A Focus Beyond Lucky Results In Potential Vehicular Drownings
Whenever a vehicle enters a body of water the consequences can be deadly. Especially in winter conditions. Such a result requires an investigation into how and why the vehicle got there in the first place.
The OPP West Region Twitter account recently posted the following comment along with the above photo:
“No injuries sustained in single vehicle collision in Perth County this morning. Driver and puppy passenger safely rescued. Fantastic teamwork…”
There is little doubt that there are citizens who owe a debt of gratitude to rescuers who have saved their lives in potential drowning scenarios. And a happy result such as this should be publicized. However this cannot be the full story.
The design, signage and maintenance of our roadways have followed many decades of improving standards and those standards must be adhered to for obvious safety reasons. Standards exist for design of roads, installation of appropriate signage and installation of roadside barriers to prevent the many very dangerous roadway consequences that can occur. In many instances when a vehicle enters a body of water it is because of some failure of the design, signage or maintenance of a road, and not just due to a driver error.
When the OPP provides only scant information about a situation like this an important opportunity is lost. Not only to inform future drivers of this danger but also to allow others to evaluate whether the site contains an adequate level of safety.
The photo below is taken from Google Maps and this shows the area on Perth County Road 29, northwest of Stratford, Ontario, where the vehicle entered the water. The present view is looking north. Unfortunately the OPP did not indicate which direction the vehicle was travelling and this makes it difficult to evaluate how the vehicle may have entered the water. However the most likely situation is that the vehicle was southbound, approaching the camera, and slid toward the left of the view into the water.![]()
The views from Google Maps often under-represent the extent of roadway upgrades and downgrades. While not having attended this location before it is likely that there is a substantial downgrade in the road for vehicles approaching the camera and so this is likely the situation that the vehicle driver experienced upon approaching the bridge.
Unfortunately the OPP also did not provide a description of the surface road conditions. The road surface looks newly paved in the above view and Google views are reasonably recent so it is likely that the road surface was in relatively good condition at the time of this incident. Yet environmental conditions can change all that. Even a thin layer of snow or ice can make travel down a downgrade very hazardous. It may be that the driver lost control because of icy or snowy road surface conditions but the lack of information from the OPP does not help in educating us of that possibility.
The concrete abutments of the bridge are not protected by an end treatment or guardrail that might deflect vehicles away from the immovable concrete or from travelling into the water. That is a problem. It may be argued by Perth County that such protections are not warranted, perhaps because the volume of traffic using the roadway is low. But we do not know. No one could possibly know what the traffic volume is for this roadway except the County of Perth. And this is another problem. Since the County is the defendant in any civil litigation related to roadway deficiencies in their jurisdiction, they are unlikely to be helpful in any way that might expose them to liability and financial penalties. So the public has little knowledge whether barriers should have been installed at this site.
The only other entity that must have some knowledge about the safety of the site is the OPP themselves. However the OPP is paid by the Ontario government which is also a defendant in many civil claims related to roadway deficiencies. So the OPP, just like many police forces in Ontario are not trained to detect road safety problems even when they may involve deadly consequences.
So in many instances the general public is left on its own without assistance from the official entities that should be protecting its rights to safe travel on public highways. Lucky results are well publicized but bad results, leading to someone being held accountable, are not.
High Publicity Crashes in London Neighbourhoods – What Does The Public Know About Them?
High publicity crashes in quiet neighbourhoods of London, Ontario create many uninformed conversations “around the dinner table”. But rarely is enough information available for the public to develop an informed opinion as to causes or what needs to be changed or corrected. Here are some recent examples.
Woodman Ave House Impact & Gas Explosion
It was reported that shortly after 2230 hours on August 14, 2019 a single car began travelling the wrong way, eastbound, on the one-way Queens Ave near Quebec Street in London. As the vehicle passed through the block between Quebec St and Woodman Ave, Queens Ave became a two-way roadway therefore it could not be viewed as travelling the wrong way. Eastward Queens Ave terminated at a T-intersection at Woodman Ave, as shown in the Google Maps view below. The vehicle passed through the Woodman intersection and it entered the driveway between two homes on the opposite side of the road. The vehicle struck the gas meter of one of the houses. Emergency personnel were able to remove neighbours from their homes before there was a massive explosion that destroyed several houses. Although no one was killed a firefighter sustained serious injuries as a result of the blast.
