School Bus Fatality Needs Transparency To Avoid Future Tragedies
Much like the universe the internet has no bounds. That appears most obvious in areas surrounding rumours, misinformation and gossip. When official information is not released about a collision this does not prevent public speculation about what took place – it merely emphasizes the gossip that is generated. Such may be the case in a recent school-bus-involved fatal collision just west of London, Ontario on December 16, 2024.
From an official standpoint London City Police are the entity that should have the most knowledge about how a 7-year-old boy, Dante Caranci, was struck and killed after exiting a school bus on Longwoods Road near Murray Road just before 1600 hours on December 16th. The problem originates with the lack of information about what transpired. In their post on the London City police website police indicated: “Members of the LPS Traffic Management Unit continue to investigate the serious collision involving a pedestrian that occurred earlier this week. The young boy transported to hospital by paramedic services, has succumbed to his injuries.” The fact that the collision involved a school bus was not even mentioned in the police notification.
Official news media have also not reported any useful information although they are at a disadvantage if police refuse to release that information. Yet in the past when professional, investigative journalism was in existence, news persons were able to snoop around the official circles and exteract the details that were not officially released. That is no longer the case.
Objective, unbiased information about what happened is not just for the purpose of satisfying the curiosity of the public. Such information plays a crucial role in determining if mistakes were made, if policies and procedures need to be changed and in educating the public about preventing future tragedies.
Traffic collisions are complex events. They are advertised as being caused by one or two major factors while the reality is that many others have an influence that could have prevented a collision from occurring. This reality never reaches the public psyche. Information that is spread through unofficial sources provides some benefits but it is often unreliable. The source of unofficial information may be a “witness”, or someone who claims to be so. But it may also be someone who has no knowledge about the incident and is simply spreading rumours for many reasons. Information that is actual misinformation is not just a nuisance but it can be detrimental to public safety when the unsuspecting public comes to believe something that did not occur or could not occur.
Without any knowledge about what happened in the actual event it is the duty of Gorski Consulting to refrain from spreading gossip and provide some broad comments, without suggesting that they apply to this actual case.
Some School Bus Safety Facts
School buses operating in the Province of Ontario are required to be of a minimal safety level that is beyond the norm for typical, privately operated vehicles. Unlike drivers of private vehicles school bus drivers must complete a “circle check” of their vehicle every morning before taking it onto the road. Import issues views such as the status of what exists in the engine compartment, the condition of the steering system, suspension system and the bus wheels/tires.
The lighting of most modern school buses can be checked by simply pressing a lamp-check button on the instrument panel. This button activates all the lights on the bus in succeeding/alternating fashion. So the school bus driver needs to step outside the bus and walk around it as the lighting comes on and off. Every light that functions on the bus is turned on and off when it is functioning properly during this test. When a driver sees that a particular light is not coming on he/she must report it is a log book and to the bus operator/mainenance so that the problem can be repaired. Some malfunctions can be minor and some major. If a major malfunction exists, such as the failure of the red, flashing, overhead lights, the bus cannot be driven until the malfunction is repaired.
School buses are generally large vehicles. They are as wide as a typical tractor-trailer truck combination and they are about 2 1/2 times longer than a typical passenger car, or about 12.5 metres in length. Even the smaller, 20-seater, van-based school buses are of the size and weight of the heaviest, full-size passenger van.
The floor of a full-size school bus is just over 1 metre above the ground and thus the seats of the bus are well above the height of a typical passenger car. This means that when an impact occurs with most cars and light trucks there is minimal likelihood that the side of the bus will be crushed into where the students are seated.
The front axle of a full-size school bus is located up to a metre behind the front bumper and its engine also exists in front of the driver’s seating position. The bus driver generally sits about 2.4 meters behind the front bumper. These features protect the school bus driver in many serious, frontal impacts that may involve substantial crush.
The height of a typical school bus may be a little more than 3 metres. The overhead lights on a typical, full-size school bus are generally about 2.8 metres above the ground. While this is higher than almost all light-duty vehicles it is not as high as some heavy trucks. Many tractor, semi-trailer combinations are operated with a typical, box, semi-trailer whose height is taller than the height of the overhead lights of a school bus and this can be a problem.
When coming to a stop a bus driver must activate certain lights that warn other drivers of that imminent action. Typically amber warning lights are activated usually more that 5 seconds before the actual stop but how early that occurs is dependent on the preferences of the individual driver.
Once the bus has come to a stop the driver presses an “Open” door button or toggle switch. Older buses still exist where the doors are opened by the driver pulling on a manual handle that is attached to the doors. Regardless, once the doors begin to be opened the stop sign located on the left side of the bus rotates outward and flashing lights on the perimeter of the stop sign begin to flash. Also there are alternating, overhead, red lights that come on. The actual arrangement of actions and responses varies slightly from one bus to another.
Some Details About The Longwoods Crash Site
While no information has been released about how the 7-year-old boy was killed at the Longwoods Road crash site, some comments can be made based on the known features of the site.
Longwoods Road is the new name for the old Provincial Highway #2. This road was the primary artery for carrying vehicles east/west in South-Western Ontario for many years until the Highway 401 expressway was built in the early 1960s. To this day Longwoods Road still carries a substantial amount of traffic including heavy trucks. City of London traffic volume data indicates that approximately 6 to 8 thousand vehicles pass along Longwoods Road near Murray Road every day. While the setting is generally rural it has progressively been changing to suburban elements as the edges of the City of London have grown progressively closer to the site. A Googlemaps view of the site’s location with respect to the City of London is shown below.
A closer view of the site is shown in the next Googlemaps view.
The Googlemaps view below is a street view looking eastward along Longwoods Road towards Murray Road. It shows that the roadway contains a gentle curve in the vicinity of Murray Road.
A traffic volume of 6 to 8 thousand vehicles per day in an 80 km/h speed zone represents a challenging scenario for picking up and delivering students by school bus. When the roadway contains a curve additional complications develop whereby visibility becomes an added problem. In such circumstances attention must be paid to the selection of a proper stop location.
In the London region Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services is an organization that is responsible for organizing school bus services to the public and Catholic school boards. Their website provides the following description of their responsibilities:
“STS is responsible for planning and coordinating school bus service for close to 50,000 who live in Elgin, Middlesex, and Oxford counties and in the city of London. STS contacts school bus companies who are responsible for the daily service and the bus drivers are their employees.”
While several school bus companies operate in the London area it is actually the personnel at STS who design the routes and stop locations for every school bus. Each year the school bus routes are changed and prior to the start of the school year school bus drivers make preliminary “drive through” runs of the new routes to ensure that they can be completed in the times estimated by STS. Routes may involve as little as one stop or as many as 15 or more depending on what STS deems reasonable.
