Building Collapse After Impact Complicates Cause of Death
Readers may remember the article we posted on December 19, 2022 involving a building collapse in Boston. The building was struck by a car and we showed the photo below from Boston’s Fire Department.
In part we provided the following comment regarding interpretation of collision damage:
“The internet is full of experts who use false information to confuse, and sometime defraud the public. The realm of collision analysis is no exception. A common theme is to use false evidence to support a false claim. There are many examples where collision evidence is misinterpreted, sometimes on purpose. The classic case is one of using the existence of collision damage as an indicator of collision severity and vehicle speed.
A building may be very strong in terms of holding itself upright but it may be brittle and may not be able to withstand the vibrations of a lateral force. The evaluation must involve the examination of the collision partner, the car, to determine the magnitude of the force that was involved.“
Subsequently we have become aware of another similar incident that reportedly occurred on February 8, 2023. Video released by the Maryland Attorney General’s office showed an intersection collision in Baltimore involving a Hyundai car that was attempting to escape police. The Hyundai struck another car in an intersection and both vehicles then travelled off the road and struck a building. The façade of the building collapsed. Unfortunately a pedestrian was involved who sustained fatal injuries. Frames from the video are shown below.
The sequence of frames shown above demonstrate the complexity of injury causation, and fault.
In scenarios like this it is important to understand that our opinions about fault can be coloured by our wish to blame the fleeing driver of the Hyundai for the death of the pedestrian. This can distract from the additional fact that the building collapse was also a likely factor in cause of the pedestrian fatality. There is the added matter that buildings that are at a higher risk of being struck by traffic should be of sufficient structural soundness that they should withstand a certain level of impact force without falling down. Providing some form of roadside barrier could also improve the risk of building collapse.
In many instances dangers that exist to the general public are glossed over because official investigations seek the prosecution of a guilty party. When the revelation of additional factors could weaken the case against a guilty party police and other agencies tend to hide those additional factors. This allows dangers to continue to exist without correction.
Characteristics of Cyclist Sidewalk Riders in London Ontario in 2022
The large and obvious elephant in the cycling realm is difficult to ignore, yet ignore it we do. In Ontario cyclists ride on sidewalks of urban roadways. They have done so for years, despite provincial and municipal laws that prohibit it. Cyclists who ride on sidewalks are supposed to be dangerous to pedestrians and to themselves. At least that is the official judgment. So it would seem that officials should be enforcing the laws that prohibit this action.
Gorski Consulting has conducted an analysis of the 1030 cyclist observation made in the year 2022 that were carried out along the streets of London, Ontario, to see what some of the characteristics might be of the subgroup of riders who ride on sidewalks. The table below shows some of the results.
Of the 414 observations, 313 were male, 52 were female, 34 were children and in 15 instances the gender of the cyclist was unknown. The percentage of female versus male riders was small, about 14.2% but slightly greater than in the overall 1030 observations of all cyclists where females represented about 13.1%.
The number of children riding on sidewalks was observed to be about 8.2%. Given that officials allow children to ride on urban sidewalks this number seems rather small.
In 280 observations it was confirmed that a cyclist was not wearing a helmet. Thus the percentage of riders not wearing a helmet on sidewalks was about 67.6%. This percentage appeared to be higher than the percentage of non use amongst observed cyclists which was previously determined in a study of the first six months of 2022.
For example, pervious analysis was reported on this Gorski Consulting website for the first six months of 2022 wherein 501cyclist observations were made. In 26 instances the gender of cyclist could not be determined. Looking at helmet use, 248 of the 417 males were not wearing a helmet. This amounts to 59.5 % non-usage. There were 58 observations of female cyclists and of those 29 were observed not to be wearing a helmet, or 50.0 % non-usage.
The following photos were selected to provide a general indication of the types of riders that were observed riding on sidewalks of London roads in 2022.
Discussion
If riding a bicycle on a city sidewalk is dangerous, as indicated by provincial and municipal officials, then the observations obtained by Gorski Consulting in 2022 indicate that large numbers of cyclists are engaging in this “dangerous” activity. Our experience of reconstructing cyclist collisions over the past 40 years indicates that the vast majority of severe injuries and deaths of cyclists did not occur when cyclists were riding on sidewalks. Rather, those serious collisions occurred when cyclists were riding in or crossing an urban roadway. Where the truth lies is difficult to determine as neither the province or municipalities have allowed an independent entity to examine the details of the cyclist collisions on which they base their policies. In fact even basic frequencies of cyclist collisions are not being made publicly available.
School Bus Visibility Obstruction Could Kill You
In July of 2007 I posted an article on this (Gorski Consulting) website entitled “Roof Pillars Can Be A Visibility Obstruction”. The point was to illustrate that a driver’s view could be obstructed at an intersection by a roof pillar and this could lead to a collision. This conclusion was based on some testing that was performed in a 1999 Chevrolet Lumina passenger car. It demonstrated that at highway speed, a zone of about 5 car lengths along the crossroad could be invisible to the driver because of the blockage posed by a roof pillar.
While this result is important the visibility obstruction that exists in other vehicles such as large trucks and buses is even greater. This fact is rarely discussed. Collisions occur with other vehicles from this factor. But more importantly collisions occur with more vulnerable victims such as pedestrians and cyclists because no one has made this point known.
The following example will provide a detailed focus on the problem.
School Bus Versus Pedestrian Collision
To illustrate the circumstances by which a pedestrian could be struck by a school bus the following photo of a collision site is shown followed by examples of the visibility available in a school bus and then how an impact might occur as a result of the limited visibility.
The photo below shows an intersection of two roadways where the driver of a school bus attempted to make a left turn along the general line shown in the measurement of the school bus travel path of about 25 metres.
Measurements of a similar school bus were taken to document the extent to which the bus driver’s vision would be blocked by the left exterior mirror and the left roof pillar. The photo below shows an exterior view of a similar school bus. The left roof pillar and exterior mirror can be seen.
As shown from the interior of the bus below the width of the area of obstruction by the mirror and roof pillar was about 23 centimetres.
Another measurement was taken to determine the bus driver’s eyes with respect to the obstructing mirror and roof pillar.
Measurements indicate that a school bus driver’s eyes would be located about 2.4 metres to the rear of its front bumper, about 2.4 metres above the ground, and about 0.65 metres to the right of the left interior wall of a bus. These values will vary slightly dependent on the adjustment of the driver’s seat which changes for each driver’s preference.
Measurements like these allowed for the creation of a scale diagram, shown below, which determined the area of obstructed sight produced by the mirror and roof pillar. With the school bus starting its motion at the bottom of this image we examined the view obstruction after the bus advanced 7.5 metres and 22 metres. Measurements of the site indicated that the travel paths of the pedestrian and school bus were initially about 7.5 metres apart. As both units advanced forward there was a continual zone of about 3.43 metres within which the pedestrian was not visible to the bus driver.
However, as the bus began its turn into an angle of about 30 degrees the bus driver’s eyes began to get closer to the pedestrian and, combined with the change in the bus angle, this caused the zone of obstruction to diminish to about 1.1 metres. This would be a critical moment. If the bus driver was looking in the direction where the pedestrian emerged from the obstruction he might be able to apply his brakes or steer away to avoid striking the pedestrian. But such success cannot be guaranteed. The driver’s attention could to directed toward other areas of the exterior environment at this precise instance. Even through he might revert his attention quickly back to where the pedestrian is walking a delayed reaction could result in a failure to avoid a collision.
A further appreciation of the collision conditions can be obtained by taking a replica school bus to the actual collision site to explore the experiments that were conducted in the scale diagram analysis.
The photos below show a reenactment of the collision scenario where we see progressive motions of the school bus taken from the driver’s seating position as the school bus approaches its left turn.
As the school bus approaches the intersection the driver would steer the bus into the left turn lane. Unfortunately in this re-enactment this motion was not possible and the motion being shown is with the bus remaining in the through lane. Never-the-less the visibility scenario is similar to the actual event. The orange circle in the image shows the approximate location of the pedestrian before she began to walk southbound across the road.
In the next images we see the bus progressing forward slowly as the driver is looking into the opposing lanes of traffic to determine when a reasonable gap may develop that would allow the bus driver to complete his left turn. This attention conflict is common in driving environments where a driver may need to be aware of more than one possible conflict in different areas of the exterior environment. In these images we also include the orange circle identifying the position of the pedestrian who is intending to cross the road.
