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.
Secrecy & Misinformation Are Unrecognized Causes of Future Collisions
With the warp speed of vast quantities of information passing through the public’s day it becomes difficult to detect a bit of information that is important and even more difficult for the public to perceive that importance. This fact is very real with respect to information involving collisions on our transportation systems.
Each day information about the latest collisions has to compete with an enticing focus on sports figures or movie stars by official media who are interested in stealing the public’s attention from another media competitor. Half-truths (or half lies) become strong magnets pulling the public toward some preconceived viewpoints that are often not based on reality, but based on what the public wants to hear/read/see.
In this realm information about the causes of important transportation collisions become hidden, sometimes purposely, or the information becomes misrepresented, sometimes purposely.
An example of this is exhibited in a collision that reportedly occurred in Toronto, Ontario in the early morning of November 28, 2025 on Hwy 427 near Rathburn Road. It was reported that a single vehicle struck a guardrail and the alone driver sustained “life-threatening” injuries. This injury information was later down-graded to “life-altering” injuries. There are several problems with these descriptions.
Firstly, the reason why guardrails exist is so that they reduce the severity of collisions and therefore reduce the severity of their consequences. When a guardrail is struck we cannot expect every unpredictable collision to be altered in a perfect manner. Roadways are designed and vehicles are manufactured to reduce the consequences of a large percentage of guardrail collisions. But sometimes something happens that did not go according to plan. And when something unexpected happens it needs to be identified so something can be adjusted to prevent, or reduce, the consequences of the next, future, mishap.
The word “identified” cannot be used narrowly in the sense that identification is made by a very few officials and no one else needs to know. That should be recognized as an obvious recipe for disaster. Because we ought to know that persons placed in a position of power and responsibility will want to hide from that accountability, universally, not just in transportation incidents. In a properly functioning society checks need to exist to minimize the chances that persons with responsibility for something are not able to hide their responsibility. Otherwise something dangerous can continue to exist, becomes uncorrected, and another tragedy occurs because that danger did not become identified and was not corrected. This reasoning should not be difficult to comprehend.
So why did the driver in the present collision sustain unexpectedly serious, or life altering, injuries after the impact of a guardrail? We do not want to single out the CP24 News article as it is just standard for how matters are reported generally across Ontario. But we see the following segment from the article where the investigating officer is interviewed by the CP24 News reporter:
“So right now, we’re dealing with a motor vehicle collision. It’s just a single motor vehicle collision. So that’s one vehicle,” said OPP Const. Taylor Konkle. “What happened? It was traveling southbound in the Express at approximately four o’clock in the morning, and it struck the left side guardrail.”
And that’s it. No further information. Nothing about why or how the vehicle hit the guardrail. Nothing about how the driver managed to sustain those serious injuries. But we know from many pervious collisions that guardrails can be too low and this can alter the way a vehicle strikes it. Also the guardrail may not have been maintained properly such that certain bolts, brackets or previous damage could have altered the way the system performed. And it is also not uncommon for an impact to be reported as a guardrail impact whereas the impact could actually be with the beginning of the rail, or the guardrail “terminal” or some other energy attenuating device. But no photos were provided of the collision scene so no one can be certain what happened.
A second issue relates to the manner in which injury information is purposely kept secret, thus preventing the general public from knowing how they might be exposed to a similar, sometimes fatal, fate. Using vague terminology such as “life-threatening ” or “life-altering” prevents anyone from hypothesizing how an injury might have occurred and whether the injury outcome could be acceptable or not.
Injury outcomes from real-life collisions have been scientifically documented and studied for decades by North American agencies such as NHTSA and Transport Canada. Thus, if someone is given a reasonably precise description of a certain collision the expected injuries can be known. NHTSA, for example, has stored the results of over 139,000 collision analyses in their NASS database since 1979. The NASS program has recently been replaced by the CISS program which provides similar collision summaries. So given a scenario where a light-duty vehicle strikes a guardrail, databases such as NASS or CISS provide the specific injuries that occurred in those real-life collisions.
Comparing those injuries in the NASS-CISS collisions to the one involving the present collision one can confirm if something occurred that was unusual and unacceptable. But without a proper description of the collision or a proper injury description such a comparison cannot be made. This is a failure in the way we operate in the Province of Ontario.
Officials with the obligation to explain why a collision occurred, and why an injury or death occurred, have developed policies citing privacy legislation so that they do not have to be accountable to the public. Secrecy and misinformation are the basis on which many future collisions are caused because we fail to identify and correct the causes of the collisions of the present. There are examples of societies in other parts of the world that operate in short-sighted benefit for the few in detriment to their societies as a whole. We have an opportunity to understand and act so accountability does not become some theoretical concept, but that it is a true reality.
Visibility Limitation Of A 20-Seater School Bus
Several previous articles has been posted on this Gorski Consulting website discussing driver visibility obstructions on school buses. Those are noted below.
School Bus Fatal Impact of Pedestrian in Toronto – Another Visibility Issue? Posted: November 8, 2024.
Left-Turning School Bus Causes Pedestrian Fatality in St Thomas Ontario. Posted: February 15, 2024.
School Bus Visibility Obstruction Could Kill You. Posted: February 17, 2023.
Roof Pillars Can Be A visibility Obstruction. Posted: July 19, 2007.
The reason for posting these articles is because few pedestrians, cyclists, or other vulnerable micro-mobility riders understand the danger that exists when they cross in front of a school bus. The left-front of a typical school bus contains several objects that make it difficult for a bus driver to see past them. While it is the responsibility of the school bus driver to recognize these dangers it is also helpful if those persons close to the school understand what the driver has to cope with.
In the image above we have shown the driver’s view from a typical, 20-seater, school bus. This bus would be the smallest of the many one might see in southern Ontario. However similar difficulties exist for school buses of all sizes. The view being shown is at a typical unban intersection where the school bus has come to a stop and pedestrians begin crossing in front of the bus from left to right. There is a pedestrian visible crossing just to the left the convex mirror. This convex mirror is anchored to the left front of the bus, as shown in the example photo of a bus exterior below.
Note that the pedestrian is not walking within the lines of the pedestrian crossing and there is no other pedestrian visible. The next photo shows the scenario just a few seconds later as a second pedestrian emerges into view.
Note that the second pedestrian was there all along but his presence was blocked from view. And this is a very typical problem. It exhibits itself many times when school buses are making left turns and the bus drivers do not detect that a pedestrian is walking within the pedestrian crossing to the left of the bus. Regrettably several pedestrians have been killed in southern Ontario in recent years in this type of scenario.
What needs to be changed is the way we hide the causes of collisions such that pedestrians do not become aware of a safety problem and it recurs for no logical reason. Fatal collisions involving left-turning school buses are often reported in very general turns without educating any one about the specific dangers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.