Often a school bus will complete a morning route to deliver children to high schools and then they will complete a second route for delivery of younger children to elementary schools.
In the afternoon school buses arrive at local high schools generally between 1400 and 1440 hours. After these routes are completed the buses then travel to the elementary schools around 1525 to 1535 hours where they pick-up the younger children. School buses generally leave the property of elementary schools around 1535 to 1550 hours.
It is not known for sure however the child who was killed may have attended Lambeth Public School which is just over 2 kilometres from the area where the reported collision occurred. The direction in which the school bus was travelling just prior to the collision would depend on the actual route assigned by STS.
Potential Collision Causal Factors
There are many factors that could potentially affect what occurred. One is driver distraction. It is generally agreed in bus driving circles that routes driven for elementary schools are more distracting. Not all situations are the same however high school students have been socialized over the years so that they generally stay in their seats while riding a bus. Elementary school children are often more difficult to keep in their seats and bus drivers must often keep an eye in their mirrors and tell children to sit down. Elementary school children are also more noisy, especially during the afternoon ride home. These distractions are more common when there are more children on a bus and they are more common in the early portion of a route when children have not yet been let off. As the route progresses and more children depart the level of noise and distraction generally dies down. Given the rural nature of the Longwoods Road collision site, the number of children exiting at any particular stop would be smaller than in the condensed areas of an urban stop. So it would generally be easier for a school bus driver to pay attention to any students exiting the bus because there would be fewer children to monitor.
STS goes to great lengths to create bus stops where a child exits “door side” rather than having to cross the road. That becomes more important on rural highways. News media reports and the content of the police news release suggest that there could have been other vehicles involved in the collision other than the school bus. But that has not been officially stated. Why such basic information is kept secret does not appear to make sense. If the boy was struck by another vehicle, and not by the school bus, then it is most likely that the child had to cross the road after exiting the bus. This is of particular concern because such a stop is highly avoided by STS, for good reasons. This why information about how and why the bus stop was selected needs to be publicly revealed.
A common procedure has been established that, where a child crosses in front of a school bus, the child is told to wait and get a signal from the bus driver before proceeding out onto the roadway. This is because the bus driver can see traffic behind and in front from an elevated position and the bus driver’s experience can help a child make a safe crossing. Again, nothing is known if the bus driver was ever aware of such a procedure or if it was taught to the school children at the school where the boy attended.
The photo below was taken several years ago at another site on the outskirts of London. It shows a typical example of a rural school bus stop. We can see an example of a child being escorted across the road by a parent. Behind the bus is a large tractor-trailer which has stopped a considerable distance away from the stopped school bus. This action by the truck driver, of stopping a long distance away from the bus, is an important action because the height of the truck could block the visibility of the school bus lights from the drivers of vehicles behind.
When school bus drivers see that a large truck has stopped behind the bus then a greater focus must be applied to be certain that the bus lights are not blocked by the truck. While uncommon, drivers can see a stopped truck in front of them and, without understanding why, they may try to pass the truck because they do not see the school bus. Again complications like these need to be considered and corrected if they apply.
Weather conditions might also need to be considered. On the afternoon of the collision date the temperatures were unusually high in the area of London: 7 to 9 degrees Celsius. While there were concerns that fog may have been one of the causal factors that does not appear to be obvious. The photo below, although out-of-focus, was taken on the collision date shortly after 1600 hours at a location on the west side of London. It shows that rain was falling and the presence of fog is not obvious. It is known that fog can exist, and can be more intense, in rural areas like Longwoods Road even though it is not obvious in the city itself.
Summary
The safety of children riding in school buses is understood by all involved. School personnel understand it, parents understand it, bus drivers and operators understand it, police understand it and so should all drivers on the road. Children are vulnerable to dangers that they cannot comprehend, often due to their lack of experience in the world. It is up to all persons and organizations to create the environment that is safe for children.
When a tragedy occurs it is often the regrettable response that persons are afraid that focus will be placed on them, their actions and their organizations for something that they may have done incorrectly. This is commonly seen in transportation collisions. The common response is that all those in control of information about what happened attempt to hide the information. The regrettable result is that, when a problem needs to be corrected, and a safety hazard needs to nullified, it becomes a tedious process, even the basic information is hidden. Such is likely to be the case with the current tragedy as it has been repeated numerous times before. It seems that even the safety of innocent school children is not important enough to change this cloak of secrecy.
2024 Cyclist Observations Now Available For London Ontario
New data is now available from observations of cyclists in London, Ontario carried out by Gorski Consulting in the year 2024. This data is obtained from a dashcam mounted at the windshield of a car. It shows the status of cyclists riding on the roadway or adjacent to it, on a sidewalk for example. This data can be compared to previous years, since the year 2021.
Below is the data from 2024.
The summary shown at the bottom of this table shows that 1204 cyclists were observed in 2024, 1032 of those were male and only 151 were female. In 21 instances the gender of the cyclist could not be identified.
Sidewalk usage was defined as all those cyclists who were observed either riding, walking on standing on a sidewalk accompanied by their cycle. This also included cyclists who were observed riding or walking through a pedestrian crossing because any such cyclists almost exclusively entered the pedestrian crossing from a sidewalk. It can be seen in the summary that 62.8% of males and 70.9% of females were observed on a sidewalk.
In 2024 only 12.54% of observed cyclists were females. This is fairly consistent with results from previous years as shown in the tables below.
Data From Previous Years
The following table shows cyclist observations from the year 2023.
The next table shows data from the year 2022.
And the final table below shows the data from the year 2021.
Discussion
As shown in the above tables, a total of 3884 cyclists were documented in the 4-year period of 2021 to 2024. These observations can be broken down to the following categories:
Male = 3221
Female = 501
Gender unk = 162
Thus, in the 3722 observations where gender was known, the 4-year average for female cyclist observations was 13.46%. While minor variances exist from year to year the general conclusion is that the female percentage of cyclists has remained relatively stable. Or there is no indication that the percentage of females has been increasing over the past 4 years. This conclusion is stubbornly concerning. If the cycling mode of transportation is to be increased the greatest opportunity to do so is through an increase in the low values of female participation. Yet the observations documented by Gorski Consulting indicate that female cyclist participation is not improving.
