Ontario Providing $20 Million To Fix An Invisible Road Safety Problem
Out-of-control motor vehicles that strike things rarely attract attention, often because there is no injury or death. And drivers may receive some low-level driving citation for failing to maintain control of their vehicles. But if, by bad luck, that incident causes an injury or death, everything changes. But only with respect to that one incident.
That one incident occurred on September 10, 2025 when an SUV plunged through the glass window of the First Roots day care facility in Richmond Hill, just north of Toronto, Ontario. A toddler child was killed and six other children were injured. Photos of that crash site cannot be shown because all photos are copyright to the news agencies. And police did not provide any photos even though they might be important to inform the public. Even with the death of an innocent child money and monopoly come into play, preventing important information from being discussed in a public forum.
If one looked at the articles published by the news media one could see their photos of the crash site and one could appreciate that this was an accident just waiting to happen. There was absolutely no protection between the parking area and the glass window of the day care. A simple curb at the parking spot, and then absolutely nothing but a very large glass window at the “wall” of the day care building. It is as if building impacts by motor vehicles have never occurred before. And those constructing the buildings seem to have built them without any rules to prevent a vehicle from driving into them.
So who was asleep on that job? Was it the municipal personnel who allowed these buildings to be constructed in this fashion? Was it the police who never informed anyone that vehicles were driving into buildings? Was it the Province of Ontario to whom all those police reports are written and whose policy writers should have drank enough coffee to wake up to the danger?
In our view the Ontario government pulled a publicity stunt by announcing that they would be providing a $20 million fund for daycare centres to install concrete barriers to prevent a similar tragedy. This is a publicity stunt because the collision at the daycare centre had little to do with the daycare centre. The collision was just a single incident of bad luck amongst numerous previous incidents that could have been recognized as a danger, but were not.
It is not just daycare centres that are being struck. It is all kinds of buildings. And all kinds of persons live and work in these buildings. It is a problem that has been unrecognized and ignored. And the Ontario government has created the fund to give the impression that they care, and are doing something about it.
The impact of buildings is also just the tip of the iceberg. Building impacts are just part of the much broader issue that drivers are losing control of their vehicles and striking everything. Pedestrians are struck. Cyclists are struck. Other vehicles are struck. And, once in a while, a child daycare is also struck. But the Ontario government wants to focus on this narrow issue of daycares while refusing to inform the public that this is a broad issue which has been going on for many years. Just a quick review of news items from CTV News in the first nine months of 2025 reveals a small sample of the many building impacts noted below:
In early January a vehicle struck at building on Charles Street in Ingersoll, Ontario.
In mid-February a vehicle struck a building near the intersection of Oxford St and Hyde Park Road in London, Ontario.
In late February a vehicle drove into a Pharmacy building at Thames Road in Exeter, Ontario.
In March a vehicle crashed into a store on Main Street in Grand Bend, Ontario.
In April a vehicle drove into a building at Westwood Shopping Centre in Malton, Ontario.
In early May a vehicle drove into a storefront on the downtown Square in Goderich, Ontario.
In late July a vehicle drove into the Monda Farms Market on Hyde Park Road in London, Ontario.
In mid-August a vehicle struck a storefront near Bloor St and Brunswick Ave in Toronto, Ontario.
In late August a vehicle struck a building at Lambton Mall Road in Sarnia, Ontario.
In early September an SUV struck a building at Portland St and Goldwick Crescent in London, Ontario.
In early September a vehicle struck a private residence on Brayford Ave in London, Ontario.
In mid-September a vehicle struck a townhouse at Warden Ave and Lafontaine Lane in Scarborough, Ontario.
And the above sample hardly represents the many other incidents throughout Ontario that we have not been able to document because we do not have the resources to do so.
Why not gather large amounts of government funds and begin installing concrete barriers at all the buildings and residences throughout Ontario? After all does everyone deserve to be protected just like the little toddlers? But does that make any sense? Clearly we cannot protect everything everywhere from out-of-control vehicles. Instead we must look, in detail, about how and why vehicles are going out of control.
