Speed Is Not What Killed 3 Audi Passengers In Edmonton Crash
Speed likely contributed to a loss-of-control of the Audi but it was the “Can-Opener” separation of its structure that was likely a major factor in the deaths of three of its occupants in a July 3, 2020 Edmonton Alberta crash.
The results of vast numbers of controlled crashes performed by various government agencies and research institutions shows that a vehicle travelling at 50 km/h will sustain about 40 centimetres of crush on its front end when it strikes an immovable barrier. This is a classic demonstration of the kinetic energy that exists while a vehicle is in motion and how that energy must be dissipated (“gotten rid of”) in order to come to rest.
In a vast number of real-life, single vehicle collisions, a vehicle is usually travelling too fast as it rounds a curve and the driver begins to take braking and steering actions when the vehicle begins to go out of control. During this long time and distance speed (and kinetic energy) is lost as the vehicle yaws (fish-tails or drifts) about its vertical axis. Next an impact occurs and more speed (and more kinetic energy) is lost. Finally the vehicle is redirected by the impact and slides or tumbles for an additional time and distance to its final rest position as all of its speed (and all of its kinetic energy) is lost at final rest.
In modern times investigators can simply download event data from an event data recorder (EDR or “black box”) in order to find out precise information about what happened during a crash. But that information is never made available to news agencies and the public. Instead what the public is told is that speed, alcohol or driver distraction were likely factors in the crash long before any objective data is analysed from the EDR . If other factors were involved the public will never know about them.
In the above photo we can estimate what speed might have been involved independent of any data from the EDR. The traditional method is to work backwards from the final rest position of the vehicle and consider how much kinetic energy could have been dissipated along each step of the vehicle’s motion leading back to where the incident began. The primary issue of interest in the present scenario is the conclusion that the vehicle’s speed caused the deaths of three of the vehicle’s four occupants (the driver apparently survived). Let us say that someone believed the vehicle was travelling at the excessive speed of 80 km/h when it struck the Starbucks building.
Working backwards from the vehicle’s final rest position we might estimate that the vehicle travelled about a car length from its point of impact with the Starbucks building to its final rest position. Even if all 4 wheels were locked during this motion of about 5 metres a speed only about 30 km/h would be lost. If all of the vehicle’s four wheels were not locked (more likely scenario) and a deceleration equal to only 2 wheels being locked is applied, the speed loss becomes only about 25 km/h. So where does the remaining (80-30) speed loss come from? It must come from the evidence of damage to the car and destruction of the building. That becomes more complicated because we do not know the characteristics of the buildings structure. But given that Sir Issac Newton has told us that forces in an impact must be equal and opposite, we can judge that the severity of the damage on the car must provide some clue as to the severity of the impact and the speed lost.
One clue is to review the numerous results of other impacts where a vehicle has crashed into a modern, retail or residential building. This is common in parking lots or city streets when a driver mistakes the accelerator pedal for the brake. We see numerous photos of such instances where there appears to be considerable breakage of glass and bricks but the car remains relatively “uncrushed” and the driver is only shook up.
These numerous instances tell of the nature of the structure of these buildings and the fact that they are brittle and fall apart at relatively low forces. It is known that vehicles have weak spots that when struck can cause the structure to rupture/separate. This is rarely discussed as many persons who are responsible for driver safety would have much explaining to do.
The characteristics of the damage to the Audi in the Edmonton crash have not been discussed but are not consistent with a high speed at the time of contact with the building. Such a high speed impact should have demonstrated itself in more damage to the building.
While it may be true that the Audi was speeding at the time that its driver lost control in the curve, much of its speed could have been lost on approach to the impact with the Starbucks building. Other critical facts such as the use of seat-belts would also need to be known to understand why the three occupants of this vehicle sustained their fatal injuries.
In an assessment of what matters, it is important to recognize the difference between what caused a collision and what caused the injuries to the occupants inside the striking vehicle. The causes are rarely the same. In any impact there are at least two impacts. The first is between the vehicle and its environment (another vehicle, a tree, a building etc.). The second impact is between the occupant and the vehicle interior (unless there is a complete, undisturbed ejection). One might also continue to note that a third impact might be between the body and individual organs ( such as an aorta tear during high deceleration). Approaches such as these can help investigators in recognizing what factors need to be considered in any collision reconstruction.
High Speed Rollover on Williams Parkway in Brampton Can Be Educational
A seemingly spectacular video clip has been shown of a car going out of control on Williams Parkway in Brampton, Ontario, crashing through a roadside fence, rolling over multiple times and striking a parked car. The best that can be said is that no one was killed, although that itself could be classified as a modern miracle. Many crashes on any professional racing circuit are not much more dramatic. However such videos can attract the attention of many admirers who might think this could be fun: “If this driver could do it maybe I can too”. While this is complete foolishness it is also an opportunity to grasp the attention of these admirers and provide a step-by-step analysis of why this is not to be admired. Over and over again we have opportunities like these to explain the cause of serious injury and death but we do not. It is not a case of freightening speeders but providing them with objective, scientific information as, in many instances, reducing ignorance can be a road safety tool.
Is Speeding In Toronto OK If You Are Rich?
Starting on July 6th no demerit points will be added if you are caught by Toronto’s speed cameras, only a fine will apply. So If you are the owner of a Ferrari and you have some wealth, will you care if you have to pay a $600 fine? Likely not. But the owner of a beat-up, old, economy car will likely feel the pinch. This is the problem.
It is not like the politicians in Toronto are not aware of the discrepancy, but do they have a reasonable explanation why it exists? Are the news media independent enough to raise this question?