As shown in the photo below, as the school bus advances the view of the position of the pedestrian becomes obscured by the exterior mirror and the roof pillar of the bus. If the pedestrian began to move forward onto the road at the time shown in the photo below the bus driver would not be able to see that this motion of the pedestrian had begun.
In the photo below it can be seen that, given the specific conditions of a slow forward motion of the school bus, the bus driver would not be able to see the motion of the pedestrian because that pedestrian’s motion would be blocked by the exterior mirror, roof pillar, or both.
So long as the school bus continued forward at a similar speed as the pedestrian then the pedestrian would remain hidden behind the mirror/pillar of the bus. At some point the bus would begin its left turn and this would expose the pedestrian into the bus driver’s line of sight. If the bus driver was not looking in the area where the pedestrian became visible he might not stop in time and the pedestrian could be struck.
School buses are not the only large vehicles that contain zones where it is difficult for the driver to detect the presence of a pedestrian or cyclist. The hood edge of many large vehicles is so high that it could hide the presence of a small child that is near the vehicle’s front bumper. In other instances the drivers of heavy trucks making right turns cannot see the progress of pedestrians or cyclists along the right side of the truck and/or its trailer.
Not only is it important for drivers of heavy vehicles to know where these zones are, but it is equally important that pedestrians and cyclists be aware of where these zones exist and in what circumstances they may not be seen by the driver of a heavy vehicle.
Bus Crash in Laval Points to Effects of Hysteria
Two children were killed and others injured when a transit bus veered into a daycare centre in Laval, Quebec on Wednesday morning, February 8, 2023. News media reported on that very day that the bus driver had been charged with first degree murder. It was reported that neighbours at the site had to subdue the bus driver who “removed all his clothing and started screaming”.
In an article written by Morgan Lowrie of The Canadian Press, a neighbour, Hamdi Benchaabane, gave an account of what he saw:
“Hamdi Benchaabane, who lives next door to the daycare, quickly knew something was wrong. He’s used to watching buses slowly navigate the roundabout at the end of his dead-end street to pull up at the bus stop in front of his house. This one instead made a sharp turn into the daycare’s driveway and headed straight for the building at a speed he estimates was 30 or 40 kilometres an hour.“
With children and parents also screaming the magnitude of the chaos and emotion can be difficult to imagine.
There have been numerous incidents in recent years of deliberate actions by deranged persons who use all sorts of weapons to kill innocent persons. Most commonly these actions involved guns. But the prevalence of using motor vehicles as a weapon seems to have become more common.
At the same time new motor vehicles have become far more complex in their design. Motor vehicles are now “moving computers” with numerous sensors and modules that control almost all functions. It has come to the point that only the engineers who design these complex networks really know how they operate and where they might fail. While police have access to vehicular modules and some data is available to examine, the more complex issues still remain trade secrets in the hands of the manufacturers’ engineers. In this light we fail to acknowledge that the failures of such advanced systems are not easily detected.
How quickly it has been forgotten that a few years ago General Motors was involved in the “ignition switch” defect that caused vehicles to shut down unexpectedly and the vehicle safety systems such as air bags failed to function. At last report General Motors admitted that hundreds of persons died from this direct cause, while the actual number remains unreported. While these tragedies were occurring, from year to year, no one clued into the possibility that there was a defect in an ignition switch. It was only an independent technician, separate from the sophisticates of national transportation agencies, police or engineers, who detected that a spring within the switch was too small. This led to the GM engineer who was the culprit who failed to inform anyone that he knew the existence of the problem. These are the kinds of things that can happen, and do happen, behind the shadows of public knowledge.
In this environment of deliberate murders and vehicle complexities, another factor has emerged with the advent of the internet and the misinformation that easily sends most persons into a state of hysteria without their recognition that they are being manipulated.
Misinformation and hysteria are not new. In the late 1600s it was what took dozens of persons to their executions in the witch hunts of Salem Massachusetts. It is what Hitler used to turn the German people to accepting that Jews were evil and should be destroyed. It is what McCarthy used in the 1950s to chase suspected communists in the U.S. destroying many lives and reputations. More recently it is what was used by Donald Trump to suggest to many unhinged individuals that they needed to storm Washington’s Capitol building because their freedom was being taken away. These matters demonstrate that clever use of misinformation at times of emotional upheaval work very well with the general populace in creating the hysteria that is sometimes purposely intended.
With respect to the Laval bus crash there are facts that suggest it could have been purposely intended by a purposeful bus driver. However there are also facts that could suggest other explanations such as a defective bus that became uncontrollable. Or it could be that the bus driver became mentally or physically dysfunctional, or both. Very often the true facts cannot be known until sufficient, objective evidence is analyzed in an unbiased manner.
What is striking however is the hysteria that existed shortly after the crash and the hysteria that was perpetuated in the news media that reported the comments of various witnesses without clarifying that one should be careful in drawing conclusions just because someone said something. On the very day of the collision one news report indicated that the bus driver had already been charged with first degree murder. How many of the objective facts could have been properly analysed in less than 24 hours to believe that such a charge was based on refutable facts? In many instances hardware needs to be brought in to connect to vehicular modules such as engine control modules and these need to be examined carefully by qualified experts before conclusions are drawn. In many instances the actual documentation of the physical evidence at the site can take many hours. I strongly suspect that these actions were not properly completed before the announcement came, on the very same day of the collision, that the bus driver was charged with first degree murder.
Obviously we should wait till all the facts are in. But the reality is that those facts never do come in. The important facts needed for the populace to gain a clear understanding of what occurred are, essentially, never revealed. What remains is hysteria, built on unsubstantiated opinions and conclusions, that is sometimes never quelled.
Cyclist Safety In London Ontario – What Was Going On Ten Years Ago?
With the impetus to increase cycling volumes throughout the world, the City of London Ontario has embarked on a variety of cycling infrastructure projects in recent years. In this haste the issue of cyclist safety has not been given equal importance. While building of cycling infrastructure would seem to align with increased cyclist safety, little has been done to actually conduct reliable research to understand where cyclist safety was, and where it is going. In the past a number of cycling safety concerns existed in the City that were not readily apparent.
Not only was cycling safety a concern ten years ago, but the general quality of the maintenance of the City’s transportation system was in question. Obvious dangers that ought to have been observed if roads inspectors were actually conducting inspections, did not appear to be noticed and existed for extended periods.
Scant information is available to assess whether there has been any meaningful progress regarding cyclist safety over the past 10 years. In this article Gorski Consulting looks back ten years, to the year 2012, to see what activities, opinions and conclusions were drawn about cycling progress in the City.
Cycling Issues in the Year 2012 in London Ontario
January 2012
Massive snow storms were in the minds of most Londoners in January of 2012. In particular a multi-fatal collision occurred on Hwy 402 during a white-out.
With respect to cycling, there was not much news being delivered in the London area, However there were concerns expressed in other areas of the province. There was already some concern expressed in the previous year (2011) with respect to increasing cyclist collisions.
A Sarnia Observer article published in August of 2011 had reported the unspecified perception that cyclist collisions were becoming more common. Sarnia police blamed the problem on both cyclists and drivers not following the rules of the road. The article also referenced an Ontario Medical Association (OMA) report that 2,000 cyclists were injured in bicycle-vehicle collisions every year. The OMA report, entitled “Enhancing Cycling Safety in Ontario” provided a number of recommendations to Ontario’s provincial government.
Shortly afterward, in the fall of 2011, Ontario’s Coroner’s Office revealed that it would be reviewing cyclist deaths in the five year period of 2006 to 2010.
In the Kitchener/Waterloo region the cause of most cyclist collisions was blamed on cyclists. In a September, 2011 article published by the Kitchener Record newspaper it was reported that “Most of the collisions occurred at intersections and most happened when cyclists riding on sidewalks continued into the intersection along the crosswalk, according to numbers collected by the region and the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge”.
In another Kitchener Record article (publishing date date unknown but likely early 2012), data about cyclist collisions for the year 2011 were summarized. Some of the comments noted in the article are noted below:
“…the number of cyclists hit by vehicles on regional roads, or at intersections with traffic lights, dropped to 104 in 2011, down from 142 in 2010”
“The single-biggest cause of collisions was cyclists riding off the sidewalk and into a crosswalk at an intersection.”
“Between 2006 and 2010, vehicles and cyclists collided 616 times on regional roads or at intersections with traffic lights. Cyclists are at fault in 73 per cent of those accidents”
The big drop in cycling collisions that occurred in 2011 happened before the region launched its cycling safety initiative. The 104 collisions in 2011 marked the lowest number in 2007-2011 period.
