City of London, like Hamilton, Struggles With Advice and Secrecy
Advisory Committees should provide advice, but the City of London’s struggle with this issue may result in painful repercussions that have plagued another nearby city. Controversies with secrecy that have resulted in massive legal headaches and huge costs in the City of Hamilton demonstrate that a refusal to accept independent advice can be catastrophic.
I was appointed to two City of London advisory committees this past summer. The restrictions imposed by the City’s staff as to what could be discussed and what actions the committees could take caused me to hand in my early resignation. The following provides a summary of my, unfortunately, short relationship with the City. I also provide a discussion of the woes experienced by the City of Hamilton and how the City of London may experience similar problems.
It seemed natural that the City of London would request the voluntary help of seasoned professionals who could provide useful advice with respect to its operations. Thus the creation of advisory committees of such persons seemed logical. Therefore I accepted my appointments to two of the committees, the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Committee (CSCP) in the belief that my 39 years of experience in these areas would benefit the City and this would also give me satisfaction that I was contributing something worthwhile.
Not ever being a part of such committees I attended three meetings of the TAC, July, August and September, and simply listened to get the feel for the procedures. I noticed that nothing much was happening. Almost all the members were new. I learned that there had been some rearrangements of the committees in the spring. There were a number of resignations of past members and this was the reason for all the new appointees. While a few presentations were made by City staff in those first meetings, none of the committee members appeared to contribute their own materials, called submissions. I approached a number of members and spoke to them briefly. But it seemed unusual that the City did not prepare any orientation session or provide any contact information so that members could communicate with each other outside of the meetings.
September 26th was the first meeting of the new members of the CSCP. Because of my many years of involvement in road safety and collision reconstruction I was looking to making an impact. In that meeting I quickly made acquaintances with several members and it was all very positive. Almost all the members were new to the committee. I spoke briefly with the City’s Staff secretary who was also very positive about the new members and she was looking forward to our future work. Unfortunately I only had this one chance to attend the CSCP meeting because they only meet every two months. This seemed like a rather lengthy gap between meetings as the issues of community safety and crime prevention would seem to be important and needing independent input.
I finally became involved by writing a submission to the agenda for the TAC meeting in late October. This submission is attached in a link, along with two others, further in this article. In this initial submission I wrote about some of the technical procedures I have come to dependent on in my many years of road safety research and collision reconstruction. I believed these procedures could apply to the work of the TAC because they dealt with obtaining objective data – the kind of thing that committee members would need if they were to properly advise City staff and politicians. It has always been my view that everyone can have an opinion, but the worthwhile ones are supported by objective facts and data. I was quite surprised when I received a reply from the Committee’s secretary, a City Staff employee, that my submission was beyond the scope of the Committee, specifically Committee members were not allowed to conduct “field studies”. This sounded very odd. A brief exchange of e-mails occurred with the City Clerk’s Office from which I could not obtain a logical explanation. But I moved on.
For the November meeting of TAC I produced another submission. This had to do with traffic volumes along arterial roadways in the north-east area of London. Since I had been conducting independent research in that area for 10 years I had substantial data on traffic volumes and patterns. But I checked with our Committee chairman to make sure this discussion would not be deemed beyond the committee’s scope. He reviewed the material and concluded it should be within our scope. He believed this document could be a starting point to generate a discussion amongst members to get them involved in issues of future traffic planning.
At the same time I prepared a submission to the November CSCP meeting. This dealt with posted speed reductions in school zones and the fact that my field studies showed that drivers were not reducing their speeds in those zones.
I was taken aback once again when the City Clerk’s Office sent me another e-mail indicating that my submission to the TAC was not appropriate as it should have been sent to “Civic Administration prior to being considered for inclusion on the agenda “. Strangely, the e-mail also indicated that I should “consider whether any pecuniary interest would apply to your submissions”. In a sense the Clerk’s Office was suggesting that these submissions were somehow tied to some special interest or benefit that I would gain. I noticed that the secretary for the CSCP also removed my submission from the upcoming agenda. It was at this point that I made up my mind that our relationship was done.
I now submit (below) the three submissions that were rejected by the City Clerk’s office.