In this modern age technology exists in newer vehicles whereby collisions can be avoided, or their severity can be reduced, by Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). When drivers fail to detect that a collision is about to occur ADAS steps in and takes action, such as automatic emergency braking (AEB). The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration describes some of these features as follows:
Automatic Emergency Braking: Applies brakes automatically when a forward collision is imminent. There are two types of automatic emergency braking systems that meet NHTSA’s performance specifications: dynamic brake support and crash imminent braking.
Many motor vehicle loss-of-control incidents are officially attributed to driver error. So the existence of AEB should override instances where an out-of-control vehicle should collide. And as more and more vehicles are equipped with AEB the need to create barriers around every roadway feature should be reduced. But these attributions need to be viewed with caution.
Up to now, crash investigators can access certain collision information stored on modules that contain event data recorders (EDRs). Motor vehicle manufacturers are required by law in North America to provide select data to investigators, but not all data. Much more data is stored by the manufacturer that is not translatable to investigators. The functioning of ADAS systems for example is not required to be reported and so far governments have no plans to require manufacturers to provide that data. This is an important omission.
The causes of vehicle loss-of-control need to be publicly revealed and the incidence of collisions caused by vehicle loss-of-control need to be revealed but they are not. Instead the government of Ontario is focused on how to win votes in the next election so they take an issue like protection of daycare centres and develops propaganda to demonstrate that they are interested in public safety. Meanwhile the much bigger problem of overall motor-vehicle loss-of-control is not addressed.
No Basic Information About Hwy 401 Fatal Collision Near Iona Road
The South-West Region of the Ontario Provincial Police along with the London City Police are the two worst distributors of collision information in the Province of Ontario. So it is not surprising that, once again, basic information has not been provided about a fatal collision that occurred on Hwy 401 in the early hours of December 7, 2025 near Iona Road.
The one improvement is that an actual photo of the collision site was made available and this is shown above. However, look at the views of the two involved vehicles. Can anyone see anything useful from this view that could provide a basic indication as to how the collision occurred? The photo is taken from a considerable distance and the two vehicles are mostly hidden by tall weeds. Also the left half of the photo shows several police vehicles as if this is what would be relevant to anyone wanting some basic information. It is as if the photographer purposely arranged this view to show nothing.
But there is something curious in the photo at the high-tension cable barrier at the median. We have highlighted the area with an orange circle. There appears to be a gap in the cable barrier. Ordinarily such barriers extend for a very long distance without gaps for a very good reason – so the barrier maintains its tension and strength. Of course there are areas where a barrier terminates by design and another section immediately follows. And, because the police photographer took their photo from a substantial distance from this gap it is not possible to know whether this was a designed gap or something where a vehicle struck the barrier and created the gap. And police have not said anything about any involvement of a median barrier.
Since police provided very little information about the location of the collision site, it could be anywhere between Currie Road and Union Road, a distance of about 15 kilometres. One news media outlet indicated that the collision site was “…at Iona Road in Dutton”. But Iona Road is nowhere near Dutton. Or at least Iona Road is about 8 kilometres east of Currie Road, which is the crossroad that one would take into Dutton. So all of this is “very helpful” to all.
We conducted some research by looking at some of the features of the police photo and from this we suspect that the collision site may be located about 2.3 kilometres west of Iona Road. But given that poor information, this analysis is not 100% certain. But if our analysis is correct, we used Googlemaps to drive along the eastbound lanes of Hwy 401 in this area and we could not detect a designed separation in the high-tension median barrier. So are the Googlemaps images too old and a new separation in the barrier was constructed? Not very likely. So why does this separation appear to exist in the median barrier in the police photo?
The safety concerns about the median of Hwy 401 in this area have existed for decades. And any police official who had any policing experience in the area would be aware of the many concerns expressed by persons about the lack of a concrete median barrier. Many persons expressed concerns when the new, high-tension, cable barrier was installed. And many persons wanted to know when, and how, a collision occurred so that they could evaluate the functioning of that barrier. So when police have not provided, even the most basic information about this latest collision, it lays doubt about their good/honest intentions.