“We are glad to see it happen, but I can’t explain why it happened,” Bob Henderson, the region’s manager of transportation engineering, said.
In January, 2012 London City Police continued to focus the public’s attention on the most-accident-prone intersections in the City. By presenting data on the number of reported accidents in 10 of the City’s intersections it suggested that these intersections were the most dangerous. This failed to clarify that these intersections also contained the highest traffic volumes and thus the higher numbers of collisions was likely related to the higher number of vehicles potentially exposed to collisions. Such weak analysis led to the public’s misunderstanding of their relative safety. No data was presented on cyclist collisions or at what locations cyclists could be exposed to the greatest dangers.
In January of 2012, the Liberal government Minister of Transportation, Bob Chiarelli, wrote a letter to a North Bay newspaper about Ontario’s road safety record that roused considerable interest and criticism. In part the letter noted that in 1996 the Harris Conservative government give road maintenance responsibilities to private, third-party contractors. These comments were interpreted by some as blaming the past government for the road safety problems of the current time. While such political ping-pong continued there was no independent and unbiased report that could explain to the public what actually occurred and what was affecting their safety.
No information was made available regarding the occurrence of any significant cyclist collisions in the London region.
February, 2012
February, 2012 involved one of the worse road traffic fatalities in Ontario history when eleven persons were killed in a collision in Hampstead, north of Shakespeare, Ontario. A truck had struck a van occupied by farm workers at Perth Road 107 and Line 47 and most of the van occupants died.
In February there was discussion regarding a new head-impact sensing device that could help in diagnosing whether a force was sufficient to cause a brain injury. A London-based company was marketing the device that could be attached to a helmet. When an impact occurred the device would light up red lights that would signal the severity of the head impact. The device was given mixed reviews as some local medical experts were concerned that the device could not replace examinations by medical professionals needed to determine whether an actual significant head injury occurred. No further information was made available in the past 10 years to determine whether such a device could be helpful for cyclist head injuries.
No information was made available regarding the occurrence of any significant cyclist collisions in the London region.
March, 2012
In March, 2012, the public’s attention was drawn, once again, to the suggestion that certain intersections in the City of London were more dangerous because these contained higher numbers of reported collisions. Once again, nothing was mentioned that the noted intersections contained higher traffic volumes. An article by the London Free Press entitled “Hit Parade” noted the data as “One of the best barometers” of the city’s “annual list of its most dangerous intersections”. Once again, the City’s public was misdirected to believe that they were in greater danger when passing through these intersections. Nothing was mentioned with respect to which locations in the city were more dangerous to cyclists.
A new study was released on March 22, 2012, authored by the Ontario Injury Prevention Centre. This centre was reportedly a part of Public Health Ontario. The report drew on Ontario Ministry of Health data in the two years of 2007 through 2009. The study examined hospitalization rates and visits to the hospital emergency rooms in each of Ontario’s health unit districts. The study noted that, with respect to motor vehicle collisions the hospitalizations rate per 100,000 residents was 31.6 for the whole of Ontario whereas the rate for London was 39. With respect to visits to emergency departments the Ontario rate was 510, whereas the rate for London was 589. With respect to cycling the report indicated that hospitalization rates for Ontario were 9.5 whereas for London they were12. And for emergency department visits the Ontario rate was 186.4 while the London rate was 240.6. One of the authors of the report, Janye Morrish, did not have an explanation for the higher London rates, but she was quoted by the London Free Press as saying “It points to something that Middlesex and London should start to look at more. That is the whole point of this report”. The report was provided to all the health units in Ontario. Morrish indicated “They have an injury-prevention program and they can now start to look at where they may be lacking in certain areas and where they may need to catch up”. These comments were made over 10 years ago. The question remains: Did the London’s local health unit, or any other entity, conduct any inquiries as to why these data were higher for the London area?
No information was made available with respect to how many cyclist collisions occurred in London in March of 2012.
April, 2012
During April the annual CAA Worst Roads Campaign was reported by most news media. This propaganda was based on citizen reports to CAA about what they considered to be the worst road, based on their experience. Upon gathering all the citizen complaints the roadway which received the most complaints was judged to be the worst road in Ontario. This campaign was poorly conceived, much like the propaganda related to the worst intersections of previous months. The public was deceived into believing that complaints from the public could be accurate in determining road conditions and what was safe or unsafe. No public entity, whether political, transportation officials, police or news media was willing to bring these deceptions to the public’s attention.
The only incident remotely related to cycling in April of 2012 was with respect to a fatal, single-vehicle, collision that occurred when police erected road blocks near Flamborough, Ontario for the annual cycling Good Friday Road Race. A vehicle reportedly ignored police efforts to stop and the female driver drove through the intersection of Concession 5 West and Middletown Road. After passing through the intersection at high speed her vehicle left the roadway and struck a group of trees. No explanation was provided as to why such a driver would do what they did.
No mention was made in the London region of any cycling-related issues during this month.
May, 2012
On Saturday, May 5, 2012 a female cyclist was attempting to cross Huron Street near Homer Watson Boulevard overpass when she was struck by an eastbound motor vehicle. She sustained life-threatening injuries. She was not wearing a helmet. No further information became available about her eventual outcome.
On May 6, 2012 a fatal cyclist collision occurred on Herrgott Road in Wellesley Township in the Region of Waterloo. An avid cyclist, Barrie Conrod, was struck from behind by a Lincoln SUV. Although Conrod was wearing a helmet he reportedly sustained major head injuries. Damage to the SUV included a crumpled hood and a fractured windshield. Such damage suggests a substantial overlap of the vehicles and does not match a scenario where the cyclist was clipped by a glancing blow. Unfortunately no further details were provided and therefore the public was not informed sufficiently to learn from this tragedy.
In an article about this collision reported by the Kitchener Record, the reporter noted the following:
“Later this month, the coroner’s office is expected to release recommendations to prevent future deaths following its province-wide review of about 125 cycling deaths from 2006 to 2010.
A similar coroner’s review of 38 cycling deaths in Toronto over an 11-year period was completed in 1998. That review led to a number of recommendations that were never implemented, such as amending the Highway Traffic Act to address the specific needs of cyclists and making it mandatory for all large trucks to be fitted with side guards to protect cyclists from being trapped under a truck’s undercarriage.“
In another fatal collision on Wednesday morning, May 30, 2012, an 87-year-old male was struck on his bicycle while riding westbound on Glendon Drive near Mt. Brydges. The driver of the pick-up truck was charged with using a handheld device. After striking the cyclist the pick-up truck crossed the road and struck an on-coming SUV.
Other than the fatal collision near Mt. Brydges there was no information about how many cyclist collisions occurred in London in May of 2012.
June, 2012
In early June, 2012, a Bike Forum was arranged in Sarnia Ontario to discuss a variety of issues related to cycling in the city. A petition, signed by 6,000 persons, organized by the Bluewater Trails organization resulted in the city creating a number of signs to be posted throughout Sarnia to help designate roads with cycling infrastructure. Bluewater Trails representatives confirmed that signage was not their ultimate goal and that on-road bike lanes, separate bike lanes, bike trails and off-road multi-use paths were their primary goals.
The meeting was also attended by Sarnia Police who provided statistics on the city’s cycling collisions. Police reported that there were 45 collisions involving cyclists between January, 2011 and May, 2012. Twenty-seven of these resulted in injuries. Police noted that in 36 of the 45 collisions cyclists were found to be at fault while only five were the fault of drivers. The Sarnia police representative, Sargent Carson Wilson stated “So obviously, overwhelmingly, these collisions are directly related to the actions of the cyclists. I see what goes on and it drives me nuts”. Wilson was a strong believer that cyclists should not be riding on a sidewalk, claiming that “You are much safer on the roadway”.
Meanwhile the Ontario Coroner’s report into cyclist fatal collisions between the years 2006 and 2010 was released on June 18, 2012. In an article published by the Kitchener Record newspaper the report found that in 35 of the 129 cycling deaths the cyclists were wearing their helmets. It also found that 86 per cent of the cyclists were males. The report suggested making helmet use mandatory for all cyclists. It also recommended the installation of side-guards on truck trailers “to prevent cyclists from being pulled under the vehicle”. The Ontario Transportation Minister at the time, Bob Chiarelli confirmed that he agreed with the coroner’s recommendations and stated “We will assess those recommendations in a timely manner while also considering timelines and budgets”.