The photo below captures some of the dramatic events following the explosion as several houses were leveled and fires had to be contained.
![]()
The distance along Queens Ave between Quebec St and Woodman Ave was only about 75 metres. Thus, if the vehicle had made a turn from Quebec St to travel eastward toward Woodman it would be unusual that the vehicle would accelerate to a very high speed.
The City of London reports that Quebec Street has a traffic volume of about 12,000 while Queens Ave has about 5,500 per day. It would seem to be a substantial coincidence that a vehicle travelling the wrong way on Queens and then passes through the intersection of Quebec Street without stopping should escape being involved in an impact with another vehicle. While the incident reportedly occurred at 2230 hours and therefore not at peak time, substantial numbers of vehicles should still be on those roads. But no one has questioned this further.
It was never reported whether the vehicle was travelling at a high speed when it struck the gas metre or whether the result was just due to misfortune. The reports indicated that six emergency personnel were injured along with one citizen but it was not known whether the citizen was the driver of the striking vehicle. Regardless, the injuries of the lone citizen were described as minor and this suggests that the severity of the impact, in terms of the change in velocity, was not large. This fact does not necessarily provide an indication of the ground speed of the vehicle and so this is another area of uncertainty.
Even two days after the blast the area remained closed to the public as clean-up operations were taking place, as shown below.
Two days after the blast an area of blood was located on Queens Ave near the intersection of Quebec Street, as shown in the photo below. The blood pattern indicated that the injured party was moving on the road from the right to the left where he briefly paused resulting in the large quantity of blood on the road. Efforts to cover the wound likely led to the temporary reduction in deposited blood as the person moved onto the roadway curb in the background of the photo. There the injured party likely remained depositing blood on the curb likely before being transported by emergency personnel. Blood deposits are frequently seen at collision sites but not in the magnitude shown in the photo. It is likely that this was related to the injured firefighter who reportedly sustained serious injuries.
A great deal of interest was generated surrounding this crash which was reported throughout Canada. However little or no information was provided with respect to the actions of the driver other than she was a female who was allegedly driving impaired. The word impaired can mean many things, including such simple things like being drowsy from lack of sleep, effects from taking prescription medication or from some form of medical condition. So such descriptions when they are reported by news media provide little help in understanding what was involved. Additional media reports confirmed that the woman driver was allegedly impaired by alcohol.
However even impaired drivers do not always pass through a T-intersection at high speed. The termination of a roadway is quite obvious particularly on urban streets when lighting is of reasonable quality. Below is a Google Maps view of the T-intersection before it was damaged from the explosion. Directly in front of the vehicle’s travel path, located on the far side of the intersection, is a utility pole which has a cobra-head style street lamp. Thus if the lamp was functioning it should have provided substantial visibility of the roadway features indicating the termination of the road.
A similar utility pole is seen on the left side of the photo and this also contained a street lamp which should have illuminated the area of the two stop signs, one on each of the curbs at the T-intersection.
Although the driver may have been impaired, as alleged, no one has questioned whether any of these street lamps were functioning at the time of the crash. The public is quick at being satisfied that the only fact that matters is that a driver was impaired and no further inquiry is necessary. This is how secondary safety problems are not identified which could prevent some collisions, even when a driver is impaired.
A gas metre was located within the driveway located directly in line with the centreline of Queens Ave. To have reached the gas metre the vehicle would have had to veer slightly to the left (somewhat across the centreline of Queens Ave) in order to avoid making direct contact with the houses and allow the vehicle to penetrate into the driveway sufficiently to reach the gas metre. Such facts could be relevant in understanding how and why this driver ended up directing the vehicle along its path.
A safety audit of a roadway should detect the possibility that drivers could pass through a stop sign of a T-intersection as this is not an uncommon occurrence. Those with knowledge of the causes of collisions and their consequences could have detected that the gas metre was exposed to impact at the present site. Many transportation agencies do not conduct enough road inspections and when they do the inspectors do not have sufficient training and experience to detect dangers such as exposed gas metres.