Yet the observations shown here are not a full indicator of what is happening with respect to cycling in the City of London. Gorski Consulting has also been involved in targeted traffic studies at specific locations these provide different results. For example, several studies have been performed along London’s Thames Valley Parkway (TVP), and sites such as Blackfriars Bridge in downtown London, and at the site of a new cycling lane on Colborne Street at St James Street. These targeted studies show that female participation is higher than the City average. Further articles need to be posted on the Gorski Consulting website to provide more detail about these findings.
Cyclist usage of sidewalks is often an indicator of the lack of safety perceived by cyclists who are required, by law, to ride within a lane designated for motor vehicle traffic. As seen in the above tables the percentage of cyclists observed on sidewalks is substantially above 50%. On some roads that percentage of sidewalk usage is much higher. Various public officials and police do not officially recognize this discrepancy. This reality needs to reach the general public and a discussion needs to be had about what safety improvements need to be made to keep cyclists safe.
Cycling Abandonment? So Now What?
The City of London Ontario made a declaration of a climate emergency a few years ago. This was supposed to be a wake up call. Our habits needed to change and this included the way we travel. This was good political posturing that stumbled in its application. A need to increase the cycling mode of transportation from 1% to 25% was advised by one of the City’s advisory committees. This was later downgraded to about 5% by City politicians. Never-the-less a 500% increase in the cycling population was an ambitious goal. Some increases in cycling were noted over the last several years but nothing compared to the City’s goal.
Where the City’s ambitions “failed” can be seen in the example of the cycling lane recently created on Brydges/Wavell Streets in east London. In the following we present a history of the site’s collisions, how the cycling lane became created and what special safety problems still exist for cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles. Cyclists need to know that some portions of protected cycling lanes are not protective and this is demonstrated in this review.
Historical Review of Brydges/Wavell Site
The Googlemaps graphic below shows the site of the Brydges/Wavell roadway with respect to the boundaries of the City of London. As a collector road it runs parallel to the main arterial roadway of Dundas Street which is located about 800 metres to the north. A parallel, arterial road, Trafalgar Road, is also a similar distance to the south. We cannot read the minds of the City staff or politicians who recommended this cycling installation, as much of these decisions are cloaked in secrecy. However it may have been reasoned that this new installation would take cyclists away from these busy roads where no cycling infrastructure exists.
An aerial, Googlemaps view of the western portion of the Brydges/Wavell site is shown below.
Collisions had a history of occurring at the two curves of the site. To the west there was a curve at Cornish Street and to the east there was a second curve at Spruce Street. This should not have been surprising since someone with collision reconstruction experience would know that there is a greater likelihood of a single-vehicle exit from a roadway wherever there is such a curve.
Many collisions occurred when eastbound vehicles on Brydges Street approached the curve at Cornish and failed to pass through the curve, crashing into roadside obstacles on the south side of the curve. An example of this is shown in the following photos below.
The existence of the curve at Cornish is not the only issue. The City of London has demonstrated that its lack of attention to maintenance has exacerbated the problem. For example, when a utility pole was struck down on approach to the curve by an eastbound vehicle the City failed to detect that a “curve warning” sign, which was originally attached to the pole, was not reattached. While such signs are not monumental in collision prevention they are helpful to drivers who pay attention that they are approaching a curve. This is another example of the lack of accountability by the City of safety hazards that they create.
A precarious situation also existed for many years at the curve of Brydges/Wavell and Spruce Street. Road surface repairs were partially completed at the curve in 2013 leaving a patch of bumpy pavement. This was more important because, as vehicles passed through the curve they required a pavement with consistent traction so that it would not contribute to a loss of control of the vehicle. Furthermore signage, required to warn drivers of the surface condition, was not installed for many months.
Oblivious to the potential danger, school crossing guards often positioned themselves at the outside of the curve, sometimes sitting in a lawn chair, as shown in the example below.
Subsequent to the photo shown above, two days later, on November 27, 2013, a vehicle went out of control on the curve. It struck a sand box only a few feet from where the school crossing guard was positioned. A sign post was also struck and damaged as shown in the two photos below.
It is unknown whether city officials were paying attention to these collisions. However Speed Display Boards (SDBs) were installed on the road segment in the spring of 2011 and also in the spring of 2020. The photo below shows the SDB installed in April of 2020.
It is not clear whether City officials gained any guidance from the SDB data. However, in September of 2021 Brydges/Wavell began to see construction taking place as a new cycling lane was being installed.
A disaster was averted early in the construction process when work crews removed the centre-line marking of Brydges east of Hale Street, as shown in the photo below from September 12, 2021. While the new centre-line was painted the old centre-line was not completely removed so many drivers attempted to follow the guidance of the original centre-line, thus placing their vehicles on the wrong side of the road.
The construction of the new cycling lane was done piecemeal. Some segments were completed while other portions of Brydges/Wavell remained untouched. The progress of the construction can be seen from the several photos shown below, taken April 3, 2022.
Protected Cycling Lane Corrections At Cornish Curve
By August of 2022 the cycling lane along Brydges/Wavell Streets was substantially developed. At the Cornish Street curve curb blocks were installed on both sides of the curve. However there was evidence that the curb blocks were being struck, as shown in the following photo.
The next photo, taken on August 11, 2022 shows a view looking eastward at the Cornish curve and the newly installed curb blocks are seen on both sides of Brydges Street.
Evidence that the curb blocks were being struck by passing vehicles can be seen in the next photo where several of the curb blocks at the curve were removed and placed along the north curb. It is believed that this was because the blocks were being struck in the narrowed lane where drivers were having difficulty staying within the lane at the curve.
Removal of the curb blocks also occurred on the south side of Brydges Street, as shown in the photos below.
Subsequently, by March, 2024 the curb blocks on the south side of Brydges were reduced further as shown in the photo below.
The removal of the curb blocks at the Cornish Street curve are a demonstration of the difficulties that drivers experienced in keeping their vehicles within the confines of the lane while travelling around the curve. While removal of the curb blocks prevented them being struck it did not solve the problem, and danger, that continued to exist at the curve. Cyclists believed they were safe while travelling in this “protected” lane but it was not explained to them that motor vehicles travelling around the curve were in jeopardy of travelling outside of their lane and possibly into the cycling lane at the precise location where the curb blocks were removed. Thus the cycling lane became unprotected precisely where that protection was needed the most. This is not a situation that is unique to this roadway and curve but it exists, in differing ways, wherever there is a horizontal curve along with a cycling lane. However this issue has not been publicly discussed.
Not all protected cycling lanes are the same nor do they provide an equal level of protection for cyclists. While the curb blocks existing along the cycling lane of Brydges/Wavell Streets provide some protection it is only limited. A motor vehicle travelling around a curve like the one at Cornish Street will not be redirected by the curb block in any large degree because those blocks are too low and of minimal mass. There are different protections provided in other jurisdictions such as the example shown in the next photo taken on Lakeshore Boulevard near the western edge of Toronto, Ontario.