Trailer side-guards were the issue that might have prevented the fatal consequences to Jenna Morrison who reportedly died in November, 2011, when a truck making a right turn struck her at the intersection of Sterling Road and Dundas Street West in Toronto. The Kitchener Record newspaper indicated that the Ontario Trucking Association was against trailer side-guards because “relatively few heavy trucks traverse the downtown streets popular with cyclists”.
There was no mention of any significant collisions involving cyclists in the London area in June.
July, 2012
In a collision on July 4, 2012 three cyclists were struck by a pick-up truck on South Pelham Road in Welland, Ontario. One of the cyclists, a female, sustained critical level injuries. No further information was available about the outcome of this collision.
No mention was made in the London region of any cycling-related issues during this month.
August, 2012
An article published by the London Free Press on August 1, 2012 discussed the issue that the new phenomenon of e-bikes had found a crack through legislation. It referred to the fact that e-bikes were defined in the Canadian Criminal Code as motor vehicles yet provincial legislation in the Highway Traffic Act defined them as bicycles because they had pedals like regular cycles. The crack in the legislation referred to the possibility that those who were denied from driving a motor vehicle could ride an e-bike. Various lawyers and London police offered their opinions on the issue as well as local residents.
On August 6, 2012 it was reported that a cyclist sustained fatal injuries after his bicycle tire became jammed in a streetcar track on Wychwood Ave in Toronto. He was not wearing a helmet. No further information was available about the incident.
It was also reported that in early August a male cyclist was riding in the bike lane on Ira Needles Boulevard near Thorndale Drive in Kitchener-Waterloo when he was struck from behind by a passing car. The cyclist’s wife claimed that his bicycle helmet had numerous cracks from the impact and that he had no recollection of the impact. The wife indicated that if her husband had not been wearing a helmet he would have died.
In August of 2012 Michael Bryant, the former Attorney General for the Province of Ontario released a book describing the fatal collision in which his vehicle struck a cyclist in downtown Toronto in 2009. There was no independent collision reconstruction to assess the claims of how the incident unfolded. While initially charged, all charges were dropped in May of 2010. The internet was full of skeptics who believed Bryant got preferential treatment but without a detailed and independent analysis, no one could possibly know what actually happened.
In London, on August 21, 2012, a collision occurred on King Street just east of Maitland involving a male cyclist and a passenger van. The driver of the van claimed that the male cyclist veered from the south side of the street toward the north and the van struck him with its front end. He was not wearing a helmet. Again there was no independent assessment made available to the public that might clarify what actually occurred.
In an August 22, 2012 article published by the London Free Press some statistics were presented regarding cycling collisions in the city in the year 2012. Up to August 1, 2012 there were 100 cyclist collisions reported, 92 of these involved injuries to cyclists. This was noted to be a very large increase compared to 2011 where only 75 cyclist collisions were reported with 72 injuries. The article indicated that there had been only one fatal collision in London in the past three years and that occurred in 2011. While an increase of collisions would appear to be important to the untrained eye, there was no information about the range of fluctuation cyclist collisions from year to year.
The London Free Press article mentioned the comments of several London cyclists. One, Dave Mitchell, was concerned about “Conditions at the side of the road are the most consistent concern, with loose gravel from construction, pot holes and debris. Mitchell was also concerned about drivers using their cellphones, “especially those turning right at intersections”. But Mitchell also noted that cyclists were also partially to blame: “I can’t believe that there are actually regular occurrence of near head-on collisions because of people thinking they own the streets on their bikes”.
Another respondent in the London Free Press article was Maya Nikolovski who complained that there was not enough room for cyclists on roads such as Wharncliffe Road. She noted: “You’re going downhill and you can’t go on the sidewalk because it’s illegal and there’s only one lane. People will simply cut you off in that one lane because they’re not looking or they don’t care”.
Comments were also published in the London Free Press article from Sgt Ryan Scrivens, of the London Police Traffic Management Unit: “The laws are pretty clear that they’re required to follow the rules of the road. They do have to be on the roadways, not on the sidewalks, and they should have a bike in good working order, which includes a horn and a light affixed”. Scrivens confirmed that cyclists over the age of 18 were not required to wear a helmet and that more than 90% of all cyclist collisions result in injury to the cyclists.
The London Free Press article also triggered responses from the general public. Some are reproduced below:
- Drew Smith Report Comment
- August 23rd 2012, 6:51am
- To start I do not see every bicyclist on the road but I have yet to see one adult bicyclist stop at a light or stop sign this year. 2 days ago I watched one cyclist going the wrong way on King, very fast, go through a red light making at least one car slam their brakes on and veer. The kids are much better cyclists, there are SOME adult cyclists that just dont give a @#$$. Until they either get hurt or get a ticket how else will they learn. Will they learn? I will agree with others the roads are narrow on some streets and there are bad drivers but the cyclists I have seen are solely responsible for their actions and should know better.
- Barry Weston Report Comment
- August 22nd 2012, 10:56pm
- The city really needs to implement more bike lanes. I follow as many rules as possible, but if any one thinks I am going to ride down Oxford St, or Wharncliffe Rd for example with my 2 yr old in his trailer behind me is crazy. I will stick to the side walk thanks. I move over and slow down for walkers, so I am causing no problems there and I am ensure my son and I are safe from some of London’s finest drivers.
- Brian Thompson Report Comment
- August 22nd 2012, 10:19pm
- I like many many people, have had close calls with cyclists, they think they don’t have to wait for red lights, signal or follow any of the road rules. Stand at any intersection and it won’t be long before you see a person on a bike ride across an intersection against a red light or make a left or right hand turn without a signal of any kind. I’ve had a guy up on the hood of my van because he didn’t stop for a sign, then Lie to me and tried to say he stopped. The police need to start issuing tickets period! I sure the hell get one in my vehicle if I don’t follow the rules of the road. I’d kinda like to know how many tickets are issued to cyclists. I bet it’s a real low number. Cyclists do not own the roads, many many think they do!!
- Tim Bugler Report Comment
- August 22nd 2012, 9:50pm
- Cyclists need to be hyper vigilant and can never assume that cars see them. I’m a cyclist and do about a 25km round trip commute everyday. And every day I see motorists blowing through cautions and reds, driving well above the speed limit and having cars pass within inches of me is common place. I also see cyclists passing cars on the right (even in turn lanes when the cyclist isn’t turning), running red lights and stop signs when other vehicles clearly have right of way, veering across lanes of traffic without looking and hoping on and off of sidewalks. Basically my point is that stupidity resides on both sides and people in general need to smarten up. It might also help if police actually charged cyclists and drivers for infractions.
In an article published by the Kitchener Record newspaper on August 25, 2012 the focus was placed on the reactions and opinions of Kitchener councillor Yvonne Fernandes to the Coroner’s Report on cyclist deaths that was released a couple of months earlier. In her opinion Kitchener’s council should support the recommendations of the Coroner’s Report and the recommendation that a provincewide cycling plan be developed to lead funding and development of cycling infrastructure. She believed the city should adopt a “complete-streets policy” for new roads that would take into account the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. She was not in favour of the implementation of a mandatory helmet-use law. She believed a more important recommendation was the enactment of a law requiring drivers to give a one-metre distance when passing cyclists.
Opinions were also published from Josh Joseph, the city’s head of sustainable transportation. He emphasized the comment made in the Coroner’s Report that all the 129 cyclist fatalities studied in the report were preventable. Such a comment suggested that nothing was needed to improve cycling infrastructure as the fault lay the humans who drove motor vehicles and rode bicycles. This is a common theme amongst many in the general population to blame humans for injuries and deaths and that the simply solution is to prevent humans from making mistakes.
Members of the Kitchener cycling advisory committee were also quoted in the Kitchener Record article. Peter Debes thought the response to the Coroner’s Report had grinded to a halt. In his view the most important legislation would be requiring drivers to give cyclists a 1-metre lateral gap when passing.
Another member of the cycling committee, Michael Boos, was not in favour of a proposed, mandatory helmet law. He believed better cycling infrastructure and better education would have a greater effect.
A few days after the initial article the Kitchener Record published a subsequent article informing the public that Kitchener was the first municipality in Ontario to endorse the Coroner’s Report. The low impact of the report could be judged by the comments of Dr. Dan Cass, deputy corner for investigations, who commented: “I am not aware of any other municipality that has come forward and taken the lead. This is real-tangible progress and a municipality that’s making a commitment to move forward”.