The female driver is scheduled to appear in court on a variety of charges and this will take place over many months, and perhaps years, into the future. When such appearances are held at distant times from the actual incident the public’s interest is lost and few persons remain attached to the story. While further details may be revealed during those court proceedings that is not guaranteed. Many times when a driver pleads guilty no additional information is released and the public is left uneducated.
Wilson Ave (Blackfriars Neighbourhood) Impact of Multiple Buildings
On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at approximately 0330 hours a white Mercedes vehicle was travelling northward along Wilson Ave and approaching the T-intersection at Blackfriars Street in the west-central area of London. A Google Maps view of the neighbourhood is shown below.
As the vehicle approached the intersection at Blackfriars it veered to the left travelling onto the left roadside. It struck a utility pole and then impacted the wall of a commercial a building. It was then deflected and passed through the T-intersection and struck a house on the far side of the intersection. The driver of the Mercedes was reportedly uninjured.
The collision site was visited on the following afternoon. The photo below is a view looking northward along Wilson Ave toward the T-intersection of Blackfriars Street in the background. A mound of earth at the base of the utility pole in the foreground indicates this was one of the two that were struck down and replaced. The vehicle travelled past this pole and collided with the side of the commercial building causing extensive damage. At the T-intersection in the background a house has been boarded up where the vehicle impacted it and came to its final rest position.
The photo below shows the boarded up wall and windows of the commercial building that was struck. Across the T-intersection, in the background, is the struck house where the vehicle came to rest.
The photo below shows a detached wheel that was located in the confines of the barricaded commercial building. This wheel is of a larger size indicating that the striking vehicle was more likely a larger, light truck like an SUV rather than a typical passenger car.
The photo below is looking northward across the T-intersection and toward the boarded up house that was struck at the vehicle’s final rest position.
The photo below is a view looking southward from the T-intersection at Blackfriars Street. This view provides an indication of the length of Wilson Ave as the vehicle would have been approaching the camera position.
The photo below is another view looking northward along Wilson Ave, but zoomed in so that far away distances appear to be closer. Above and to the right of the parked vehicles an orange circle has been created to highlight the presence of a warning sign indicating the presence of a speed bump. The location of that bump is highlighted by a second orange circle on the road surface. One can see that, when there are parked cars, the warning sign is not very visible. And from a distance the speed bump itself is also not very visible.
The photo below takes up closer to the speed bump and now we can see the warning sign past the parked white van.![]()
A closer view of the speed bump is shown in the photo below. There are some markings on the bump indicating that the underside of previous vehicles has made contact with the bump.
However in the close-up view shown below it can be seen that the markings on the bump are old and are not related to a contact that would have occurred one or two days prior. This is an interesting point.
This bump was of sufficient elevation that the undersides of some previous vehicles made contact with it. Yet, the Mercedes that travelled over the bump did not make contact with its underside. Yet, from the damage to the utility poles and buildings it is clear that the Mercedes was travelling at a very high speed, perhaps at highway speed. So if the Mercedes was travelling at highway speed when it passed over this bump, why did its underside not make contact with the bump? Is it because the vehicle had a very high suspension? Or is there another explanation?
The photo below shows another view looking northward and the orange circle and curved arc show the location of a faint, light-coloured line in the pavement that led to the impacted pole in the background. This line was clearly made by the striking vehicle and it indicated that, from the position of the orange circle the Mercedes was already rotating counter-clockwise. It is not clear whether the mark was caused by one of the vehicle’s right side tires or perhaps by the rim of one of those tires.
Now, let us examine some measurements. The distance from the struck utility pole to the start of the light-coloured arc on the road surface was at least 20 metres. The distance from the speed bump to the beginning of the light-coloured arc was about 106 metres. Let us assume for the moment that the Mercedes was travelling at 90 km/h when it crossed the speed bump and that it did not lose any speed up to the point where it began creating the light-coloured arc. At 90 km/h the Mercedes travels about 25 metres every second, so it travels the distance of 106 metres in about 4 seconds. Is it possible that, by crossing over the speed bump at high speed something happened which resulted in the vehicle beginning to produce the noted mark on the pavement and that the Mercedes began to rotate counter-clockwise from this crossing? From previous investigations such a time of 4 seconds is not unusual.