Cycle Counts – City of London Data
The City of London has installed a number of cycle counters primarily within cycling lanes. An example of such a counter is shown below.
Data from some of these counters is displayed on the City of London website. Data for the year 2024 for the Brydges-Wavell site is shown below with a comparison to six other counter sites.
As shown above the “Wavell” site has counted the lowest number of cyclists. The word “combined” is not explained on the City’s website although it has been observed that two cycle counters have previously existed on the Brydges-Wavell site while the graphic on the website only shows a single counter. Never-the-less the general consensus is that the Brydges-Wavell site contains relatively low usage by cyclists. City data indicates that motor vehicle traffic volume along Brydges-Wavell Streets in approximately 10,000 vehicles per day, or 3.65 million vehicles per year. If the Brydges-Wavell site contains 27,732 cycle observations per year then the percentage of cyclists versus motor vehicles would be about 0.76%. This percentage is below the officially reported numbers for the cyclist mode of transportation in London which is about 1.0%. While this difference would not appear to be significant it is. Typically cyclist volumes are higher on roadways containing a cycling lane than roadways where no cycling lanes exist. So we should expect a cycling usage which is higher than average at the Brydges-Wavell site, not lower.
Summary
In the latest Mobility Master Plan the City of London claims that the current transportation modes of walking, cycling and mass transit are about 23%. It boasts that it will increase these modes of transportation to about 32% in about 25 years, as shown in the graphic taken from the Plan.
The City has not provided any breakdown for the “current time” with respect to walking, cycling and mass transit. Nor has it provided any explanation for how any of the reported summaries were determined. While the City has created a number of cycling facilities it has not explained how it will increase the cycling mode along cycling lanes such as Brydges-Wavell. Presumably the Hollywood belief of “if you built it they will come” is closest to any scientific approach that exists.
Meanwhile Ontario’s Ford government has taken a hatchet to the cycling mode by forcing the removal of certain cycling lanes along major arterial roadways in Toronto. Ford claims that these cycling lanes are responsible for the traffic congestion in Toronto. Ford has also introduced legislation that will take decision-making away from municipalities as to when/where cycling lanes will be built to replace lanes used by motor vehicle traffic. He demonstrates that removal of cycling lanes will cause potential risks to cyclist safety and therefore he has also introduced legislation to prevent cyclists and their families from suing the Provincial government where the courts might determine that the Province was negligent in removing those cycling lanes.
These threats are particularly important to sites such as Hamilton Road in London where city staff and local politicians have shared the belief that motor vehicle traffic lanes should be removed from this arterial roadway to install cycling lanes. If the Province vetoes the local decision to install cycling lanes the plans for improving cyclist safety on Hamilton Road will become stagnant as no other options have been publicly aired.
The abandonment of cycling as a realistic alternative was exemplified in London, Ontario on December 3, 2024 when a large snowfall caused various plowing implements to hit the roadways to clear them. In the midst of this clearing a sidewalk plow was observed on Brydges-Wavell Street, as shown in the photo below. The sidewalk plow had been busy plowing the sidewalks of various side streets. As shown in the photo the sidewalk plow was then observed travelling westbound in the “cleared” westbound traffic lane of Wavell Street. Yet the cycling lane next to it was fully loaded with snow – not a single passage was made by a plow along the cycling lane to clear it for cyclist use.
The “chicken versus egg” argument is reiterated: “Well we don’t plow the cycling lane because no one uses it” and the cyclist alternative: “We will never use the cycling lane because you never plow it”.
The observable reality is demonstrated at the Brydges-Wavell site. This article has demonstrated that, over the years, many safety problems on this roadway have been misunderstood or simply ignored. Insufficient or poor maintenance has been at the top of the list and unaccountability for certain dangerous road construction practices has endangered the public. Yet certain design dangers have also never been revealed to the public. No individual or organization with any official standing has ever explained the special dangers that exist whenever a cycling lane exists next to a lane for motor vehicle travel and that roadway contains a curve. As seen at the Brydges-Wavell site the “protected” cycling lane has been altered at its curves so that the protection has been removed. And this removal exists precisely where cyclists need the protection the most. While the dangers at the Brydges-Wavell site are not monumental they represent what exists, realistically, along many roadways in London and the Province of Ontario. Not all protected cycling lanes are the same, and they do not provide protection along all lengths of a road segment. Cyclists are not informed of this. Cyclists continue to believe there is no difference in their protection because there is no information to inform them otherwise. And official agencies that ought to be informing cyclists about matters important to their safety simply do not do so because they have no obligation to do so.
Cycling Dangers on Hamilton Road in London Ontario
Background
The Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, has caused legislation to be introduced that will prevent cycling lanes from being created on urban arterial roads in the province. He also has threatened to remove cycling lanes that have already been installed. And he has introduced legislation that will prevent cyclists and their families from suing his government for any negligence that the courts might apply to his actions. In this milieu laws exist that prevent cyclists from riding on sidewalks and nothing is said about the dangers that might exist to cyclists on certain roads where there is no room on a roadway designed from motor vehicle traffic to accommodate a cyclist. Furthermore, whatever collisions occur, that cause cyclist injuries and deaths, are only reported in general terms, with no information about what factors caused them and what could be done to avoid them. This is the realm within which cycling is promoted as a means of reducing our use of fossil fuels and preventing global warming.
Hamilton Road Characteristics
Hamilton Road in London, Ontario is an example of many similar roadways in the Province of Ontario where cycling represents a danger and where no solution is forthcoming. Being an urban, arterial roadway Hamilton Road is a target for the Ford government’s attacks on urban cycling lanes. Yet, if cycling is expected to increase in the near future, a solution is needed to deal with the safety problems for cyclists on this roadway.
While the numbers of tragedies are not large, three fatal cyclist collisions have occurred on Hamilton Road in London, Ontario since the year 2019. How and why these collisions occurred has never been revealed. The result is that cyclists continue to ride on this roadway without critical information that could save them from death.
Recent Studies on Hamilton Road
After the most recent fatality on June 19, 2024 two articles were posted on the Gorski Consulting website. In an article posted on June 21,2024 entitled “Hamilton Road Fatal Cyclist Collision – Characteristics of Cyclist Road Users” a number of photos were presented showing the characteristics cyclists riding on Hamilton Road.