Since demerit points may be the only way to affect rich drivers, is there some way to apply demerit points to owners? Perhaps this could influence those owners to be more judicious about who drives their vehicle. If not, congratulations to all you rich people, you won the traffic lottery!
Results From Bicycle Speed Observations on Trafalgar Road Path
This cyclist travelling at over 33 km/h into a sharp left & right curve could not see more than 20 metres ahead of him due to the design of the multi-use path.
On June 2, 2020 Gorski Consulting conducted multiple-video camera documentations of northbound cyclists travelling along the City of London multi-use path approaching the underpass at Trafalgar Road. Video analysis has now been completed and the results have been summarized in an article entitled “Speed of Recreational Cyclists on Down-slope of Trafalgar Bike Path” which can be accessed via the link below:
Observations From Mother & 3-Child Fatal Collision in Brampton
The following are some preliminary observations from the tragic death of a family at the intersection of Countryside Drive and Torbram Road in Brampton yesterday afternoon. It was reported that an eastbound Infiniti, being driven by a 20-year-old male, on Countryside Drive, collided with a Volkswagen Atlas SUV that was travelling north on Torbram Road. A 37-year-old female driver of the Honda was killed as well as her three children. The driver of the Infiniti reportedly sustained critical injuries.
The focus of the news media attention has been on reports that, just before the collision, a Peel Regional Police officer was westbound on Countryside Drive and observed the Infiniti. As police chases are a lightning rod for public debate the focus has been on whether these collision events were related to a police chase. Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has taken over the investigation with respect to the police involvement in the incident. The focus has also been on the driving record of the Infiniti driver and the probable likelihood that it was he who entered the intersection on a red signal. These matters are relevant but they are not the only issues.
As has been observed over numerous tragic incidents, the public’s attention is easily drawn away from important matters that never become revealed. In the present circumstance, while the police involvement may be an important and separate issue, similarly the Infiniti driver’s actions, absolutely no attention has been focused on the fact that all four occupants of the VW SUV perished and whether this outcome was acceptable and inevitable. Investigators who are experienced in the assessment of injury in motor vehicle collisions understand that it is rare to encounter a situation where multiple fatalities occur in a single vehicle and particularly more rare that all four occupants would die in one vehicle. Such circumstances can occur when a vehicle catches fire or enters a body of water where there is no opportunity to escape the vehicle interior, but not from the force of impact.
In most instances vehicle occupants die because they are exposed to very large collision forces that are applied over a very short time. Such forces do not exist equally in all parts of a vehicle such that different occupants sustain different collision forces, partly because of where they are seated with respect to the application of the impact force on the vehicle. Thus in a side impact, such as the one experienced by the VW SUV, the occupants on the opposite (right) side of the SUV would experience substantially less risk of death than those on the left where there is the crush and possible intrusion into the occupant space. Looking at the photos of the crush on the VW SUV it is obvious that the Infiniti made contact in the soft zone between the left-front and left-rear wheels. Photos do not provide a good opportunity to know the depth of the penetration into the side but it does appear to be substantial. Alternatively, because of the low front end of the Infiniti and the higher-than-average height of the SUV, much of the crush is at a low level and below the critical pelvic-chest regions of typical seated passengers. So that substantial crush is not as dangerous than if the VW SUV was struck by a vehicle with a higher front end, like a pick-up truck for example.
Next, we can consider the crush on the front end of the Infiniti. Again, there is significant crush but it is not massive. And this is expected given that the front end of the Infiniti would be stiffer than the side of the VW SUV. Thus the driver of the Infiniti benefited from striking the soft side structure of the VW SUV and, by all rights, should have suffered only minor to moderate injuries in a scenario of proper seat-belt use and air bag deployment. The fact that he reportedly sustained critical injuries is unusual except that there appear to be dark regions on the Infiniti’s hood and windshield possibly indicating the ignition of a fire. This fact has simply gone over the heads of the news media.
Before the existence of event data recorders collision reconstructionists had to use evidence such as post-impact travel distances, angles of departure, crush measurements and other details to sort out vehicle speeds and collision severity. While in theory police and others must continue to consider such evidence, the practical reality is that reconstructionists immediately rush to the “Black Box” to download the collision data. Thus the knowledge and artistry of understanding physical evidence becomes placed further and further into the background.
What can be said about the deaths in this tragic incident is that they are suspicious, particularly for the child deaths. As mentioned, the crush on the side of the VW SUV is substantial but its maximum is at a low level and the relevant crush at the occupant level is not as dire. When we add the fact that the children should have been in child seats or perhaps on a booster cushion, such arrangements should greatly improve a child’s ability to survive very extreme collision forces. The crush on the side of the VW SUV is not consistent with the fatal consequences experienced by all four occupants of the vehicle. Clearly some of these occupants should have survived.
While there was a concrete lamp standard that fell diagonally across the right front corner of the vehicle such a result appears to be deadly to the inexperienced eye. Yet, in reality, the roof zone of light vehicles is extremely soft and easily crushed. Thus the crush caused by the pole would only be relevant to an occupant seated in the right front seat, if indeed there was an occupant seated there even, due to the age of the children, there should not have been a child seated in that seat. While there are no good views showing the amount of crush caused to the VW SUV by the pole impact it would also not be expected to be a major factor in causing the deaths to the children.
In totality, this is truly a tragic incident, much as was expressed by the Mayor of the City of Brampton and the Premier of Ontario. But it is a greater tragedy when the public does not understand what caused it. Not from the standpoint of who entered the intersection on a red signal, but because there is no interest in understanding why the four occupants perished and that, even at very high impact speeds, modern vehicles are capable of preventing death, and should have prevented at least some of the deaths in this tragedy. But this is a hot flame that no one has the courage to touch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.