But why would the Mercedes be travelling over the speed bump at highway speed? This is not the only speed bump on the road. In fact, another bump exists about 140 metres to the south. And there are other speed bumps further to the south of that. So is it possible that the Mercedes keeps travelling over all these speed bumps at highway speed? Or does the driver go slowly over the previous speed bumps, than believes that there are no more and then accelerates hard in the 140 metres before he encounters the last speed bump that he was not expecting? One cannot say.
However it leads to the question of how effective speed bumps can be when a driver is reckless or speeding because of some other motivation, such as attempting to avoid police.
While speed bumps may be effective in slowing the speed of the average driver that may not be what we are trying to accomplish. It would seem that we would be interested in having an effect on the actions of reckless and dangerous drivers who are likely to endanger the lives of average citizens on the roads or roadsides. But if these reckless drivers drive over speed bumps at highway speed what good are the bumps in providing this additional safety?
This is an incident that requires further details that are not available. The details may be available to investigating police but those details do not reach the general public. And it is the general public that decides who represents them by way of elected officials and what those representatives are expected to do. And without the details and a good explanation of what caused this collision (and similar collisions), members of the public with strong opinions (and not much understanding) sway the direction in which counter-measures take place.
Jalna Boulevard House Impact
In the early morning hours of February 21, 2020, it was reported that, after stealing a pick-up truck, three occupants of the vehicle were reportedly involved in two impacts, one involving a police cruiser. Later, at approximately 0300 hours the pick-up truck was travelling along a curve of Jalna Boulevard, just west of Sholto Drive in south London when the vehicle veered to the left, off the road surface, and struck a house. The truck then rolled over and came to rest, upside down, on top of a parked vehicle. All three occupants fled the collision site but were later arrested.
A photo of Jalna Boulevard and the surrounding neighbourhood is shown in the Google Maps view shown below. The orange circle shows the location where the vehicle struck the house.
A closer view of the area of impact is shown below. Again, the orange circle identifies the location of the struck house.
The Google Maps view shown below shows the street view of the curve of Jalna Boulevard. As the vehicle was rounding the curve in the background it travelled toward the outside of the curve and struck the house.
The photo below shows the curve about 12 hours after the collision. There were no tire marks visible on the road surface. The vehicle exited the roadway at the approximate location just past the two blue-recycling boxes located on the left curb.
The photo below shows the tire marks in the snowbank created as the vehicle rotated counter-clockwise toward the house. Further tire marks are visible on the driveway in the background.
The tire marks can be seen in the driveway, in the photo below, as the vehicle continued toward its impact with the house in the background. Looking at the tire marks one might believe that they were caused by the left and right side tires of the vehicle but this is incorrect. The tire mark to the left was caused by the right front tire while the one on the right side of the photo was caused by the right rear tire. This is because, as the vehicle rotated, it was sliding with its right side leading in the direction it was travelling.
The close-up view of the tire mark caused by the right rear tire shows typical, diagonal, striations within the mark. Such striations indicate that the tire is rotating at the time that it is also sliding. The angle of the striations within the tire marks can indicate further details such as whether the tire was being accelerated or braked when the mark was being made.
Another view of the right rear tire mark is shown in the photo below. Here we can see that the asphalt has been gouged along the right side of the tire mark. Such gouging is typical when a tire is pulled off of the rim and the wheel rim begins to make contact with surface. When such gouges occur there is greater resistance to motion and this often begins the process of vehicle rollover.
The classic sign of rim gouging is very obvious in the close-up view of the right rear tire mark shown in the photo below.
Overall, the collision scene showed a very dramatic conclusion the event as the red pick-up truck was found lying upside down on top of a white parked car. This chaos drew the attention of many television viewers, newspaper readers and social media sites. In reality the collision with the house was not of a severe nature in terms of the change-in-velocity that is related in injury causation. Ye the property damage, much like in the previous two examples, was large and costly.
