A CBC photo showing an undamaged guardrail does not explain how a vehicle carrying four young victims got past a guardrail and into a pond where they drowned. Surely we should require an explanation. The photo below was posted on the CBC website reportedly showing the location where the drownings occurred.
A photo in a previous CBC article showed the end of the guardrail located behind the camera of the photo above. In that previous photo it could be seen that the guardrail ended, or began, as a buried end treatment such that the guardrail would create a ramp upon which a vehicle could be vaulted into the roadside. Such end treatments are old and known for causing such vaulting such that more current designs do not possess such end treatments. The point is that the matter is not being raised by the CBC nor is anyone else discussing its relevance. Clearly there is no information about where the vehicle exited the road and that should be made known.
While the reported heroic efforts engaged by emergency personnel to try to save the teenagers are commendable, those efforts may not have been required if an inspection of the collision site was made at some earlier point to evaluate the potential of a vehicle entering the roadside water. There in no heroism in allowing dangerous roadside conditions to exist and then hiding their relevance when a tragedy occurs.
UPDATE: April 22, 2019, 0920 hours
A CTV news video have been located discussing the collision and a video segment was shown indicating that damage existed near the end (beginning) of the guardrail which had a buried end treatment. The damage appears consistent with what would have occurred if the Nissan Rogue in which the four teenages were in vaulted over top of the barrier. Thus the CBC photo above was misleading as it showed a portion of the guardrail that was undamaged and not where the Nissan left the roadway. It is questionable why police attended a news conference without discussing the issue of the performance of the guardrail and why an inspection of the site was not conducted to assess whether it was possible for a vehicle to pass through it and enter the water. Clearly, anyone interested in the public’s safety would raise the issue.