Caution Over Prejudgment In Witness Evidence
Regrettably our society sometimes functions like a pack of sharks smelling the blood of their targeted victim. As humans we can do better. This is particularly so whenever an accusation is based solely on witness statements.
As someone who has conducted detailed reconstructions of motor vehicle collisions for decades, as well as studying human behavior from a psychological perspective, I give this word of caution whenever something is claimed to be witnessed while no objective evidence or analysis supports such claims. This is not the first time these cautions have been made on this Gorski Consulting website. Yet such problems with human judgment persist.
As witnesses we find it difficult to accept that our view of an incident could be coloured by our previous beliefs, our need to support our own viewpoint, or just through our downright bias. Sometimes what we believe we recall, is an incomplete set of visual or audible stimuli that are “filled in” in our minds because we need to complete the story. Because of these human flaws the official adjudication of what someone says has to include a careful understanding about what unbiased experts have found from independent research about human behavior.
Problems with witness information are accentuated with the advent of the internet. Internet gossip is often akin to a forest fire, it starts from a very small bit of information and then explodes. In the minds of many whose life is tied to what they are told reality is lost and turns into radicalization. Regrettably such problems spill into the justice system.
Many years ago I encountered such hysterics in a trial where someone was accused of being at fault in a fatal, head-on collision. Investigating police lost their site measurements and the basis for what happened came to several witnesses who claimed they saw a particular type of car at night and in rainy conditions. One witness was particularly adamant that she knew the exact details of the car and she was greatly influential to the others who were not sure.
As an observer of the trial proceedings I witnessed the judge’s decision that the accused driver was guilty. Yet I was not able to provide my input. As an independent investigator who was working under contract to Transport Canada I was not allowed to become involved in the trial proceedings even through I had crucial, detailed evidence that supported the driver’s innocence. Previously Transport Canada had purchased both vehicles and I was assigned to their Ottawa quarters where I spent a whole week measuring and studying the physical evidence on both vehicles. This analysis proved that the judge’s “expert opinion” was wrong. The defense lawyer obtained a copy of my report to Transport Canada and presented this at the sentencing hearing but the judge would not hear anything of it. In the judge’s “expert opinion” the final rest positions of the two vehicles clearly indicated who was at fault and that was the end of any discussion. It took a lot of effort, through the involvement of a highly respected engineer retained by the insurer, along with an expert from Ontario’s Centre of Forensic Science along with my report to inform the prosecutor that the judgment was in error. Even then the judgment could not be stopped. A subsequent hearing of the case by the Ontario Court of Appeal finally put the erred judgment to rest and a retrial was ordered. The prosecutor then stated the Crown had no interest in pursuing the case further.
This case is an example of a railway train going out of control because of what persons believed but based on no credible, objective evidence. Regrettably there are many examples of this in high-profile murder trials which have been overturned but very few of the far more numerous lower level cases ever reach the headlines. Many independent scientists have warned the justice system over the many decades that caution must be exercised whenever a judgment is based solely on witness information. Yet that railway train continues on.
Structural Separation Occurred In Adelaide Street Collision in London Ontario
As typical no photos are available from a collision that occurred on November 26, 2025 on Adelaide Street north of Cheapside Street in London, Ontario. Photos produced by news-gathering organizations are copyright and even though they might shed some light on an unrecognized safety problem, they cannot be shown on this website. London Police could have posted a photo on their website but again this is a rarity.
The subject collision was covered by the local CTV News and several long-distance photos were attached in their article. Such coverage failed to provide a reasonably detailed view of the struck driver’s side of a passenger vehicle that was struck by the front end of a pick-up truck.
A subsequent photo displayed by the London Free Press showed a closer view of the side of the struck vehicle. This additional photo showed clear signs that the structure of the driver’s side of the vehicle had become separated. For example the centre roof pillar (called a B-pillar) was driven backwards until it was near the left-rear wheel. No mention was made of this in any of the news media articles or by investigating police.