Discussion and Summary
This review of three, high-publicity collisions that recently occurred in London, Ontario demonstrates that some drivers are very divergent from the rest of the population in terms of the recklessness of their actions. While there are attempts throughout North America and beyond to create levels of safety with the idealistic hope of bringing collisions to a level of “Vision Zero”, there is a limit to what can be achieved with drivers of the calibre shown in these three examples. Persons who steal vehicles, attempt to escape police and drive at very high speeds through quiet neighbourhoods are difficult to manage and control within any transportation system. A recognition is needed that, within our societies, subgroups of abnormal individuals maybe growing. While our overall societies may be heading toward lower rates of injury and fatality, a smaller segment of abnormal drivers may be flourishing without much attention being paid to that possibility.
As an example, safety measures such as reductions in speed limits in school zones may appear to be beneficial as they appear to have an effect on the average speed of observed vehicles. However it may not be this large segment of law-abiding society that should be of focus. The focus should be on the small segment of abnormal drivers who disregard whatever speed limit is set and will speed well beyond those limits, drive distracted, drive impaired, and will attempt to evade police when an attempt is made to stop them.
More detailed study is needed of these small sub-groups of abnormal drivers. Yet there is little or no information being passed onto the general public with respect to the details of the actions of these abnormal drivers. Change and correct approaches are difficult to achieve when the vast percentage of the public has little or no understanding of what is taking place on the public’s transportation systems.
Red Hill Valley Parkway Judicial Inquiry – Rejection of Participants, What Next?
Looking north along the Red Hill Valley Parkway in the City of Hamilton, Ontario before its posted speed limit was reduced to 80 km/h.
A judicial inquiry is underway in Hamilton, Ontario with respect to the circumstances regarding a technical report that became “lost” and then was subsequently “found”. This technical report was prepared for the City of Hamilton and contained test results performed by an engineering firm, Tradewinds Scientific, that dealt with friction levels on Hamilton’s the Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHVP). The testing suggested that the friction levels were below a recognized standard. A higher frequency of collisions on the RHVP suggested that the lower friction values were related to the collisions. A judicial inquiry was requested by the City of Hamilton to get to the bottom of who was responsible for the “loss” of the report and what relevance this had. Commencing in January of 2020 the Judicial Inquiry commenced its initial meetings which included the selection of those persons and/or agencies that would be allowed official standing at the inquiry.
In a decision released on February 12, 2020, the Commissioner of the Inquiry, Justice Herman J. Wilton-Siegel rejected several applications from individuals/groups who requested official standing.
Mr. Mirle B. Chandrashekar, a former employee of the City of Hamilton was one of those rejected. Mr. Chandrashekar wanted to address “deficiencies in transparency, accountability and minority representation in the City’s senior management, undue interdependence between politicians and City staff, and nepotism”.
Mr. Malcolm Hodgkiss was also rejected. Justice Wilton-Siegel noted that “Mr. Hodgkiss made numerous broad references to corruption, bid-rigging, illegal operations, environmental damage, and resulting injury to him relating to identified and unidentified public officials, other individuals, and companies. Justice Wilton-Siegel refused to publish Mr. Hodgkiss’ application as it contained “unsubstantiated assertions or topics outside the scope of the Inquiry”.
Justice Wilton-Siegel also rejected the application of six lawyers who claimed to represent the interests of 200 to 250 victims of collisions along the RHVP. This decision was made because the Justice did not accept that the lawyers represented “a broad-based coalition of concerned citizens”.
The application of Ms. Jodi Gawrylash was also declined. She was the victim of a single vehicle collision that occurred on December 3, 2011 at the King Street off-ramp of the RHVP.
Finally the application of Mrs. Belinda Marazzato was rejected. Mrs. Marazzato was the mother of Olivia Smosarski who died in a collision on the RHVP on May 5, 2015. The driver of the car, Jordyn Hastings was also killed in the crash.
With these exclusions Justice Wilton-Siegel allowed only four participants the privilege of participating in the inquiry: The City of Hamilton, The Government of Ontario, Golder & Associates, and Dufferin Construction. None of these remaining participants can be viewed as independent observers without any interest in the outcome of the Inquiry. Yet Justice Wilton-Siegel has denied the applications of similar entities, primarily individuals who do not possess the financial backing possessed by the accepted four.