Video Technology Available To Support Transportation Committee – Oct 8-19
Reduced Posted Speeds in School Zones – Are They Working – Nov-19
In these dealings I detected an unreasonable level of concern, bordering on paranoia, within the City’s administration with respect to information being made public that they themselves did not generate. The topics I had raised in my three submissions were quite remote from any criticism of the City’s actions, and in fact, would be considered by any objective outsider, as directly related to the scope of the two advisory committees. Yet I sensed that there was an over-riding need by the City to maintain complete control over what may be openly discussed. This becomes paralyzing with respect to the functioning of its advisory committees. If the City has full control over what is said then it prevents minor problems from being detected, allowing actions to move forward into advanced stages where uncorrected errors could result in major legal and cost consequences. The results of these actions are not always benign as the City of Hamilton has recently found out.
Two extremely damaging incidents have occurred involving the City of Hamilton’s Administration which have also netted some members of its city council. Firstly, in February, 2019, a story broke out of the disappearance of a report, authored by Tradewind Scientific, whose 2013 testing revealed that below-standard surface friction existed along the City’s Red Hill Valley Parkway (RHVP). When the existence of the report was uncovered in the fall of 2018 no one could explain how it became “lost” in the first place. This caused the belief by many that the report was purposely hidden by persons unknown as its results would be damaging to the City particularly because of several collisions, some fatal, suggesting low surface friction may have been a factor. This relationship between suspicious collisions and the lost report could not be any more damning. This led to the filing of a $250 million dollar class-action lawsuit against the City of Hamilton.
In fact the finding that low surface friction existed on the RHVP could have been defended as low friction was likely not the only causal factor in the collisions. A comparison had been made between collisions on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway (LAP) and the RHVP and it was reported that the number of collisions on the RHVP was much higher. However the difference in the geometry of the two Parkways was never considered. The geometry of the RHVP contained significant horizontal and vertical curves while the LAP was level and straight. For collision occurrence this is a major factor, and pointing this out could have lessened the consequences to the City. But if the Tradewinds report was purposely hidden then this could prove to be disastrous to the defense and the City’s tax payers.
A second revelation was uncovered just this week by the Hamilton Spectator Newspaper that the City’s council and its administration knew of a sewage leak that reportedly spilled an estimated 24 billion litres of raw sewage into a Hamilton Creek. The Spectator indicated that “An overflow take gate was partly open for four-and-a-half years”.
The Spectator made the following comments in its November 24th article:
What did the city tell (and not tell) the public?
The city told the public about the spill in July 2018 and posted warning signs around the popular paddling spot, but the full magnitude of the disaster was kept under wraps.
Staff and outside legal counsel advised council against publicizing the estimated 24-billion-litre volume and more-than-four-year span, as well as releasing consulting reports.
The rationale was that doing so could expose the city to financial risk amid a Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks investigation with potential fines of as high as $6 million.
What’s the political fallout?
Councillors say they opted for secrecy to protect taxpayers from financial liability, citing the legal advice they received.
All members of council voted in favour of confidentiality, but three councillors — Nrinder Nann, Maureen Wilson and John-Paul Danko — also cast dissenting votes at various times.
If the courts in Ontario are not corrupt they will right the ship, providing a firm indication that municipal secrecy that endangers the public cannot be tolerated.
But what should be most alarming is the actions of legal counsel who advised the City of Hamilton to follow the route of secrecy. And that the City’s elected representatives followed that advice, especially when they should have been aware of the already damning issues related to the hiding of the Tradewinds Scientific report discussed above. The repercussions of these decisions are unlikely to be felt by the lawyers and City politicians. They will be felt by the taxpayers who will be on the hook to pay, not only the legal costs, but all the other costs to sort out the mess of both controversies.
While it is not known what relationship exists between the City of Hamilton and any independent advisory committees they might have, it can be seen how such committees might have been helpful in drawing attention to problems at an early stage. A review of the City’s actions might have caught something such as a missing report, or a malfunctioning piece of sewage equipment, and a correction might have been made earlier than the 4 or more years of delay in the two noted incidents. Instead of being dangerous to a city’s operations, independent advisory committees can provide guidance and opinions that may not necessarily be what City representatives want to hear. But that results in a set of checks and balances that is good for the city. Regrettably, the City of Hamilton may have to pay huge amounts in legal costs, and numerous other costs associated with the actions of its representatives.