An individual was reported to sustain “serious but non-life-threatening injuries” but there was no mention where that occupant was located or in which vehicle. This is the kind of “helpful” information that is typically reported to the public. Such developments are not new. Safety problems that ought to be recognized and publicized are not and they persist, sometimes for decades.
Little understanding is provided to the public that motor vehicle occupant safety is dependent on a scientifically-designed vehicle structure that should absorb the kinetic energy of a collision, at a proper time, at proper locations and in a controlled manner. When a vehicle structure separates it is not an intended result and this has injury consequences. The occurrence of vehicle structural separations has existed for decades and has often been overlooked or purposely hidden.
As far back as the mid-1980s Zygmunt Gorski recognized that structural separations were occurring during his collision studies at the University of Western Ontario Multi-Disciplinary Accident Research Team. This prompted communications sent to Transport Canada to draw awareness to the problem. An example of such a communication is shown below, sent to Transport Canada in February, 1990:
The chart accompanying this correspondence is shown below:
These problems were discussed further in a research paper (“Practical Problems Related To Side Impact Field Data Accuracy And Its Importance To Side Impact Protection Assessments”) authored by Zygmunt Gorski in 1991 and presented at the Society of Automotive Engineers Congress in Detroit, Michigan. One of the examples discussed in the paper was a Honda Civic that was split in half after a side impact and the two photos below accompanied the discussion in the paper.
The text from the paper accompanying these photos was as follows:
“The problems resulting from structural separations in real-life collisions are demonstrated in Figures 4 and 5. These figures show a Honda Civic which was torn in half at the B-pillar as a result of a side impact by a Pontiac Lemans. The right front occupant of the Civic was wearing her seat-belt. The retractor and outboard floor anchor to the lap belt remained attached to the rear portion of the vehicle while the inboard anchor at the buckle remained attached to the front half. As a result the occupant was trapped in the belt as it was torn apart. The injury information provided to the investigators was worded as “Severe cranio-cerebral trauma” and the source of the injury was coded as unknown. No other injuries were identified to the investigators, yet, examination of the seat-belt webbing (Figure 5) showed there were very deep abrasions in the webbing with portions of clothing material actually melted into the webbing. Clearly this fatally injured occupant also sustained major seat-belt injuries, as a result of the vehicle separation, which were not documented in this file.”
The above comments were made over 35 years ago. Subsequently incidents of vehicles structural separations have been evident in various news media and police photos. Various inaccurate comments are made suggesting the presence of tremendous collision forces and speeds. Without a properly detailed technical analysis such comments have often been inaccurate. More recent availability of data from event data recorders (“Black Boxes”) means that the precise collision severity can be known along with vehicle travel speeds. Unfortunately most collisions are documented/investigated by police who often do not have the interest or training to recognize such inappropriate structural failures. Police are generally focused on evidence that might support charges against a driver and fail to understand their equally important duty to protect the public from all harm regardless of where or how it originated.
Past Twilight And Closer To Death
Illuminating the existence of a safety problem is difficult when what you are trying to show is essentially invisible. That is the case for instances when cyclists ride in darkness with nothing that can distinguish them from the background. No reflective clothing and no lights means that the only way such a cyclist is visible is through the lighting of passing motor vehicles or overhead street lighting.
The above photo is an example of an invisible safety problem. It shows a cyclist on November 26, 2025, travelling westbound, the wrong way, in the eastbound lane of Hamilton Road just west of Egerton Street in London, Ontario. The cyclist is wearing dark clothing with no lights, and he is also not wearing a helmet.
Only 17 months earlier a cyclist was killed at this location on June 19, 2024. That collision occurred in the early morning at 0510 hours, or in darkness. However, other than this fact, no further information was ever provided as to how the collision occurred.