Shortly after the comments published in the two Kitchener Record articles a collision occurred on the evening of August 28, 2012. Police reaction was that it was a “miracle that a young boy was not seriously injured. The boy’s mother was riding a bicycle on Linda Drive in Hespeler and the boy was riding in a carrier attached to the back of the bicycle. As the mother made a right turn onto Milton Ave a pick-up truck also made a right turn striking her bicycle. The carrier with the boy inside ended up crushed underneath the pick-up truck. The boy only suffered minor injuries. The male driver of the pick-up truck was charged with careless driving.
Nothing related to the Coroner’s Report was published or reported in the London area in August of 2012. With respect to the collision on King Street in London on August 21, 2012 it was only reported that the tragedy occurred. But no details were provided as to how it occurred or what actions by either the van driver or the cyclist could have prevented the collision.
September, 2012
In an article published on September 11, 2012, written by Ian Gillespie for the London Free Press (“Cyclists break law for (their) safety”), the topic of discussion was the fact that cyclists were riding on the sidewalks of London Ontario, against the law. The article referenced an Ontario Medical Association (OMA) report from 2011 entitled “Enhancing Cycling Safety in Ontario” wherein it was noted that “The report notes there were 26,300 emergency deportment visits and 1,374 hospitalizations for cycling injuries in Ontario in 2009 and that ‘the majority of cycling emergency department visits are for children and youth'”.
A report prepared by London City staff proposed that an amendment be made to the current law such that cyclists under the age of 14 should be allowed to ride on city sidewalks. The Gillespie article quoted city councillor Joni Baechler stating she has ridden her bicycle on a sidewalk. And an 80-year-old cyclist, Dirk Bergsma stated “We love cycling, but sometimes it’s scary to go on the road, so we go on the sidewalk”. Bergsma’s wife, Annamarie, also noted “It’s a difficult issue, we love to obey the law in every respect, but sometimes common sense tells you something different”. In their view the sidewalk is the safest place when riding along London roads like Wellington, Wharncliffe, Adelaide and Southdale.
In September, 2012, a male driver pleaded guilty to careless driving as a result of a collision that killed a cyclist on University Ave in Waterloo in September of 2010. The prosecutor in the case, Ralph Cotter, indicated that for “reasons unknown” the car struck the cyclist who was travelling in the same direction. The cyclist was not wearing a helmet.
On September 25, 2012 Jim Kenzie’s article entitled “Carte Blanche: This Toronto road is a cyclist death trap” was published by the Toronto Star newspaper. The focus of the article was the dangerous condition of Pottery Road between Broadview Ave and the Bayview extension. This road travelled along the edge of an escarpment. It was steep and winding. Kenzie’s point was that a painted cycling lane along the downhill side of the road did not separate cyclists from motor vehicle traffic. The article produced a very large number of comments from the public. Most comments focused on negative views of each individual’s strongly expressed beliefs. These views showed the diversity of opinions that exist in the community.
On September 26, 2012 a fatal collision occurred on Barton Rd in Hamilton Ontario involving a female cyclist who had dismounted and was stopped on the curb. A dump truck was passing her location. The truck was hauling a trailer with a long hitch bar. As the truck passed police reported that the female stepped into the street between the truck and the trailer and was run over. The collision occurred at 0540 hours therefore it would be dark.
An interesting article was published on September 28, 2012 by the Woodstock Sentinel-Review newspaper and the discussions between representatives of local Oxford County municipalities and the County of Oxford within which the municipalities reside. Ingersoll’s mayor, Ted Comiskey wanted to know what the County of Oxford was planning toward developing new cycling infrastructure. New construction on one of the County’s roads (County Rd 28) was used as an example where bike lanes could be added. The county’s director of public works, Robert Walton, explained that there were many difficulties and costs with adding a cycling lane along the noted road:
“The road would need to be totally reconstructed for this to happen. The platform and everything is not in place for that. The shoulders on most of this road are quite narrow. They’re two to three feet at most and the platform itself in only 7 metres wide, which does not allow for the extra width that we have been doing on the latest of the high volume roads”.
High costs were also noted as a deterrent.
“We will actually be bringing quite shortly our cycling chapter of the national transportation plan back to council for approval,” he said. “It could be October 10 that we bring that report to council and I think you’ll see a lot of your questions answered there. I hope you’ll enjoy the vision. The reason we pulled the cycling chapter from the transportation master plan at the time it was passed about three years ago was that quite personally I wasn’t happy with it at all. What it did was throw a lot of provincial standards out there. It gave no vision for what Oxford County was going to do. The vision wouldn’t be there if we just adopted what the provincial standards are. There wouldn’t be anything anywhere and that’s no good, so we said let’s come with an Oxford solution.”
Such comments focus on the fact that many of the provincial responsibilities for road design, maintenance and safety were dumped onto municipal laps within the enactment of the Municipal Act. In some circles the allowance given to local municipalities to do as they wished was appreciated as provincial standards could be viewed a draconian to local municipalities. Yet provincial control made it possible to standardize transportation systems so that they did not change from one municipal area to the next. While in provincial control the prioritization of what improvements were made in municipal infrastructure was well-controlled based on objective procedures. When these controls were removed municipalities could determine for themselves what would be repaired or improved, sometimes regardless of well thought out policy.
No information was available with respect to how many cyclist collisions occurred in London in the month of September, 2012.
October, 2012
A research study authored by Dr. Navindra Persaud of the University of Toronto demonstrated that cyclists who ride without a helmet are three times more likely to die from a head injury than those who wear helmets. This study was reported in an October 15, 2012 article written by Wendy Gillis, a reporter with Toronto Star newspaper. The study used the data taken from the 129 fatal cyclists studied in the Ontario Coroner’s Report that was released earlier in 2012. At the time of writing the Ontario government made it mandatory for cyclists under the age of 18 to wear a helmet. Persaud’s study noted that 88 per cent of those who died in their study were older than 18 thus this was a gap in public policy.
Others were not convinced that helmet use over 18 years should be mandatory. Jared Kolb, who was Director of Campaigns and Membership at Cycle Toronto indicated that he supported the helmet law for those riders under the age of 18 but was against the law for those over 18. The article indicated that Kolb believed “The problem with mandatory helmet laws is that they can discourage people from riding altogether”. A further explanation of that belief was not provided. Kolb believed that the focus should be on improving cycling infrastructure. Dr. Persaud commented that “Even if we had a perfect infrastructure, there are still going to be collisions and falls, and that’s why helmets would be useful”.
On October 16, 2012 a fatal cyclist collision was reported near Orangeville, Ontario. A male cyclist, riding with dark clothing and riding with no rear light, was struck from behind by a pick-up truck.
In a Kitchener Record newspaper article of October 26, 2012, the legal proceedings were described with respect to the fatal cyclist collision involving Barrie Conrod, that occurred on May 6, 2012 on Herrgott Road in the Region of Waterloo. Further details about the collision were revealed. There was uncertainty about why the collision occurred. The driver of the impacting pick-up truck, Dale Wideman, admitted in court that he may have fallen asleep and that he did not see Conrod until it was too late. Yet in an interview a few days after the collision he indicated to police that “he doesn’t really know what happened because he can’t remember falling asleep or feeling drowsy”. Police reported that the impact occurred on or near a white line painted at the right edge of the roadway lane.
In an upbeat article published by the Sarnia Observer newspaper, on October 28 ,2012, the focus was on a retired executive who moved to Sarnia from Toronto and began to ride a bicycle – something he had not done in 40 years. He took a three-day course on cycling. This taught him the rules of the road. He stated: “The biggest piece of news for me from the course is that I have every right that an automobile has”. He also learned he’s supposed to ‘take the lane’ when there isn’t enough space on the side of the road. This advice was given by the teacher of the course, Dick Felton, of Bluewater Trails. Felton noted: “I think they were all shocked it wasn’t the scary experience they had anticipated”. The course was created from a grant from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Further funding was provided by the City of Sarnia to hire a Co-Ordinator to “get the program rolling”.
In an article published on November 20, 2012, by the Sarnia Observer newspaper, a fatal cyclist collision was described which occurred on LaSalle Road. The cyclist and motor vehicle were both travelling west on LaSalle but few details were provided by investigating police. Even an article describing the sentencing in July of 2014 provided no information about the details of the collision. The only useful information in the article is that it described what other cyclist collisions had recently occurred in the Sarnia area, as noted below:
“Other notable cycling collisions:
July 16, 2012 – a 28-year-old Sarnia cyclist was taken to hospital after colliding with a car in the city’s south end.
Aug. 21, 2012 – Police arrested a 39-year-old Sarnia man after a cyclist was struck by a vehicle on Exmouth Street. The driver fled but witnesses followed him to a Point Edward address.