On June 19, 204 an article was posted on the site entitled “Cyclist Collision on Hamilton Road in London Ontario – Safety Concerns Continue”. This article posted a table of the most recent observations of cyclists riding through Hamilton Road between 2021 and up to February 2023. Only 65 observations were available and that table is reproduced below.
The number of observations in the above table is very small yet some concerns were made obvious in the Summary. Only about 8.5% of observed cyclists were females. Often small percentages of female riders are an indication of a dangerous roadway. Just over 86% of observed cyclist were not wearing a helmet. This is lack of helmet use is greater than in other parts of the city. And 80% of the cyclists were not riding within the travel lanes of the road. If this study contained more observations there would be reason for concern, however one needs to be cautious when reporting on such low numbers of results.
Subsequent to the above Gorski Consulting has continued to make observations of cyclists on Hamilton Road and this has led to an updated table with a larger number of observations, as shown below. This data contains observations up to the end of November, 2024.
The number of observations in the above table is still small yet some concerns are visible in the Summary. Only about 12.8% of observed cyclists were females. This is similar to the percentages of female cyclists observed in other parts of the city. Just over 75% of observed cyclists were not wearing a helmet. This lack of helmet use is greater than in other parts of the city. And just over 72% of the cyclists were not riding within the travel lanes of the road, this is just slightly higher than what has been observed in other parts of the city. With the addition of these new observations the results have regressed toward the mean, as expected. Yet concerns are evident. Although more than 72% of cyclists were not riding on the roadway, there is information to suggest that the three fatally injured cyclists were stuck while within the travel lanes of Hamilton Road. Put another way, there were no fatalities of cyclists who were riding on the sidewalk even though almost three quarters of cyclists were observed on the sidewalk.
Discussion
Cycling groups have erected white “ghost bikes” at each of the three fatal cyclist collision sites on Hamilton Road. But beyond this cyclists have not publicly expressed their recognition that information about how and why these collisions occurred ought to be gathered and shared with the public, and especially cyclists.
Although the numbers of cyclist observations discussed in this article is small there is no other source of public information that provides objective data on the status of the cyclist safety problem on Hamilton Road. Up to now the articles posted on the Gorski Consulting website have had few reviews. Recent discussions in London suggest that the City of London has opted to conduct another construction project whereby lanes for motor vehicle traffic will be replaced by cycling lanes. This becomes problematic as, just recently, the Province of Ontario will require their permission to remove such motor vehicle lanes on arterial roads and that permission may not be granted by the Province. So how can improvements be made to protect cyclists?
Gorski Consulting is of the opinion that these developments need discussion. What is needed is a gathering of minds. Up to now there has been no gathering of individuals into an effective group who have cyclist safety as their top, and only, commitment.
Continued Lack Of Information About Cyclist Injuries And Deaths Continues to Confuse The Public
The Premier of the Province of Ontario, Doug Ford, caused a controversy recently when he announced that he would stop installations of cycling lanes on roads he deemed inappropriate and, even more, he would remove certain existing cycling lanes that were causing traffic congestion. These announcements raised the ire of many cyclists who conducted demonstrations and asked that petitions be signed to oppose Ford’s intensions.
Ford’s announcements are contrary to educated understanding that climate change is a threat to human existence. With the burning of fossil fuels humans are creating an atmosphere that will cause great hardship toward our existence. That understanding is the core reason why our society must change our habits from driving individual, gasoline-powered vehicles to using electric vehicles, mass transit, walking and riding bicycles. Ford demonstrates a cave-man mentality that does not appreciate this basic reality. In fact it is likely that Ford saw an opportunity to gain votes by recognizing that many drivers felt inconvenienced by the reality that they must change. By expanding the wedge between cyclists and motor vehicle drivers he could gain the political support of an important segment of Ontario’s population.
It has been announced that Ford’s government has now introduced legislation that would prevent cyclists or their families from suing the province for the injuries and deaths caused by the removal of bike lanes. This is essentially removing the courts’ ability to conduct an impartial assessment whether the government’s negligence has led to those injuries and deaths.
While Ford’s actions are raising alarms there is a continued lack of information about cyclist injuries and deaths that remains, unexplainably, beneath the public’s radar. No one, not even cyclists or cyclist groups, has raised a concern that no public information is being provided about how and why cyclist injuries and fatalities are occurring.
A webinar authored by Dr. Alison Macpherson in March of 2024 showed a disturbing reality about cyclist injuries in the Toronto area. Her data was gathered from emergency departments (ED) in Toronto between 2016 and 2021. As shown in the graphic below, copied from her presentation, there were 30,101 visits by cyclists to EDs and only 13% of these were related to incidents with motor vehicles. The remainder of 26,083, or 87% were related to “something else”, but no public information exists about what that “something else” is. Hospital personnel and other closed agencies, including the Ontario provincial government could easily obtain those details, and they likely have. But none of that has reached the public.
A further concern shown in the above graphic is that, although there were 30,101 ED visits police reported only 2,362 of those. So less than 8% of those cyclist incidents were captured in police data. Even when police are involved it is simple to see from looking at official new media articles that essentially nothing of informative or educational value is passed on to the public about those incidents.
As case in point is a recent article posted on the CTV Kitchener website entitled “Waterloo reviews most collision-prove areas to improve safety”. Data was presented from a report developed by the City of Waterloo on various areas road safety within their jurisdiction. With respect to cyclist collisions the CTV article quoted Waterloo’s data that, in the past five years, there was a total of 53 cyclist collisions in their jurisdiction. From this data they developed the 10 most collision-prone roadways involving cyclists as noted below.
Top 10 Cyclist Collision Locations
- Phillip Street between University Avenue West and Columbia Street – 2-Lane Road
- Allen Street West at Park Street – All-way Stop Control
- Albert Street at Hazel Street – 4-Legged Signalized
- Bathurst Drive at McMurray Road – 4 Legged Signalized
- Columbia Street at Hazel Street – 4-Legged Signalized
- Albert Street between Columbia Street West and Cardill Crescent – 2-lane Road with On-street cycling lanes
- Columbia Street West at Phillip Street – 4-leg Signalized
- Laurelwood Drive at Old Oak Place – Two-Way Stop Control
- Keats Way at Amos Avenue – Two-Way Stop Control
- Columbia Street West at Beechlawn Drive – Two-Way Stop Control
Since there were only 53 reported cyclist collisions it would be difficult to imagine that reporting them in such fine detail would be useful, or even valid. Given the small number of total observations it is very likely that the Phillip Street location contained a small number of collisions, but the actual number was never revealed in the CTV news article. However, given the Hospital Emergency Department research by Dr. Macpherson (reported above) the Waterloo data likely does not include over 92% of cyclist injury incidents that may have actually occurred. So how useful is such reported data?