It is clear to me that the City of London is struggling whether to follow the lead of its counterparts in Hamilton. Up to now I have observed that London’s representatives appear to have chosen the path of secrecy. They have chosen to remove the three submissions I made and that is their choice to make. However I decided not to be a part of this process as I believe it is wrongheaded and will likely lead to the same grave circumstances that the City of Hamilton is currently experiencing.
OPP Posting of Collision Between Transport & Disabled Vehicle Enables Valuable Lessons
This disabled vehicle that was struck by a transport truck provides several valuable lessons.
We congratulate Sergeant Kerry Schmidt for posting several photos of a collision on Highway 401 near Highway 6 as these enable a further discussion and valuable lessons to the public. As typical, not all the details of the incident can be obtained from just a few photos, but they can be used in a general discussion of similar events.
Firstly, the photo above shows the disabled vehicle which has sustained what appears to be an extreme amount of crush to its rear end. A single photo like this is often not fully descriptive of collision severity because it may only show the area of maximum crush whereas we also need to consider other portions of the vehicle such as the extent of crush at the right rear corner. An occupant seated in the driver’s seat of this vehicle would definitely be in grave circumstances, as properly reported by Sergeant Schmidt. But given the description “disabled” we would want to know whether the reportedly injured occupant was actually seated in the driver’s seat, or was actually somewhere else when the impact occurred.
Regrettably, there have been some previous comments posted by OPP investigators that persons involved in a collision on Hwy 401 should remain in their vehicles as this is the safest location. These comments were made when officers were investigating a situation where the occupant of a disabled vehicle exited and tried to run to the roadside and was killed in the process. Thus these instructions were based on this narrow focus and lack of understanding that there is no universally safe location or action. The OPP instructions to the general public should not be made with a narrow focus on the results of an individual collision. Unfortunately the person in peril needs to make a decision based on the individual circumstances that they are placed in. As shown in the above photo you could easily die when sitting is a disabled vehicle, in darkness, on Hwy 401. And you could easily die from exiting your vehicle and attempting to run to safety of the roadside. The correct advise is that you have to be cognizant of your environment and make your decision based on the specifics of what you detect and understand.
The most dangerous seconds are those just as your disabled vehicle is coming to a stop and Sergeant Schmidt was correct in stating “TRY to get off the lane”, if you can. In other words, as you are experiencing your vehicle difficulties attempt to bring your vehicle off the travel lanes. While this cannot always be done successfully, the alternative of being stopped in the middle of the travel lanes can be more dangerous. You cannot be meek or hesitant about exiting the travel surface. In most instances you need to “hammer your gas” pedal to exit as quickly as possible. And in some instances purposely driving into a barrier, vegetation or uneven ground.
If you must remain in your vehicle and it is stalled in a live lane it is essential that you wear your seat-belt. Your vehicle provides an important safety cage that contains advanced technology designed to improve your safety. In the vast majority of impact scenarios your chances are favourable when you are in your vehicle versus outside, given that the impact will occur. Also do not sit in any of the rear seats when the potential of a serious rear-end impact is probable.
If you have the ability to activate any emergency lighting such as Hazard Lights it would be obvious they should be activated. But some persons may actually have traffic cones or other warning devices such as traffic vests that could be worn or placed on the roadway thus warning drivers of your vehicle’s presence. Obviously, stepping out of your stopped vehicle and blindly rummaging through the open trunk and then walking up stream of your vehicle to place some cones needs to be taken with extreme caution taking the unique circumstances into consideration.
The belief that your Hazard Lights will clearly indicate to others approaching your vehicle that you are stopped is a very wrong and dangerous conclusion. There are many vehicles on any roadway that have their Hazard Lights activated but are not stopped. They may be travelling slowly or the driver may have activated them to draw attention to a specific condition of their vehicle. Fatal collisions have been documented where the principal cause was the mistaken belief that Hazard Lights would clearly demonstrate the stopped condition of a vehicle. Thus, it would be advisable to always have 3 or 4 traffic cones in the the trunk of your vehicle. Prior instructions must also be obtained as to where, and what distance these cones need to be placed with respect to your stopped. By far traffic cones are most helpful devices that indicate your stopped condition and they are relatively cheap to buy. Unless you intend to retain a blocking truck with a large TC-12 arrow sign wherever you go, cones must be a must.