Sept. 15, 2012 – A five-year-old boy suffered minor injuries after he was struck by a car while riding his bicycle on Cardiff Drive in Sarnia. Police say the boy’s helmet prevented more serious injury.
Oct. 3, 2012 – Sarnia police investigate following collision involving an e-bike and a car. The 34-year-old male e-bike driver was uninjured, while the other driver left the scene.
Oct. 6, 2012 – A 16-year-old cyclist collides with a vehicle just on East Street. The cyclist was treated for minor injuries and given a ticket for not wearing a helmet.“
No information was made available as to how many cyclists collisions occurred in London in October, 2012.
November, 2012
In November of 2012 the public’s attention was focused once again to the fatal collision involving cyclist Barrie Conrod which occurred on May 6, 2012. Articles published by the Kitchener Record newspaper on November 22, 2012 described that the driver of the striking vehicle, Dale Wideman, was fined $1,000, placed on probation for one year and was ordered to do 10 hours of community service. The prosecutor, David Foulds focused on the unsubstantiated evidence that Wideman may have fallen asleep before the impact, a suggestion that should have been denied based on Wideman’s interview a few days after the collision in which he claimed he did not actually know what happened. Evidence indicated that Wideman was not speeding nor was there any evidence to suggest he was impaired. Evidence presented at trial demonstrated Wideman’s sincere remorse over what happened. Yet, what actually happened, with respect to objective, reliable evidence, was not explained.
No information was provided with respect to how many cyclist collisions occurred in London in November, 2012.
December, 2012
In December of 2012 London’s Civic Works Committee prepared a list of recommendations to be sent to Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation with respect to cycling issues. As reported in a December 17, 2012 article by the London Free Press the following recommendations were made:
– All cyclists must wear helmets.
– Overtaking motorists give cyclists a one-metre berth.
– Motorists should be educated about cyclists and the driver’s handbook amended to deal with “share-the-road” rights of bicyclists.
– Laws be introduced to clarify how cyclists are to be treated at intersections, where most accidents occur.
– Provincial funding for infrastructure include money for bike lanes and highway crossings.
There was no information available about how many cyclist collisions occurred in London in December, 2012.
Discussion
In review, what was occurring 10 years ago is similar to what is occurring now: a lack of information and a general secrecy about how and why cyclist collisions occur.
In general the public was misled, and continues to be misled, with respect to the condition of roads in London. As noted above the worst intersections and the worst roads continue to be advertised by local news media when there is little truth to those advisements. The yearly reporting of the 10 intersections with the most number of reported collisions does nothing to provide legitimate advice as those intersections contain the highest traffic volumes and thus the greatest exposures. That does not mean that they are less safe.
Similarly, the annual reporting of the “Worst Roads” in Ontario by the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) misleads the public into believing that they are less safe on these roads. Perceptions by the untrained public do not create quality data on road safety yet this is the basis on which the CAA campaign designates its worst roads. In recent years the CAA has begun to use additional expert assistance confirm whether those public perceptions are reasonable and this may improve the process.
In the meantime, no evaluations have existed over the past 10 years with respect to guiding cyclists about which intersections and roads are most dangerous to them. A broad law that states that cyclists must ride on the road and not on a sidewalk is a dangerous act. It suggests to the less-knowledgeable cyclists that they are safe to ride on roads with high traffic volumes, large numbers of heavy vehicles and with narrower lanes. These are the circumstances in which cyclists are struck from behind and pay the maximum sacrifice.
As can be seen in the 2012 review, research studies into cycling collisions were performed by Ontario’s Coroner’s office and the Ontario Medical Association (OMA). This resulted in broad statistics being released to the public about the character of fatal cyclist collisions and how many cyclists were treated at hospital emergency departments. While such reports may be meaningful to those deeply involved in their research they do little to impact the general cycling public who are the ones being injured. Much of the problem lies with the dryness of such numbers that remain separated from the real-life occurrences that are unpublicized and often kept from public knowledge. It is only when a fatal cyclist collision occurs that a minimal amount of publicity is provided about its circumstances. But the important causal factors that the public needs to know about are rarely revealed.
The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) report of March, 2012 indicated that, with respect to cycling, hospitalization rates for Ontario were 9.5 per 100,000 residents whereas for London they were 12. And for emergency department visits the Ontario rate was 186.4 while the London rate was 240.6. There is no information whether the local health unit, that received this report, conducted any further inquiries as to why the hospitalizations and emergency department visits of cyclists was higher in the London area. It would seem prudent that such information would trigger further analysis that should have been passed on to the general public and particularly to the population of cyclists around London. To date there is no information whether these statistics were just an anomaly for the study period, whether the rates remained persistently higher through to current years and whether any important factors were uncovered that might inform the public.
Death Should Not Occur From Simple Guardrail Impact
A disturbing lack of understanding of cause of death has been exhibited both police and all else who failed to question how and why fatal injuries occurred to an occupant whose while struck a guardrail on Hwy 403 near Hamilton Ontario on August 22, 2022. The story has been revisited now because on February 1, 2023 the OPP has announced on their Twitter account that charges of Careless Driving Causing Death have been laid against the surviving driver. We will never know what factors came into play in this decision and that is not the focus of the concern. Rather the focus should have been on the reasonableness of occupants sustaining critical and fatal injuries from an impact of a guardrail.
When a driver loses control of a vehicle at highway speed there can be many dangerous possibilities that can develop. The vehicle may exit the lane of travel and strike an opposing vehicle. Alternatively, if no other vehicle exists the loss-of-control vehicle may exit the roadway. There are many dangerous things existing along any roadway. In the past, before Electronic Stability Control (ESC), almost all loss-of-control events caused a vehicle to enter a yaw, or a rotation about the vehicle’s vertical centre-of-gravity. Such a rotation would inevitably cause the vehicle to reach a magnitude of rotation that was almost 90 degrees. At this point the vehicle’s tires would engage enough resistance that the vehicle would begin to rollover. The deceleration in a rollover is generally benign and that is not what makes it dangerous. It is that when a vehicle rolls over it exposes the softer, upper portions of the windows and roof to the stiffer environment and deformation of the vehicle structure is easy to achieve. If this is a “soft” rollover with minimal deformation the occupants, if wearing their seatbelts properly, can ride-down the collision with minimal likelihood of significant injury. However if the vehicle strikes something stiff or immovable the story is much different. Major injuries occur in those instances.
In some instances a loss-of-control vehicle does not reach a point of rollover but strikes something while still upright. This is something that occurs more frequently now that ESC keeps the vehicle pointing generally in the direction it is moving. So the vehicle may still be out-of-control of the driver but at least its pointing angle is more favourable if an impact should occur. The safety standards available in frontal impact are far superior to those in a side impact, principally because there is more structure at a vehicle’s front end where energy dissipation can occur in a controlled manner. So in most cases the actions of ESC control are beneficial.
There are many dangers such a trees, poles, rocks and embankments along roadsides that can bring a vehicle to a sudden stop in a dreadful hurry. Sometimes in as little as a 1/10th of a second. So where such dangerous roadside features exist it makes sense to erect more forgiving structures prior to where those dangers exist. And erection of those structures are more likely to done along highways where there are high traffic volumes.
Along expressways such as Highway 403 there should be the maximum “level of service” which is a term commonly used to discuss how much protection will be implemented in road design. Guard (Guide) rails are one of those protections that are stalled on expressways so that vehicles striking them will encounter a more beneficial ride-down of an impact.
Guardrails have purposeful “failures” designed into them. They are designed to buckle, deform and be displaced for the purpose of removing the kinetic energy possessed by the striking vehicle. Wooden anchorage posts may be pushed and then subsequently fractured to allow the rail to be displaced by the impacting vehicle. This longer time and distance of contact is what reduces the overall peaks of “deceleration” (technically “negative acceleration”) that would otherwise be experienced by the impacting vehicle and ultimately by the occupant in the “second collision”. The second collision refers to the impact of the occupant’s body with the vehicle interior. Generally speaking guardrails are not supposed to create decelerations of a vehicle that are life-threating, and why would they? Clearly if the guardrail should produce such decelerations then why bother to pay the price of installing them?
In their original description of the collision on Hwy 403, the OPP never mentioned that the vehicle struck anything else except the guardrail. The photo that they posted on their Twitter site was of poor quality. No one would be able to decipher the specifics of the damage to the car, the damage to the guardrail and how the two interacted. And no one questioned these results. The investigating police never mentioned that fatal injuries should not occur from impacting a guardrail. No one in the official news media raised the issue. And the numerous comments coming from the general public demonstrated that they had no understanding of the issue.