Despite this critical lack of data the CTV news article reported that the City of Waterloo had developed conclusions and recommendations from their study:
“Phillip Street between University Avenue West and Columbia Street West was identified as the top location for collisions involving cyclists, due to distracted driving while turning, cyclists on the wrong side of the road and cyclists losing control. Staff recommend additional signage, installing high visibility pavement markings, instituting a 40 km/h speed limit and reviewing the lighting in the area.“
This illustrates how many officials are not addressing the fact that they are developing policy based on insufficient data. They are also confusing the public, and cyclists, about what is important in their transportation safety.
For an unexplainable reason the public, and cyclists specifically, are not recognizing that they do not have the critical data to understand how cyclists are being injured and killed. And they are not making any effort to demand that the data be collected and made publicly available. The impact of the removal of cycling lanes by Ontario’s Ford government cannot be properly assessed while basic and essential data remains a secret revealed only to the Ford administration.
The Passing of Dr. Robert Nelson Green
It is with some sadness that I learned of the passing of Dr. Robert Nelson Green. Dr. Green was the medical consultant for the University of Western Ontario Multi-Disciplinary Accident Research Team during the 10 years that I was involved with that team between 1980 and 1990. I recall him fondly as a man of great energy. While team members would be dully working on their filings, analysis of photos, computer entry, etc. every so often Dr. Green would pop into the office and things would light up. While he mostly seemed to be in hurry he was also willing to stop and enter into deeper discussions about philosophical issues of injury causation, seat-belt effectiveness, roadway barrier matters and so many other related things. He was the one who introduced me to forensic work outside of the research carried out by the team. Some official data about him is attached below.
Dr. Robert Nelson Green, 92, beloved husband of Helen Patricia Green, died peacefully at Southlake Hospital, Newmarket on Friday, November 15, 2024. He is survived by his daughters Nancy Green, Elizabeth Olcott and husband Peter, and son James Green and wife Letty, and four grandchildren, Signe and Robert Damron, Helen and Charles Olcott. He was predeceased by his wife Helen, parents Rollit and Signe Green, brother Van Green and sister Nancy Green.
Bob Green was born in Fort Frances, ON on June 4, 1932. Growing up in Fort Frances, he completed secondary school and pursued university studies, graduating MDCM from McGill University in 1958. He and Helen were married that year during internship at the Winnipeg General Hospital. After two years of family practice in Atikokan, ON, Bob supported his young family through seven years of postgraduate training, culminating in a career of academic medicine as a teaching professional at Queens University, Kingston, and the University of Western Ontario, London. With a life-long interest in forensic sciences, Dr. Green served as a provincial coroner, along with his teaching at the medical and law schools of UWO with a brief time out to complete a law degree and MA in legal philosophy. Retiring from the University of Western Ontario as professor emeritus in 1990. He started his company, Accident Reconstruction Association, consulting as an expert forensic analyst and court witness. Professor Green continued his research in the forensic and road traffic safety areas, instructing police, coroners, lawyers and engineers.
Bob and Helen enjoyed many summer vacations at their cottage on Nowhere Island, Rainy Lake, and spent a few years in Fort Frances at their lakeside home.
We all have a life to live and for some that is more acknowledged than for others. Regardless, we need to appreciate that the greatest attribute of our lives is that others look upon our memory with fondness, regardless of what official titles and important positions we may have held. While Dr. Green was officially successful, more importantly to me is that I remember him with fondness.
Review Of Safe And Unsafe Cycling Facilities In London Ontario Canada
Detailed studies by Gorski Consulting have demonstrated that some painted cycling lanes, in appropriate locations, can be relatively safe. Those locations involve relatively wide lanes for both motor vehicles and cyclists, with good surface conditions, and minimal vertical or horizontal alignments. But it is those alignments that are a crucial issue.
For decades collision reconstructionists have recognized that roadways with hills/valleys or horizontal curves (i.e. alignments) pose a greater challenge for motor vehicle drivers but also for cyclists. This is not that difficult to understand. When such alignments do not exist motor vehicle drivers do not need to apply steering inputs nor do they need to change the pressure on an accelerator pedal or apply braking. Thus maintaining a proper centre location within a travel lane is easy to do. And similar simplifications exist for cyclists. But that becomes more complicated when vertical or horizontal alignments exist. Not only must motor vehicle drivers apply steering but sometimes they also need to adjust their speed by either braking or accelerating. This relatively undiscussed matter keeps many vulnerable persons in danger of being involved in a collision. This lack of knowledge becomes even more important to cyclists and those motor vehicle drivers who encounter cyclists where those alignments exist.
Past Research Showing Good Results
Gorski Consulting conducted testing at a reasonably safe, painted, cycling lane created on Colborne Street near St James Street in London, Ontario in the summer of 2022. The details of the study as well as its results were posted on this Gorski Consulting website throughout the spring, summer and fall of 2022. The testing site on Colborne Street contained good characteristics: it was flat, both vertically and horizontally, and it surface was in reasonably good condition. A challenging circumstance is that it was along a travel path of the City’s transit buses and this made it more difficult to separate cyclists from buses. Testing was conducted before the new cycling lane was painted as well as after it was finished. The lateral positions of cycles and motor vehicles were documented with respect to the junction between the asphalt lane and the concrete gutter, as shown in the example below.
Laterally, the orange dots were painted 20 centimetres apart. Viewing the video of these traffic units as they passed the markers enabled the documentation of their lateral position.
For motor vehicles the outboard edge of the right front tire of the vehicle was used to reference a vehicle’s lateral position, As shown below.
The cycling lane width, from the gutter edge to the centre of the white, painted line was 1.5 metres.
The results from four, 2-hour, video sessions are summarized in the table below.
As can be seen in the above table the painting of the white line, and thus the establishment of the designated cycling lane, caused a greater separation between the cyclists and motor vehicle traffic. Before the cycling lane was established the data shows that the average lateral position of cyclists was 0.71 metres but the standard deviation was high, meaning that some cyclists were not riding close enough to the right curb. After the cycling lane was created the average lateral position of cyclists was 0.58 metres thus cyclists moved slightly closer to the curb but also the standard deviation was reduced so cyclists were not wandering into the travel lane as much as before.
For the motor vehicle data it can be seen that, before the creation of the cycling lane, these vehicles were travelling too close to the curb (1.08, 0.87, 1.08) such that, if a cyclist was present, an impact could have occurred. After the cycling lane was created the lateral position of motor vehicles was moved substantially away from the curb (3.00, 1.57, 2.11) and away from any cyclists. Also the standard deviation of the large motor vehicles was substantially reduced. The exception was for “Light Duty Vehicles” as their standard deviation was increased.