Hwy 401 near Highway 6 is often populated by up to 50% heavy trucks so your chances of being struck by one of those large units is much higher than elsewhere. So, on that isolated basis, it would be advised to try to get out of your vehicle and, if you cannot cross to safety, at least move to a position a good 20 metres downstream of your disabled vehicle. If an approaching vehicle is unable to stop and it strikes your vehicle, there is a better chance that by the time it reaches your location the speeds of the combined vehicles may be less than if you stood near, or downstream of where your vehicle is stopped. Also, remaining vigilant, you may be able to assess the impact and consider an escape route that minimizes consequences to you. By the way, moving much further downstream, say 50 metres, from your disabled vehicle brings more danger because now you provide passing vehicles, that may be involved in emergency motions, to veer into the lane where you are standing thus negating the benefit of using your vehicle as a safety barrier.
Never underestimate the additional protection that a concrete median barrier can provide. If your vehicle is stalled in either the middle or left (fast) lane of a 3-lane expressway such as Highway 401, and there is no way that you can move your vehicle, you may be advised to run to this barrier and cross over it. Do not stand on the side of the barrier where your vehicle is stalled. Your life may depend on you crossing over the barrier so do absolutely whatever is necessary, including help from another person, or using any device that will help you get over the rather tall barrier. Elderly or other infirm persons may have difficulty with this but when it is a matter of life and death you may not have a choice and must do whatever is necessary to increase your chances of survival.
While the above photo shows that the struck vehicle did not catch fire, that is not always the case. Unfortunately the occurrence of post impact fires seems to be gaining in frequency. If you happen to be an occupant of a disabled vehicle that sustains major damage it is common that your door, and/or other doors may become jammed and you may not be able to open them. If fire erupts the consequences could be quite horrific. Noting these consequences should not lead to an unreasonable alarm such that the escaping a vehicle is advised in all instances. For example if your vehicle has become disabled and a substantial amount of traffic has now slowed, the percentages are likely in your favour if you remain in your vehicle, particularly if one of the stopping vehicles is a heavy truck which will act as a barrier from any further collisions behind your vehicle.
It needs to be reiterated that nothing here is foolproof or guaranteed, so these advisements are noted to increase your chances of a more favourable injury outcome, they will not guarantee a successful result.
The photo of the striking transport truck lying on its right side, provided by Sergeant Schmidt, is shown below and this provides another lesson.
The striking transport truck is seen lying on its side.
We sometimes hear the phrase “mass wins” when discussing who is likely to survive in a collision. In other words, when you are the occupant of a much heavier (more massive) vehicle, you will sustain less injury than if you are the occupant of a lighter (less massive) vehicle. The details of that discussion will be left to another time. But drivers of massive transport trucks can enter into an unrealistic belief that they do not need to worry about being injured when their truck collides with a much smaller car. That can be a fatal error in judgment.
Yes, the driver of the transport truck in this collision reportedly sustained only minor injuries but the result could have been much different. During the actual impact between the car and truck the driver of the truck would clearly be at an advantage. In that narrow sense, mass does win. And it can be seen above that the truck likely lost relatively little speed from that actual impact as the truck continued to travel along its original path for a considerable distance. But it is not that initial impact that is of concern, but what happens as the truck travels, out-of-control, from impact to rest. The impact may cause damage to the truck’s steering system or other wheels and suspension making it difficult for the driver to gain control. The critical factor is that this truck, which may also be loaded with cargo, possesses much more kinetic energy than the car, due to its mass. That kinetic energy needs to be dissipated (“gotten rid of”) by producing mechanical “Work”. This transfer of energy occurs when the truck moves from impact to rest via the resistance to that travel by way of possible braking at the wheels or some form of jamming or damage to those wheels that produces further resistance to motion. The transfer of energy may also occur from falling over and sliding, as demonstrated in the photo above. The transfer of energy may occur from impacting something and causing crush to the truck, the struck object or both. There might even be a small amount of energy transferred by creating noise or vibrations. Regardless, the point is that when all this kinetic energy is available it can be dangerous to the truck driver. Crush can occur to the truck cab where the driver is seated. It may also occur from dislodged cargo that may move toward the cab. There could be a penetration into the cab from exterior objects. All these dangerous things will happen because of this very large amount of kinetic energy than needs to be dissipated before the driver can be safe.
