while a velocity would be “100 km/h in a north-west direction”. The directional component is an important matter that cannot be ignored.
We then need to add that it is not the change-in-velocity that is relevant but how quickly that change-in-velocity occurs. So this is where we introduce acceleration. Acceleration is the rate-of-change in velocity.
And further still be might add that the change-in-velocity or acceleration experienced by the body of the vehicle is not the same as the change-in-velocity or acceleration experienced by the occupant inside the vehicle.
These are just some of the basic and simple issues that need to be understood when discussing injury potential and the travel speed of a vehicle. We need to understand that we cannot equate travel speed with injury causation. There is no direct relationship between these terms. The title of this article is somewhat misleading because, indeed, if you are travelling 100 km/h you possess the potential ingredient for causing serious injury and death. But it is not true that you will sustain serious injury or fatal injuries just because of that travel speed. The issue is more complicated than that.
Another issue that has been prominent in recent fatal collisions is the issue of initial speed, structural separation and injury causation. This point is highlighted by two attention-grabbing collisions that occurred, one Edmonton Alberta, and one in Toronto Ontario the past couple of months.
In an article that was posted to this website on July 5, 2020 we attempted to explain that three occupants of an Audi were killed after impacting a Starbucks retail outlet, not because of the vehicle’s speed, but because of the disintegration of the vehicle’s structure. Again, this was meant to highlight the important issue that we need to look at the severity of the impact in terms of the change-in-velocity experienced by the vehicle. When there is a lack of evidence showing that a large amount of kinetic energy was dissipated we need to ask more questions about why a fatality occurs.
This concern was repeated once again in another Audi impact that occurred in Toronto, Ontario. The driver of an Audi lost directional control of the vehicle and it rotated into the path of a Jeep SUV. It appeared to all involved that the speed of the Audi, as its driver lost directional control of the vehicle, was all that mattered. The fact that the Audi separated into two pieces seemed acceptable because the Audi was travelling at a high speed.
While the last views of the Audi appear to show an unsurvivable amount of destruction, the driver reportedly survived as well as one of the three occupants. So how severe was this impact? Vehicle occupants die because they are involved in collisions where a vehicle sustains a high change-in-velocity. Did this Audi sustain a high change-in-velocity. If so, why did two of the three occupants survive?
Many vehicles contain weak points in their structure. When a vehicle is struck in the side, in the manner suggested in these photos, structural separations occur. Not just today, or yesterday, or last year, or 10 years ago. Vehicles have been separating like this since they began to be manufactured as unibodies.
We do not have the privilege of examining the details of this crash. Only the investigating police have that opportunity. This leaves us at a disadvantage as we can only use the photos of the damage and the vehicle rest positions to support our comments. However collisions of this type often happen in a recurring manner. When a vehicle rotates out-of-control, it travels into the opposing lane while continuing that rotation. The manner of contact to the vehicle’s side is not the same as the scenario encountered in an intersection collision. Nor is it in the manner in which vehicle crashworthiness is tested in government crash tests. It is likely that the pre-impact rotation of the loss-of-control vehicle is part of that difference. It has also been observed that the direction of the impact force contains a component that involves “sliding” or sideswiping across the struck surface. The combination of these factors leads to a loading of the side structure in a manner that causes the separations observed in the Edmonton and Toronto collisions. This weakness in the vehicle structures causes massive destruction that, to the average onlooker, appears to be consistent with a high speed of a vehicle and the crashworthiness of the structure is never questioned.
To summarize, it is an attention-grabbing comment to suggest that speed is not relevant to injury causation. In one way the comment is in error because it is the speed which provides the potential for injury causation. But we must be careful to understand that speed alone is not the critical factor. It is what happens to a vehicle’s motion during an impact that matters in injury causation. And it is what happens to the body of the vehicle occupant which makes contact with the vehicle interior that matters in injury causation. These issues may be completely irrelevant to the ground speed of the vehicle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.