Confusing Markings After Road Construction Need Accountability
The deaths of six young occupants of a vehicle that fell into a large drainage hole in a construction site on McKay Road in Barrie Ontario in late August, 2022 point to lack of monitoring of roadway construction activity in Ontario. Municipal roadway operations in the Province of Ontario have become accountable to no one. It is not clear how this developed.
London Ontario is no different than other municipalities. As shown in the above photo certain roadway operations create potentially deadly scenarios. The results of these obvious roadway deficiencies are not publicized. In fact, an effort is engaged to hide those deficiencies from the public. Here are some examples.
Two Examples of the Problem
The above photo was taken in September, 2021 after road construction was completed near the intersection of Brydges and Hale Streets in east London. A left-turn lane along westbound Brydges Street was to be removed and a new centre-line was painted through the middle of the road. It can be seen in the photo that, although the old centre-line was partially removed, it was far from invisible. It fact it was very visible to westbound drivers. This was apparent when observations of traffic were made. The sequence of photos below shows an example of one westbound vehicle driver who obviously mistook the old centre-line to be still in effect.
In a quick survey of just over 18 minutes conducted on September 12, 2021, 12 westbound vehicles were documented on Brydges Street as they approached Hale Street. On eight occasions the westbound vehicles were observed travelling onto the wrong side of the new centre-line, and following the guidance of the old centre-line. A quick call to police led to modifications whereby traffic cones were laid down to guide drivers from the old centre-line to the new one as shown in the photo below. Up to the time that the call was made neither police nor city officials were aware of the danger.
A scenario like this is not uncommon, as exemplified by the photos below, taken on January 7, 2023, showing a confusing centre-line marked in the southbound lanes of Wellington Street at King Street in downtown London.
After over a week passed by the City of London began another construction activity in the northbound lane of Wellington Street. This new activity was right next to the spot where the centre-line was painted in the southbound lanes from the previous construction. It should have been simple for someone to recognize the painted centre line in the southbound lanes since work was being done right next to it. But that did not happen, as can be seen in the following photos.
Many incidents such as the one shown above become resolved due to the ability of human drivers to unravel these complexities which require a superior understanding of context. However, what would happen if the driver of the southbound vehicle did not exist? What if this was a “Self-Driving” vehicle or one in some form of automated control? Would the self-driving features of the vehicle detect the situation correctly or would it violently steer the vehicle into greater danger because of the markings on the pavement? One can only wonder. But not every human driver is the same. When municipalities create confusing contexts there will be instances where drivers cannot unravel the conflicting messages in time to prevent a collision.
Discussion
The City of London must employ road inspectors to patrol roads like this as prescribed in the Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) legislated in the Municipal Act of Ontario. If such inspectors actually passed through this site as required there should have been an obvious ability to detect the problem with the centre-line marking and this should have been corrected immediately. Yet, for at least 10 days, the problem with the roadway marking has not been corrected. So how and where did this failure originate?
If a collision occurs and a claim is made against a city like London there is a Risk Management Department available to protect its interests. In many instances the lawyers in this department are not obliged to simply pay out claims even when there is some fault on the part of the City. Their job is to minimize those payouts and to protect City employees and departments from liability. And often the Risk Management Department works to maintain secrecy about problems in the City that could generate a claim. This often involves operating behind the sight of elected officials who are obliged to appear transparent in the eyes of the electorate. This is why, when an elected official is approached about a roadway complaint the complainant is steered toward staff employees who are not obliged to be transparent and are not obliged to inform the public about their activities.
This secrecy is at the heart of many road safety problems that are not resolved even after there have been tragic collisions that could have been prevented if a road problem was properly identified and corrected. Plaintiff and defense lawyers alike play games to absolve their clients from liability but this does nothing to improve the safety of the general public.
Is Con-Drain The Only Entity Responsible For The Six-Death Collision On McKay Road In Barrie?
It was a slow process that eventually revealed that six youths were killed on McKay Road in Barrie Ontario in mid-August, 2022. Initially news media reported that the six persons were missing, as per Barrie Police who reportedly posted a missing persons report at approximately 2000 hours on Saturday, August 27th, 2022. The news media then reported that a Barrie police officer happened to come across a collision site at approximately 0200 hours on Sunday, August 28th. The site was reported to be in the area of McKay Road and County Road 27. The area was a municipal construction site. There was a very large drainage hole in the road and a vehicle was found in the hole with six occupants in it, all deceased. News media reported that “the intersection was closed since springtime” but it was not clear what intersection was being referenced, the one at County Road 27 or the one at Veteran’s Drive. It would seem more informative to state that McKay Road was closed rather than a specific intersection, if that was the case.
In many instances the news media will disclose if police believed that certain factors, such as alcohol impairment, were suspected to play a role in a crash. But in this case the Barrie Police refused to comment.
Instead of any details about the crash, news media filled their reports with the usual comments from dignitaries offering their condolences: Ontario’s Premier, the Mayor of Barrie, Barrie’s City manager, and Barrie’s Fire Chief.
By September 8, 2022 it was reported that police believed the collision occurred shortly after 0600 hours on August 27th. It was stated that the six young adults were heading to a local casino when the crash occurred.
By January 12, 2023 notice was given by news media that police laid a charge of criminal negligence causing death against Con-Drain Group, which was the contractor responsible for the McKay Road construction site. The charge of criminal negligence against a commercial company is unusual. This may be the only time in recent history where such charges were laid with respect to a motor vehicle collision. Almost exclusively such charges are laid against a vehicle driver. The idea that charges could be successful against a commercial entity leads to some bazaar thoughts.
Would police place the building housing the Con-Drain Group in some kind of metal cage with all of its employees inside? Is that how the punishment would be delivered against the firm? Perhaps a single representative, or several, should be surrendered as scapegoats. Maybe the company receptionist or its janitor? These comments are ridiculous, but seriously, it is difficult to understand how a commercial entity can be named and it employees can be successfully prosecuted. The outcome of failure to provide reasonable notice to drivers of the existence of the drainage hole could be the result of actions/inactions by several persons, each having some role but none exclusively to blame. If the owner of the firm did not provide sufficient training to his employees would he/she be solely responsible? Should the supervisor be solely responsible if he/she failed to examine whether those under his supervision failed to install proper signage even through he properly instructed them? Would the employee who was supposed to install the signage be fully responsible if the signs were not installed at the proper locations etc. if the employee was not properly trained? In the end this could be a result of the partial negligence of several persons, all with some partial negligence but none who could, or should, be prosecuted for the total harm.
Separately, if the condition of lack of warning existed, what did other entities do or not do, besides Con-Drain? For example police should be patrolling along roadways looking for possible dangers to the public. And the City of Barrie should have road inspectors doing similar patrols. If McKay Road was closed “since springtime” then did these road patrollers have the opportunity and ability to detect the safety problem? Was there neglect upon the Barrie Police for failing to train its officers in detecting roadway hazards? How often has it been observed that police are told they are not responsible for roadway infrastructure but they are there to control dangers related to driver behaviors? Should the Barrie Police charge themselves with criminal negligence? Is there a conflict of interest here?
There is legislation in the Province of Ontario dealing with Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) that provide clear thresholds for matters such as the number of inspections that should be carried out by municipal road inspectors depending the class of roadway. So a Class 1 roadway with a high traffic volume should be inspected at a greater frequency than a lower Class roadway. What Class of roadway was McKay Road and was it being inspected at the minimum frequency as assigned in the MMS?
Checking the Open Data database for the City of Barrie there is information provided on the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on McKay Road. Not unexpectedly the data is confusing. A count reportedly taken in the year 2018 reported an ADT of 2293 vehicles yet the cell describing the Peak Hour Volume also contained a value of 2293 vehicles. Obviously the total traffic for the day cannot be the same as the traffic in only the peak hour of the day. Never-the-less if we assume the correct ADT data is 2293, then we can look at the MMS and determine that this would be a Class 3 road and its inspection frequency should have been once every seven days. And if the roadway was closed for April through to August, 2022 then that would be a total of just over 150 days. Thus there should have been a minimum of 22 roadway inspections carried out from the time that the roadway was closed up to the time of the collision. So If there was a roadway deficiency, such as a lack of proper signage, a road inspector should have had about 22 opportunities to identify the hazard. If these assumptions are valid then there should be no argument that the City ought to have known about a deficiency if it existed over that time frame.