Fatal cyclist collisions along Hamilton Road are not rare but information about cyclist collisions in London is essentially non-existent. Agencies such as the Canadian Institute For Health Information hold data from hospital emergency department visits that might show how many cyclists get injured but such information is available to certain registered organizations and not to the general public.
In response to the incidence of two fatal cyclist collisions on Hamilton Road (June, 2019 & September, 2022), The Hamilton Road Senior’s Community Centre hosted a meeting on February 26, 2023. The meeting appeared to be organized by the Crouch Neighbourhood Resource Centre (branch of London’s library) and by representatives of the City of London. As reported in a CTV news article, a spokesperson for the Crouch library branch, Jennifer Martino, indicated that the meeting was organized as a result of an inquiry from a resident who had safety concerns:
“In the fall the Crouch Resource Centre was approached by a resident in the Hamilton Road neighbourhood and she was looking for some solutions about the constant sound of near misses on the road and accidents she’s witnessed,” said Jennifer Martino, with the CRC. “She was also concerned that every year for the past four years we have had a fatality that was traffic-related on Hamilton road including two fathers. One a very well-known community volunteer and the other a student.”
The city councillor for the area, Ward 1 Councillor Hadleigh McAlister, also expressed opinions about the need for safety improvements for the area of Hamilton Road.
Some discussed solutions at the meeting included the need for a “speed clock” which appeared to be another name for a speed display board that illuminates a vehicle’s travel speed. A reduction in the number of lanes from 4 to 3 was also proposed. A red light camera was also proposed for the intersection of Hamilton Road and Rectory Street. The repainting of roadway lines was also mentioned.
Not much changed in the months following the February 2023 meeting except that the political landscape appeared to worsen. In mid-October, 2024, Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced that he would prevent cycling lanes from being installed on arterial roads in Ontario’s municipalities if it caused the removal of driving lanes for motor vehicle traffic. This development fell flat in the lap of London Ward 1 Councillor Hadleigh McAlister, whose proposal in August, 2024 asked for the reduction in travel lanes on Hamilton Road and installation of cycling lanes.
More recent illogical announcements from Premier Ford’s administration in September, 2025, included that speed cameras would be outlawed in Ontario. So even if such cameras were deemed one of the safety solutions along Hamilton Road that would no longer be possible.
The Ford Administration also installed other changes that would have indirect safety repercussions on Ontario’s roadways. The decision to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in grocery and variety stores meant that persons who may be too young or too intoxicated could be sold alcohol without more diligent screening. The Ford administration also increased maximum speeds on 400 series highways. And it also allowed booze to be drunk on “pedal pubs” which are multi-person pedalled “bikes” operated in tourist areas. In May, 2024 news broke out that Ford also instructed local prosecutors to reduce penalties for impaired driving as a way of reducing court backlogs. All these signs are indicative of the Ford administration’s piecemeal attack on road safety. This has consequences for the safety on individual roadways such as Hamilton Road.
Gorski Consulting has accumulated a considerable database of cyclist observations in the City of London. For the year 2025, which is not yet completed, we have already documented about 1400 cyclists. In the past year our focus on Hamilton Road has increased since our previous data suggested that the characteristics of cyclists may be different from other parts of the City. We were prepared to give a presentation on our findings and made a proposal both to the Crouch Branch of London’s Public Library as well as to the Central library. This proposal was denied by both groups. Independent comment on road safety means that it is not always favourable to those who want to control what messaging reaches the public. It is indicative that even basic road safety information is denied to the public for undisclosed reasons. Despite these actions Gorski Consulting has posted numerous informative articles recently dealing with cyclist safety on our website. The titles of these articles, posted since 2023, are noted below:
2023 Cyclist Observations Provide Important Data on Cyclist Safety In London Ontario, Posted January 1, 2024.
2023 Data on Cyclist Helmet Use in London Ontario, Posted January 3, 0224.
What Has Been Learned From Five Years Of Reported Cyclist Collisions in London, Ontario, Posted January 4, 2024.
Cyclists on Sidewalks in London Ontario – From 2022 & 2023 Observational Data, Posted February 21, 2024.