But what about dangerous cargo? What if the truck is carrying something explosive or corrosive?
It is not appreciated that any barrier systems existing on modern highways are designed to protect occupants of smaller vehicles. They are not designed to stop or redirect large trucks. Many barriers are not tall enough and heavy vehicles often fall over them, sometimes causing a more dangerous situation than if no barrier existed. A full-size, and fully-loaded tractor trailer will often penetrate through a barrier and could travel into opposing lanes where it could collide with other vehicles, including other trucks. These are additional dangers faced by truck drivers that are experienced after a seemingly minor impact with a smaller vehicle.
In summary, think of collision analysis as a label that you read on a prescribed bottle of drug. Reading the label tells you how the drug may be helpful and where its side effects may be dangerous. In the same way, we need to read the “collision label” through collision analysis. We need to read about what happens in real-life collisions in order to protect us from those unfortunate circumstances when a collision could threaten our life or those around us. When we fail to read the label, or when police and news media fail to paste a label for us to read, our lack of understanding can lead to potentially needless tragedy.
Parker or Donovan – OPP and SIU Differ About Which Police Officer Was Guilty
Original SIU charges against Constable Donovan are dropped.
It is strange enough that one police officer would shoot another while both are in uniform and apparently conducting official police business. But it is not helpful that two independent policing agencies who investigated the incident appear to differ in their conclusions as to who was guilty.
The incident revolved around an apparent accident investigation that was under way on Roland Road, west of Niagara Falls. It was November 29, 2018 and Niagara Regional Police Constable Nathan Parker and Niagara Regional Police Detective Sergeant Shane Donovan became involved in an unspecified dispute. This escalated when Donovan reportedly shot a number of rounds from his gun which struck Parker several times. The Province’s Special Investigation Unit (SIU) conducted their investigation and charged Donovan with attempted murder. Subsequently it was noted that a parallel investigation by the OPP led to charges being laid against the officer who was shot, Constable Parker, and those charges included assault of a peace officer, assault with intent to resist arrest, and assault with a weapon.
Yet, strangely, in a new article of November 22, 2019 by Samantha Craggs of the CBC, the charges against Donovan have now been dropped. Furthermore, unless Craggs made a clerical error in her article, Parker is now charged with attempted murder. Remember (above) that originally Parker was only charged with assaulting a peace officer, resisting arrest and assault with a weapon. So, unless the CBC article is in error, the charges against Parker have been elevated.
But it remains a further mystery as to how the SIU investigation could come to a completely different interpretation of the incident from the OPP. The SIU determined Donovan was guilty and the OPP determined that Parker was guilty.
In a separate article written by Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star, some additional facts surrounding the incident were revealed. For example, that the original collision involved a single vehicle that was being driven by an impaired driver and the vehicle went out of control and into a ditch and burst into flames. (As reported by Gorski Consulting on a number of occasions, the occurrence of a fire during a vehicle collision is itself an unusual occurrence that should require further investigation). The the shooting incident reportedly occurred some 17 days after the collision, at which time the investigation should only have been a follow up requiring the attendance of perhaps one or two officers. Yet DiManno reported that there were 213 officers at the accident site at the time of the shooting. As Ms. DiManno noted “That’s practically an entire platoon. So why would so many cops be present for what was supposed to have been a routine followup”.
It is now approaching a year since the shooting occurrence and we appear to be no closer to an explanation of all these contradictory events. The problem is that, as such events become postponed the public, and news writers, become apathetic and move on to the next great news story. Yet this story needs to be revealed because of its many important issues. A large issue: How can two professional policing agencies, the OPP and the SIU, come to such differing conclusions as to what happened.