The issue of hiding this technical report could have affected the safety of everyone using the RHVP through the time of its existence. And its implications go beyond the actions of select individuals in the City of Hamilton. The larger issue is that of municipal and provincial government secrecy that threatens the safety of the citizens that these political entities should be protecting. There will be an attempt to isolate this Inquiry to the specific actions of a few participants while placing a veil over the fact that it is not isolated. Regardless of the specifics of this incident, municipal and provincial government representatives continually fail to properly represent, defend and work for the citizens that elect them. If there was inappropriate behaviour on the part of City staff it was done on the watch of its politicians. It was the politicians’ responsibility to watch over the staff so that both watch over the rights of the City’s citizenry. This is the problem that needs to be fixed. Not only in the City of Hamilton but in much broader areas of Canadian society. The very existence of government in a democratic society must be to serve the people, not the people serving the whims of a select few who decide what the public will know about their actions. When these broad concerns are left to be debated by four, non-independent groups with their own agendas there is an obvious concern that the wider issues at hand will not be allowed to be expressed.
Upon completing the list of exclusions Justice Wilton-Siegel wrote the following comment:
“I acknowledge that, as a result of this decision on participation, the Inquiry does not have any participants who were directly or indirectly affected by accidents on the Parkway, or who speak for concerned or affected citizens as a collectivity. In order to ensure that all issues relevant to such parties are addressed, the Inquiry will take the following steps.”
The steps he referred to included the following:
- Commission Counsel will ensure that all relevant matters are well-canvassed.
- Rejected participants can submit information to Commission Counsel.
- Public forum to be provided and heard as part of inquiry.
- Written submissions invited at end of Inquiry before Judicial report.
- Applications for participation remain open.
There is some solace provided by these plans. Justice Wilton-Siegel noted that rejected applicants could be allowed to be part of a group of concerned citizens that might be given official status should such a group be formed. The Justice referred to such a group on several occasions as noted below:
“The role of a concerned citizens group is different from that of a group of affected individuals. Affected individuals provide evidence of their personal circumstances; a concerned citizens group (which may include affected individuals) typically brings the perspective of the citizenry as a whole on the full range of issues addressed by the inquiry. A group of concerned citizens with participatory rights can provide a helpful check on the participants whose conduct is the subject matter of the inquiry and who are (quite appropriately) acting in their own self-interest. Such groups complement the impartial role of the commission counsel.”
And further:
“Applications for participation remain open. The Inquiry’s process would be well-served by having representative voice from a broad-based group of concerned citizens whose focus is on the matters addressed in the Terms of Reference. Such a group would bring the public’s perspective to the subject matter of the inquiry, including on the topics of pavement design and construction, and the good governance of the City. Such a group could include, but not be limited to, individuals who are victims of accidents, whether as injured parties or as family members or friends of injured parties. Accordingly, I invite further application(s) for participation and funding from one or more of such group(s), particularly from any group that has established arrangements with one or more legal counsel that are designed to remove the concerns regarding the focus of the Inquiry…”
Yet Justice Wilton-Siegel did not provide an explanation as to how such groups of concerned citizens could be practically formed. How would individual citizens who possess no elaborate connections be able to make contact with other interested citizens to form such a group? There is no announcement of a plan on Justice Wilton-Siegel’s part to enhance the opportunity of such groups to take form. And, should a group be formed, what guarantee is there that this group would be comprised of individuals who would bring “the perspective of the citizenry as a whole”? Just because they are not part of a group of accident victims does that guarantee that they represent a wide spectrum of the citizenry? Will Justice Wilton-Siegel scan the list of individuals in a group and make investigations about the backgrounds of individuals and what their purpose is in joining the group? If not, what would make these individuals more worthy of participation than those who were directly affected?
And what if this proposed group of individuals decides to narrow its membership to exclude others. Do the excluded others now have no right to participate in the inquiry even though they might represent the general public’s interests better than members of the group that have been allowed to stay as members? Will Justice Wilton-Siegel turn a blind eye to such a development or will he take some active role? Operations are often at work under the table by players with ulterior motives to inappropriately create a seemingly independent group of citizens when in fact resources have been spent to sculpt a group with special interests. If there is no way that Justice Wilton-Siegel can control the development of such special interest groups then why not just relax the participation requirements so that a broad base of opinions/comments can be heard?