Other investigations from this study also examined the speeds of motor vehicles and cyclists during a passing motion and the location and extent of change-in-lane-position of motor vehicles as they encountered cyclists.
Overall the effects of the installation of the painted cycling lane on Colborne Street were generally positive.
Past Observations Showing Dangerous Results
Police, news media and government officials have successfully kept the public, and particularly cyclists, in the dark about causal factors that endanger their safety. A significant segment of the cycling community has no idea how and why their members are being injured and killed. Some experienced riders claim that they know what matters even though they have not examined the details of a single significant cyclist collision. Others refer to international statistics and studies claiming that these provide the answers cyclists need. But many international studies are dependent on police reports, many of questionable quality because the police investigators are not experts in what they are documenting. In other instances the applicability of international studies is rarely questioned whether or not differences in the cycling patterns and cyclist characteristics vary from the Canadian experience. The best research approach is to study Canadian data developed from observations of Canadian cyclists, their collisions, or their incidents that luckily avoid a collision. But that data is not publicly available.
Painted cycling lanes are an example of how broad generalizations are made. In the cycling community painted cycling lanes are broadly condemned in preference to “protected” lanes that have some form of physical barrier between the cycling lane and the lane used by motor vehicles. While there are benefits to such protected lanes they also allow for the presence of immovable, physical barriers close to cyclists and this is often an undiscussed danger. This problem has been analysed for decades when roadway improvements were made for the safety of motor vehicle drivers. Roadway design standards have existed for decades requiring that a “clear zone” be established along the sides of roads and highways from immovable objects such as utility poles, trees and buildings. The reasoning was quite simple: a vehicle that egresses from the confines of lane ought to have a reasonable width of clear landscape in which to slow down, reduce the severity of an impact with an immovable object, or to avoid the object altogether. Such physics does not change went a cyclist rides in a cycling lane.
While many motor vehicles riding on roads and highways have widths of 1.4 to 2.6 metres those lanes are also wider, often between 3.0 and 4.0 metres. Cycles tend to wander laterally, especially at lower speeds. This wandering and lower speed often occurs in novice riders who may be more prone to cycling mishaps. Yet the relationship between cycle widths and the accepted width of a cycling lane pose a challenge. As shown in the graphic below the Ontario government (Book 18, Traffic Manual) assumes that a typical bicycle is about 1.2 metres wide but cycling lanes are allowed to be just 1.5 metres wide. These assumptions allow for immovable objects to exist close to where a cyclist is riding.
Within most protected cycling lanes there is not much lateral clearance between a cycle and physical features such as a curb on the right or a traffic barrier on the left. Contact to such physical features can cause injury to the cyclist, or worse. The extent of such contacts and injuries is not publicly known.
Yet recent research reported by Dr. Alison Macpherson in Toronto shows that many more cyclist injuries occur from non-motor vehicle interactions. Data on Emergency Department (ED) visits by cyclists in a five-year period (2016 to 2021) in Toronto showed that 87% of ED visits did not involve a motor vehicle and for the small segment of cyclists who were hospitalized 81% did not involve a motor vehicle. Unfortunately the research did provide further details about what was the cause of those cyclist ED visits. Much of the problem is that, when a cyclist incident does not involve a motor vehicle, police are not required to fill out a collision report and so those incidents are not officially recorded in Ontario statistics.
But this does not mean that cyclist interactions with motor vehicles are not important. Cyclists continue to be entrapped by roadway features that, deceptively, do not warn cyclists of their danger. While many painted cycling lanes are reasonably safe, some are not. It would not be difficult for police, news media and politicians to identify where these dangers exist, but that is not done. The photo below is an example of a painted cycling lane where the road’s curvature poses an obvious problem to cyclists. Vehicles cross into the cycling lane on a regular basis because of the sharpness in the change-in-direction of the road occurring within a very short distance.
The internet is full of postings where cyclists post observations where a motor vehicle has crossed into a cycling lane or where some driver has parked their vehicle in the lane. Many of these instances are just random, not necessarily related to the features of the road. But instances such as the one shown above occur on a constant basis at this site because of the geometry of the road and that makes the danger more important.
In other instances painted cycling lanes are simply terminated whenever their dimensions cannot fit within some narrowing of a road. In such cases chevrons and bicycle symbols are painted within the narrowed travel lane indicating to cyclists that it is safe to continue because the law will protect them from being struck. An example of this condition is shown in the photo below on Pond Mills Road just north of Southdale Road in south-east London.
While those responsible for the roadway markings in the above photo know precisely what the symbols mean, not everyone is so fluent. Cyclists who may be young or inexperienced can legally ride along roads like these but they may not understand the specific meaning of these markings, nor may they understand the danger of riding in this narrowed stretch of road accompanied by substantial motor vehicle traffic. Even experienced cyclists do no appreciate that a law which says “motorists must give a 1-metre clearance when passing a cyclist” will not save them from the laws of physics. Curves shown in the above photo mean that both motor vehicle drivers and cyclists will need to adjust their inputs to stay within a consistent lateral portion of their lane. Those inputs are not performed with “racing-car-driver-skills” and, inevitable, the lateral position of a motor vehicle or cyclist changes. This becomes exceptionally dangerous to the cyclist. The photo below is an example of numerous motor vehicles than encroach across the white-painted line of this curve. In our view, there is a reason why there are headstones of a cemetery located in the background of this photo.
This crossing over the painted white line by motor vehicles is not uncommon because of the curvature of the road. To emphasize this point we can see the following additional photos showing a number of vehicles performing the same action.
The final photo above shows a pick-up truck travelling behind a car, both of which have encroached over the white edge line of the lane. The pick-up truck is of particular importance because such vehicles pose a special problem to cyclists. While passenger car widths may be as much as 1.8 metres, the width of full-size pick-up trucks is often just over 2.0 metres. In addition many pick-up trucks are equipped with extended or towing mirrors, similar to the two photos shown below.
As can be seen above, when an extended mirror is at least 35 centimetres beyond the width of a 2-metre-wide pick-up truck the truck’s total width becomes about 2.7 metres or slightly wider than a typical tractor-trailer. Meanwhile an earlier graphic of typical cyclist measurements showed that the eye-height of a cyclist would be in the range of 1.5 metres above the ground. This would be similar in height to where many mirrors from pick-up trucks would be located. The bottom line is that cyclists are at increased danger of head injury when passed by pick-up trucks with extended mirrors. This is a danger that is not discussed. On roadways such as the curves on Pond Mills Road the presence of a pick-up truck along with a cyclist would pose a real danger. Fortunately the number of cyclists riding in the curves of Pond Mills Road is small, but not non-existent as demonstrated by the observation below.