UPDATE: OCTOBER 29, 2023
Oops, a typo. A recent visitor to this article caused it to be brought to our attention that a typo exists with respect to the article posted by Rosie DiManno. The sentence “Yet DiManno reported that there were 213 officers at the accident site…” should read that 13 officers were at the site. Fat fingers. Regardless the fact remains unusual that 13 officers would be present at an accident site 17 days after a collision. No further details about the outcome of this very unusual shooting incident have been made publicly available.
Drowning Fatality in Water-Filled Ditch Receives Minimal Attention
In news media reports from November 14, 2019 it was revealed that Brenda King, a resident of Chatham, Ontario died when her vehicle was found submerged in a water-filled ditch next to Tecumseh Road between Lake St Clair and Tilbury, Ontario. A single photo, shown below, was made available to the public, via the OPP, showing the vehicle resting on its wheels on a road surface. In the background one can see a water-filled ditch.
This OPP photo of Ms. King’s vehicle provides minimal connection to the fact that her drowning raised an important safety issue.
There was little mention of the tragedy in any of the majors news outlets. And there was little information about the specific location where the vehicle was found. Comparing the background in the photo Gorski Consulting examined Googlemaps images and was able to locate the site, as shown in several images below.
Overall view of site located between Chatham and Windsor, Ontario.
View looking west along Tecumseh Road (Highway 2) toward the accident site. The water-filled ditch is shown along the left side of the road. The T-intersection with Lighthouse Side Road is shown on the right.
Another westward view of the site. It should be obvious that there is no barrier between the roadway and the ditch.
Clearly this site does not contain any barrier to prevent vehicles from entering the water. While Tecumseh Road likely contains a low traffic volume the site is also the location of a T-intersection with Essex County Road 39 which leads to the higher population area of Lighthouse Cove on the shore of Lake St Clair. Thus any vehicles that might miss detecting the stop sign at the T-intersection would also end up in the water-filled ditch. There was no indication from news media or police as to how Ms. King’s vehicle ended up submerged and which direction she was travelling.
Furthermore, a 2008 Transportation Master Plan of the Town of Lakeshore (where the site resides) recommended that this intersection be improved to carry more traffic, as noted in this quote taken from the 2008 study:
“Lighthouse Community Access – At present, the Lighthouse community is provided with only one formal access via CR 39. This roadway and other associated connections are susceptible to restrictions from temporary flooding and rail operations. From an emergency services perspective, the Town should pursue a second allseason road connection to this area.”
This recommended improvement is also noted in graphic form showing other recommended improvements for the area, as shown in the upper right corner of the figure below.
Map of recommended improvements to the Lakeshore community noted in its 2008 Transportation Master Plan.
Regrettably, the Transportation Master Plan focused on Level of Service in terms of the numbers of vehicles that might be using the various roadways and what improvements would be needed to improve the flow of traffic. At no point did the Master Plan address the serious safety deficiencies that existed, not only at the site of the drowning of Ms. King but at many of the other sites in the area where bodies of water exist close to the road edges and there is not barrier existing to protect the driving public from death due to drowning. In many respects, this document provides a glimpse of similar analysis and projections that are conducted by various professional engineering firms that focus on “Level of Service” rather than, or including, “Level of Safety”.
The difficulty has been discussed by Gorski Consulting in several postings to this website where the installation of various barriers along roadsides is recognized as a major cost item. The Counties of Lambton, Kent and Essex contain a large number of secondary roadways where water-filled ditches exist. As a result Gorski Consulting has reported on many previous deaths due to drowning in these Counties, similar to the one being discussed. This major cost makes it difficult to provide those large numbers of barriers that are needed. In the years before the enactment of Ontario’s Municipal Act, the Province of Ontario was much more involved in the standardization of roads, especially in the standardization of levels of safety. As the responsibility of the maintenance of roads were downloaded to individual municipalities regional disparities emerged as richer areas, or areas of less demand, are able to deal with safety improvements from their own tax base. But for mainly rural areas of the Counties of Lambton, Kent and Essex, infrastructure improvements remain limited due to the limited means to make them. And here lies the folly in this non-standardization of safety in the Province. Not only do local residents suffer the potential from drowning in water-filled ditches but visitors to the area, who are not familiar with specific roadways, fall into these “mouse traps”.