Justice Wilton-Siegel made a specific invitation to “any group that has established arrangements with one or more legal counsel…”. This gives the indication that the inquiry will be run by lawyers who will ask all the questions and will direct where the Inquiry will travel in its probes. This excludes the rights of independent citizens to ask those questions and steer the inquiry where those independent citizens believe it should go. And not all independent citizens are the same in their backgrounds of training and experience. Some independent citizens could be experts in the field of inquiry.
There is a problem that lawyers are not technical experts in the areas that will be explored at the Inquiry. While lawyers can do some good homework that is not equivalent to the years of training and experience possessed by technical experts. When lawyers prepare themselves for trial, which is not dissimilar to a Judicial Inquiry, they pick the brains of their experts working with them. The experts provide advice on what questions should be asked, how, and with respect to what type of responses become generated. This is why, on many occasions, lawyers will momentarily stop their presentations, and turn to their experts, whispering for advice. This process is manageable in many instances while in many others it is disastrous. When opposing lawyers in a trial do not understand their technical content and the judge also does not understand it, a trial or Judicial Inquiry can fail miserably. This is why it is advisable for a technical expert to be the one involved in a conversation with another technical expert who is giving testimony. The technical expert who poses the questions will know how to react to another expert’s responses and will know how to follow up with additional questions that will lead to a better understanding of what is being stated. Thus the involvement of select independent citizens who are technical experts in the subject matter of the Inquiry is preferable, as opposed to allowing lawyers the monopoly of leading the process when the lawyers are likely to have limited knowledge of technical issues. If Justice Wilton-Siegel plans to conduct this Inquiry surrounded by non-technical lawyers there is a high likelihood that some issues will not be resolved satisfactorily or if they are, it will take an exceeding long and inefficient time to reach a satisfactory resolution to some technical issues.
It needs to be emphasized that the independence of the Inquiry is left to criticism when it is not independent of the persons or organizations that are being investigated. The terms of reference for the Judicial Inquiry were authored by the very persons, Hamilton’s City Council, who could be implicated in a cover-up of the noted technical report. Yet Justice Wilton-Siegel appears to be staying close to that written script. How can the Judicial Inquiry be seen as properly independent when the bounds of its functioning is limited by a group who could be implicated in the potential cover-up which was the reason for the inquiry’s creation? With a dedicated and unbiased effort Justice Wilton-Siegel can cross this minefield, but it is a precarious one.
There are questions about how many of the Inquiry’s documents and information will be available for the public’s scrutiny. Justice Wilton-Siegel has denied the public’s right to view the comments made by some applicants such as Mr. Chandrashekar and Mr. Hodgskiss. The reasoning why these comments have been kept from the public is not clear. Judging by the short commentary provided by the Commissioner some of these comments appear to be controversial or perhaps accusatory. But if those comments are based on supportable fact they should not be kept from the public simply because they are controversial or accusatory. The public needs to be made aware of the allegations and then decide on its own whether they form some reasonable basis. This Judicial Inquiry cannot be for the sole benefit of Justice Wilton-Siegel’s decisions. He must understand the ultimate purpose of the Inquiry is to inform the public.
As part of a solution Justice Wilton-Siegel has encouraged rejected participants to “communicate with the Commission Counsel if they feel they have information that may be of assistance to the Inquiry”. By this process information is only delivered to the Commission Counsel and kept from public knowledge. The appropriateness of this action is precariously held intact by the public’s belief that nothing underhanded is taking place by keeping information from the public. After the observations that the public has made regarding the apparent efforts made to hide the Tradewinds report it is doubtful that the public will have much confidence in anyone’s assertion that keeping information from the public is to their benefit. It resembles the secrecy of the lost technical report that is the subject of the Inquiry.