Discussion
An important aspect of cycling safety must include an identification of those local scenarios where cyclists may be at greater risk of injury, or worse. In London there are many examples of roadways that are dangerous to cyclists. In those, if cyclist must use such a roadway they ought to ride on a sidewalk, regardless of what laws prohibit it. Unfortunately there is little publicity to properly inform cyclists what roadways they should avoid. This makes minimal sense. Accompanied by this there is a lack of any meaningful information provided to the public, and especially cyclists, about the details of cyclist collisions that might help inform cyclists about what they should do to avoid being victims. And there seems to be little effort by all involved to change these regrettable circumstances.
Crash Retrieval Software Continues to Crash
Old school motor vehicle collision reconstruction methods involved detailed documentation of various evidence at a site and on the damaged vehicles. While some of that process still continues, the modern reconstructionist now attaches a piece of computer hardware (Crash Data Retrieval Kit) and, with the properly functioning software, is able to download multitudes of detailed data such as the vehicle’s speed, collision severity and the status of various driver inputs for several seconds before a crash. So collision reconstruction seems to have advanced, or so it would seem.
Those who are reliant on this downloading process have, on occasion, complained about being unable to obtain data for various reasons. Many of these problems have to do with having the proper cables, back-powering of the system and because the downloading process varies depending of vehicle and manufacturer.
But lately the process has become more complicated as reconstructionists have complained that they cannot get the software to “wake up” for unexplained reasons. The problems occur often when there is an update to the software. It is inconvenient because a reconstructionist may only have one chance to conduct the download as the vehicle is often available for only a single occasion. Even police cannot keep possession of a vehicle forever and must release it to the owner even if a solution is not found in the downloading process. This leads to considerable stress as very important data becomes unavailable.
Crash Data Retrieval is not practically available to the average vehicle owner. While governments have enacted legislation requiring that the data be available, that just does not happen. The costs of hardware and software and additional costs to hire someone to do the work makes it essentially impossible for the average owner to get the data unless they have the resources to spend thousands of dollars. What remains is that the big people: the insurers, the police and various research groups have access and no one else.
Yet when the hardware/software functions unreliably, on too many occasions, even those big people are not happy.
13-Yr-Old Female Cyclist Dies At Rossland & Stevenson At East Edge Of Toronto Ontario
News media provided a very short description of a collision on the eastern outskirts of Toronto Ontario, where by a 13-year-old female cyclist was killed in a collision on Rossland Road Stevensgate Drive on November 6, 2024. No information was provided as to how the collision occurred or even basic facts about what factors might have been involved. Such lack of information is standard procedure throughout the Province of Ontario where cyclists are kept in the dark about dangers that might kill them. No one can conduct any meaningful analysis to evaluate how cyclist collisions might be avoided or reduced in their consequences without basic information about them.
In a roundabout attempt to obtain basic information about cyclist characteristics and factors that may be affecting their safety Gorski Consulting has been monitoring cyclists travelling along the streets of London. Each year approximately 1000 cyclists are documented with still photographs. At the end of each year general summaries of the findings are provided on the Gorski Consulting web site. Cyclist data has been analysed for 2024 through to the end of October and these results are shown below.
As can be seen more cyclists (1073) have been documented in the first 10 months of the year compared to previous years. Over the years it has been observed that females represent about 10 to 15% of the total observations however in 2024 that percentage remains at almost 27%. With two months remaining in the year some fluctuations may still occur but the data about greater female riders is intriguing.
While the official law in Ontario is that cyclists should not ride on sidewalks the observational data in London continues to demonstrate how the law is being ignored. As can be seen above almost two-thirds of male cyclists have been observed on sidewalks whereas the numbers for females is even higher at close to three-quarters. These results are not unique for the year 2024 as the results are similar for previous years. Government dictates are ignored sometimes because they are unrealistic and these cyclist data demonstrate that fact. In many instances cyclists are safer riding on sidewalks and many cyclist know that, leading to the noted observations.
It would help to know how the current fatal collision involving the 13-year-old cyclist in Ajax compares to the collected data. Unfortunately that information will likely remain a mystery.
School Bus Fatal Impact of Pedestrian In Toronto – Another Visibility Issue?
Minimal information was provided after a school bus reportedly struck an elderly pedestrian near Yonge Street and Silverwood Ave in Toronto on November 5, 2024. Because the school bus left the collision site it would seem consistent that an outrage would ensue and the collision would be reported as a purposeful “hit and run” collision. Such hit and runs are frequently reported in other major collisions long before any meaningful understanding has been developed as to what might have happened. News media reported that the school bus driver “fled the scene” but investigators eventually found the driver, but their name has not been released and no charges have been laid while the investigation is on-going.
Few in the public domain have any access to the details of a collision investigation and often informed judgments are made simply because the event is disturbing and something must be said regardless. In this confused realm the truly innocent are rolled up with the truly guilty as often what matters are the consequences rather than the actual actions of the accused.
Overhead views of the collision site provided by news media indicate that the present collision occurred at an intersection and this leads to a common concern that visibility issues might have been causal factors in the incident.
There is also an issue that, a contact made between a massive bus and the pedestrian, may not be detected by a school bus driver and therefore a driver might continue driving not recognizing that a collision occurred. Not only is such a result possible in school bus collisions but it may occur in any collision between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist.
The Gorski Consulting website contains a number of articles dealing with visibility issues, and some specifically dealing with visibility challenges in school buses. In an article posted on February 17, 2023 (“School Bus Visibility Obstruction Could Kill You“) we discussed the details of how pedestrian’s presence could be masked from a bus driver’s view during a left turn at an urban intersection. This article provided specific measurements and the obstructions provided by the mirrors and roof pillars of a school bus and also provided a motion analysis between a bus and a walking pedestrian.
In another article posted to the Gorski Consulting website on February 15, 2024 (“Left-Turning School Bus Causes Pedestrian Fatality in St Thomas Ontario“) we also provided comments about the blind-spots existing on van-based school buses and how these could lead to impacts with a pedestrian at an intersection.
Regrettably important details about how school bus collisions might be affected by visibility issues are never drawn the public’s attention. Many parents, school personnel and school officials do not know about these details and therefore are unable to pass on such important information to school children or to pedestrian’s in general.
You must be logged in to post a comment.