Toronto Research Compares Emergency Department Data Against Police Data for Cyclist & Pedestrian Collisions, Posted February, 27, 2024.
Disappointing Actions By All Involved in Addressing Cyclist Safety, Posted March 10, 2024.
Most Cyclist Injuries Not Related To Motor Vehicle Impacts: Research Finding, Posted March 15, 2024.
Another Cyclist Fatality In Toronto That Will Never Be Explained To those Who Are Being Killed, Posted April 26, 2024.
Cyclist Collision on Hamilton Road in London Ontario – Safety Concerns Continue, Posted June 19, 2024.
Hamilton Road Fatal Cyclist Collision – Characteristics of Cyclist Road Users, Posted June 21, 2024.
Cycling Data From London Ontario For 1st 6 Months of 2024 – Previous Trends Continue, Posted July 2, 2024.
Painted Cycling Lane Safety: Theory Versus Reality, July 23, 2024.
Warning From Ontario Hospital of Spike in E-Bike & E-Scooter Injuries, Posted August 21, 2024.
Doug Ford Government Teaching Ontario How To Cycle Backwards, Posted October 21, 2024.
13-Year-Old Female Cyclist Dies At Rossland & Stevenson At East Edge of Toronto Ontario, Posted November 8, 2024.
Review Of Safe And Unsafe Cycling Facilities in London Ontario Canada, Posted November 14, 2024.
Continued Lack of Information About Cyclist Injures And Deaths Continues To Confuse The Public, Posted November 28, 2024.
Cycling Dangers on Hamilton Road In London Ontario, Posted December 2, 2024.
Cycling Abandonment? So Now What?, Posted December 30, 2024.
2024 Cyclist Observations now Available For London Ontario, Posted January 3, 2025.
Observed Differences In Cyclist Characteristics & Safety Across City of London Ontario, Posted February 2, 2025.
Trump Tariff Turmoil – An Impetus For Canadian Cycling?, Posted February 22, 2025.
Harsh Winter In Southern Ontario Affects Cycling Observations, Posted April 1, 2025.
Cycling in Stump City, Formerly Forest City, Posted April 21, 2025.
Cyclist Fatality in London Ontario With Absolutely No Disclosure, Posted May 7, 2025.
Cyclist Collision Data For Canada Do Not Exist, Posted May 18, 2025.
Cyclist Observations in London Ontario For First Six Months of 2025, Posted July 3, 2025.
Years of Training Required to Know How to Kill a Cyclist, Posted July 7, 2025.
Ontario Law Removing Toronto Cycling Lanes Found Arbitrary And Against Cyclists’ Charter Rights, Posted August 7, 2025.
Many Involved In Suppressing Information About Cyclist Safety, Posted August 13, 2025.
“Cargo” Biking With No Brakes?, Posted August 18, 2025.
Observed Cyclist Helmet Use In London Ontario, Posted September 16, 2025.
Yes You Have Your Freedom – But Choose It Carefully, Posted September 19, 2025.
What Is More Important – Observing Cyclists, E-Scooters, Or Both?, Posted October 5, 2025.
Returning to the issue of darkness, visibility and roadways like Hamilton Road, another cyclist observation is shown in the three photos below, taken on November 27, 2025. The cyclist is travelling eastbound in the eastbound lane of Hamilton Road and the lighting conditions are twilight.
The presence of some yellow-coloured cargo at the back of the bike provides some assistance in his being detected. However cyclists do not understand that the colour of any garment, or cargo, provides only a limited improvement in visibility. A proper retro-reflective material is necessary to be seen in night-time conditions.
Observations like these help to create an understanding of how cyclists can be involved in collisions in conditions of degrading visibility. It is useful to document how often such scenarios occur, what kind of cyclist characteristics exist, what interactions with traffic take place and what actions are taken by the cyclist.
These observations can be discussed amongst drivers of motor vehicles and with cyclists. However that cannot occur when entities operate to prevent that discussion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.