There have been many incidents such as the one experienced by the family and acquaintances of Brenda King where individuals do not carry a loud voice that can be heard by the general public. When police and news media do not publicize the dangers of these ditches no one knows or cares.
Past history is a educator when we look at the numbers of reported drowning in official Provincial statistics. In the 1988 Ontario Road Safety Annual Report the following statistics were noted with respect to vehicular drownings in the Province:
Number of Motor Vehicles Involved in Accidents Based on Initial Impact Type –
Impact of “Water Course” =, no fatals, 6 personal injury collisions, 7 property damage collisions, no fatals.
Submersion = No fatals, 1 personal injury collision, 3 property damage collisions.
No fatals in all of the year in 1988, yet we can read of several submersion deaths in the news media every month in the last few years. And Gorski Consulting has listed these instances in a number of news items and articles on this website. So who do we believe? Has there suddenly become a large increase in fatals from drowning in the last few years. Or have the annual statistics from the Province of Ontario failed to flag these instances?
Emotions Continue to be an Interference with Unbiased, Objective Analysis
Whether it be in the realm of religion, culture, climate, race, politics or justice there has been a marked increase in the emotional content of society’s judgment. Whether it is the internet that is causing this polarization and radicalization or some unknown accelerant, it is readily visible in any recent, public communication.
This observation is no different in the realm of roadway collision investigation and safety analysis. Where we could count on cooler heads to prevail, judgment of basic incidents seems to take a heated twist. A case in point is a recent incident involving another vehicle fire that occurred in a Mississauga, Ontario parking lot. Peel Regional Police attempted to make light of the result that a driver was observed doing “donuts” in the parking lot, and subsequently the vehicle caught fire. The driver apparently escaped and fled the scene. The phrase used in the Peel police Twitter posting indicated the words “We highly recommend you ‘donut’ try this’. – Sorry. I couldn’t resist”. We believe humour is good for the soul so minimal harm done. However, the potential consequences were not humorous. While there was obvious anger simmering toward the driver under the writings of many social media posts, this also clouded the reality that the fire was of suspicious origin.
It may be amusing, and most would like to seek vengeance upon the “donut driver” of this burned out car, but the smoke of emotion has clouded our reasoning.
We have all seen the burn outs of a hot summer night when young men demonstrate their immaturity by performing high accelerations and various spin outs before police arrive. That has been happening since our grand-father’s days. And it is not likely to change in basic format. High acceleration causes high tire and brake friction which causes heat and then fire. A simple recipe, so why bother complicating it? But on snow-covered surfaces that high friction is likely to be much less than in summer. And high heat from brake system applications is also suspect when there is little resistance to lock-up the wheels. Yes, some of the result may be due to the foolishness of the driver. But there is more to this.
Many vehicles have been observed to catch fire on our roads without much concern or investigation. Many of these fires have occurred under questionable circumstances. When such fires occur after an impact there is little or no concern expressed by either police or news media. The fire is just something that is mentioned in passing, if at all. Yet there have been the occasional fires where occupants have been trapped and perished in the worst way, not related to the impact, but due to the fire. No one wants to discuss these results because it is claimed that it might upset the family and friends of the deceased. And so we move on to the next fire and the next potential fatality.
What appears to exist in the minds of those examining this story about the ‘donut driver’ is that somehow we believe he (or she) would deserve to be burned alive because they were stupid enough to perform donuts in a parking lot. It was noted that only a few days earlier a number of drivers had closed down a major highway in Toronto in order to perform those donuts and then escaped without detection. This irritated both police and many in the general public. So now there is a resultant lashing out at anyone alleged to perform similar acts. No longer do we wish to conduct an objective investigation as to how this fire started. What is vastly more important is that we find this guy (or girl).
We must recognize the importance of keeping our emotions in check and understanding how emotion can cloud our objective reasoning. We do not need to look very far back in our collective history to recognize the disasters that have erupted when we allow hysteria/contagion to cloud our reasoning. When we read the inflammatory social media posts of others, and participate in them, we must become educated about what that is doing to us and how it is changing and controlling us, often not for the better.
You must be logged in to post a comment.