Photos on various news websites shortly after the collision showed signage at the intersection of McKay Road and County Road 27. These signs indicated “Road Closed” with a tab below indicating “Local Traffic Only”. Whenever there is such a “Local Traffic Only” tab it leads drivers to disregard the “Road Closed” sign because it suggests that certain persons are allowed to travel on the road. In many instances such a sign indicates that the road is not completely blocked and that it is possible to travel through the closed portion. But was this signage erected or modified after the collision occurred?
We still do not know anything about what police found that caused them to charge the contracting firm with criminal negligence. And this is approaching five months after the collision occurred. Official news media indicated they asked police about the basis for the charge however a police spokesperson would only say that this was a very complex investigation, one of the largest they had been involved in in recent times, but the spokesperson apparently refused to answer the question. At some time in the future these comments will have to be compared to the evidence that will eventually have to be revealed.
Curiously, why have official news media not picked up on this issue of additional responsibilities for roadway safety by the Barrie Police and the City of Barrie? Why have professional journalists not researched this area, found the traffic volume of McKay Road, and reported the importance of roadway inspections, as required?
In summary, It is crucially important to identify what conditions actually existed at the time of the collision, why they existed, and whose actions or inactions led to the result. Even more important that applying punishments to those deemed at fault, is the importance of properly informing the general public. It is not the courts, politicians, police, or news media who should have the final say on how the repercussions of this tragedy will be dealt with. It is up to the general public that must be fully informed so that those representing the public act according to its wishes. Up to now no such knowledge or information has been disclosed.
Once Again Collision Destroys Harpoon Hazard – Will It Rise Again?
Many simply refuse to recognize safety hazards to the point that they become willfully blind to them. Many roadside objects that harpoon or puncture wayward vehicles are ignored. They rest in place for many years because the probability that they will be struck is remote. Such has been the case of the railing that existed at the intersection of Quebec and Oxford Streets in London, Ontario.
The earliest view of the railing that we have on record comes from August, 2002, shown in the photo below.
Subsequent photos show that over the years the harpoon hazard has taken slightly different forms. The view below shows the railing in April of 2016.
A closer view shows that it was quite different in years past. For example the photo below was taken in November, 2016 and it shows how a previous anchorage had existed as demonstrated by the anchorage hole in the square concrete block. Also the horizontal bars now protrude much further out from the anchorage post. So somewhere between April and November of 2016 the railing changed characteristics, possibly because it was struck, destroyed and replaced again.
Sometime in January of 2019 the railing was struck and destroyed as shown in the photos below taken on January 26, 2019.
It was hoped that someone recognized that the safety situation had improved with the destruction of the railing. But no. Sometime later the railway was replaced. again. We see in the photo below, taken in March of 2019, that the railing has been re-installed, with the dangerous horizontal bars waiting to impale the next wayward vehicle.
An interesting thing happened when the railing was struck and repaired. Someone in the City of London recognized the harpooning hazard and placed caps at the ends of the horizontal bars, as shown below.
Then the railing was struck again in January, 2023, thus demolishing most of it as on previous occasions.
Shortly afterwards the railing was completely removed and replaced by portable concrete barriers as shown in the photos below.
The question remains: Will the dangerous harpoon-railing be re-installed? Or will the City of London finally understand that such a dangerous installation should not exist at the edge of any busy, arterial roadway.
2022 Cyclist Observations Provide Important Data on Cyclist Safety
The death of a cyclist on January 2, 2023, on Wellington Road just south of the London Ontario city limit provides an indication of the importance of understanding how cyclist injuries and deaths occur. Unfortunately essentially nothing is transferred from those investigating such collisions to the general cycling public who are the victims of the collisions.
It is left to independent agencies such as Gorski Consulting to step up and inform the public about cycling safety issues. For example, in 2022 Gorski Consulting made a total of 1083 observations of cyclists travelling on, or adjacent to roadways in London, Ontario. A variety of information was obtained from these observations which can be used to understand more about the safety issues involved.
The 2022 Cyclist Observation Data
With respect to cyclist gender Gorski Consulting was unable to establish whether a rider was male or female in 53 of those observations. Thus this resulted in a study of the remaining 1030 observations. Of those 1030 cyclists where gender could be determined there was a vastly higher number of male cyclists than female. For example, of the 1030 observations, 895 were males and only 135 were females. This results in a percentage of females of only 13.11 %. An unbiased observer would question why there is such a disproportionate number of males versus females.
A curious finding is that in the summer of 2021 we also conducted gender studies on the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) in London. A total of 457 cyclists were observed at three sites on the Parkway: St Julian Park, Banana Kingdom and Greenway Park. It was found that there were 330 males and 122 females observed over a period of six hours. This meant that 27 percent of the observations were females. This percentage is more than double the percentage of female cyclists riding on or adjacent to the City’s roadways. Why is that?
An obvious difference between these studies is that the observations made on or adjacent to the City roads were made where cyclists were in the presence of automobiles, heavy trucks and buses. Conversely the Thames Valley Parkway is a pathway that is separated from these automotive transport units. Is that relevant? Is it possible that females may not wish to ride in areas of greater danger? Does this data say something about the relative danger posed to cyclists travelling on or adjacent to City roads versus the TVP?
We also looked at where cyclists travelled with respect to the road right-of-way. We looked at whether cyclists rode within a traffic lane or whether they rode on a sidewalk. It was found that 584 of the 895 males were observed on a sidewalk and 98 of the 135 females were observed on a sidewalk. With respect to percentage, 65.3 % of males were observed on a sidewalk versus 72.6% females. One might be tempted to conclude that females appear to be on a sidewalk more than males however the number of observations is simply too small to draw that conclusion.
A conclusion that is better supported by the data is that, overall, there appear to be more cyclists located on a sidewalk than within the roadway. This may be puzzling when we consider that there are laws, both in London and in the Province of Ontario that make it illegal for cyclists to ride on a sidewalk. So why would two-thirds of males and three-quarters of observed females involve themselves in these illegal activities? Does this say something about cyclists or does it say more about the law? Why are cyclists refusing to ride on an urban road in London, Ontario? And why is this question not receiving more attention?
Another issue that has been explored in the 2022 observational data is the issue of helmet use. In our view cycling helmets are like seatbelts for motor vehicle occupants. They cannot prevent very injury and they cannot prevent every head injury, but they are much more effective in preventing head injury than no helmet at all. Yet our data provides some startling results.
For cyclists observed on or adjacent to an urban roadway, we were able to detect 566 male riders out of 895 who were not wearing cycling helmets, or a percentage of 63.2 % were non-users. With respect to females 76 out of 135 were observed with no helmets, or a percentage of 56.3% non-users. So what we can say is that, overall, there appear to be more cyclists not wearing helmets than those who wear helmets on or adjacent to city roads. If these observations were with respect to motor vehicle occupants not wearing seatbelts we would view them as alarming. So why is it different when cyclists are involved.
Furthermore we can compare the helmet results from 2022 to the results we observed along the TVP in 2021. From the three sites on the TVP we found that 99 of the 330 males were observed not wearing a helmet, or a percentage of 30.0% non users. For females 24 of the 124 were observed not wearing a helmet, or a percentage of 19.7 % non users. But surely these are stark differences from the observations on city streets. Why are there so many more cyclists riding on the TVP with helmets yet, on city roadways, where the dangers of being struck by motor vehicles is so much higher, there is a much lower incidence of helmet use?
Discussion
The cycling public is not provided with basic information about how collisions occur and what is important in preventing their injuries. This is part of the reason why unsafe actions, such as a refusal to wear cycling helmets, develop.
Our 2022 data also demonstrate the contradictions that exist between what cyclists are told is safe and what they sense in the real world. Being told that riding on a sidewalk is less safe than riding on the road with motor vehicle traffic does not appear to agree with the minds of most cyclists. Despite that they could face fines cyclists continue to ride on sidewalks and this likely demonstrates their belief that they are safer riding on that sidewalk.
The two photos below demonstrate the paradox in official instructions provided to cyclists about their safety. In the first photo is a demonstration of what the Province of Ontario deems to be an unsafe act of a cyclist riding on a sidewalk. The cyclist is instructed that it is safer to ride on the road, seemingly as demonstrated in the second photo.
If the volume of cyclists is to rise exponentially in the next few years it is doubtful that safer roadways can be built fast enough to keep up. Thus there may be more cyclists riding on roads that are unsafe for cyclists. It is important during this time to conduct observations of cyclists to establish an objective understanding of the safety problems that may be developing in the near future.
You must be logged in to post a comment.