These are some of the problems that result when the Commissioner excludes participants who have a specific tale to tell or have been personally affected. It remains to be seen how the Commissioner will decide who will be included should additional applications come forward. An essential foundation to any worthwhile Inquiry, formal or informal, is that it be transparent. When it is an inquiry into the potential secret dealings of individuals and groups it cannot become another series of secret dealings by individuals and groups. It remains to be seen whether the Judicial Inquiry will become an attempt to protect the misdeeds of some individuals or whether it will reveal that there are reasonable explanations for what occurred. And it remains to be seen whether it will be truly transparent and an honest assessment of what took place.
While Justice Wilton-Siegel has been given the official authority to prepare a report that provides the official explanation of what transpired, he will not be the ultimate judge. The ultimate judge will be all the independent citizens who will examine the Justice’s decisions and come to their own private judgment as to whether it is fair and honest. That judgment will be made in private conversations amongst private groups at informal gatherings at coffee shops, family homes and all places where people meet. There will be biased views expressed by some who had already made up their minds before any evidence was heard. But hopefully there will be voices heard from balanced individuals who have thought things through and come to an unbiased opinion much like any formally-appointed judge should.
Actions and Inactions Have Consequences
Road Condition Data Available for Westbound Hwy 401 – Woodstock to London
In a February 5, 2020 news article data was presented from testing conducted along Westbound Highway 403 from Hamilton’s Lincoln Alexander Parkway to Highway 401 at Woodstock. Since then additional analysis has been completed from testing on Westbound Highway 401 from Highway 403 through to Highbury Ave in London. A chart of the new Hwy 401 data is shown below.
In the February 5, 2020 article charts similar to the one shown above were presented from testing on three expressways ( 401, 402 and 403) and comparisons were made. All the charts can be be summarized further via the table of motion values shown below.
As was discussed in the previous article, what stands out is the data from Westbound Highway 402 from Miller Rd (near London) to Hickory Rd (near Strathroy). This shows that this 16 kilometre section of Highway 402 is in poor condition.
The above table also shows that the surface of Highway 401 between Woodstock and Tilbury, a distance of approximately 180 kilometres, is in better condition than the rest of the tested expressways. A section of Hwy 401 between the Putnam weight scales and Hwy 73 (Elgin Rd) showed higher motions of the test vehicle because this section was under construction at the time of the testing and much of the surface had been milled producing a rougher ride.
While poor highway surface conditions can be tolerated under most driving situations special consideration is required when environmental conditions worsen, when certain vehicle deficiencies or special characteristics exist, or full attention is not paid to the driving task. Expressways can carry as little as 20,000 vehicles per day to as much as 100s of thousands in some areas approaching the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Thus the possibility that one in several thousand drivers might experience a problem due to road surface conditions cannot be insignificant since, multiplied by the large number of travellers, safety could be compromised beyond acceptable limits for many drivers.
During the hours of approaching winter storms roadway maintenance personnel have been given the legislated right (via Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards) to withhold patrols of ice and snow removal until a certain level of deterioration has been reached. But ice and snow are not the full extent of roadway dangers. Various potholes, patches, depressions, ruptures and similar deficiencies exist as demonstrated in the motion data shown in this article. The level of danger of an accumulation of one inch of snow on the higher qualities of surface on Highway 401 is not the same as the level of danger on a poor quality of surface along the Westbound Highway 402. Yet there is no warning given of those differences in safety.
Funding has been given to systems such as “511Ontario” providing the public with internet features such as “Road Conditions”. But that information consists of advisements about extent of snow cover and reduced visibility, not about the physical condition of the hardtop pavement or concrete. 511Ontario also allows the public to follow the routes of snow plows. It is as if the Ontario government does not believe that deteriorated roads with potholes, patches, depressions, and ruptures can be a safety problem.
Let us provide this ridiculous example. A bank robber in a green shirt robs a bank and police watch his escape. A citizen asks “Why do you not chase him/”. The police reply “Because we only chase robbers in red shirts”. Does that make any sense?
Yet this is the logic that is used when the Ontario Government determines that the public will only be protected from a select group of dangers and not from others. Thus it is not OK to be killed by a snowy road surface but it is OK to be killed by a pothole in the road. When one of your family or friends is killed because they were unaware of a poor road surface condition will you be satisfied with this logic?
Charts of Expressway Road Surface Conditions Uploaded In February 5, 2020 Website Article
You must be logged in to post a comment.