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.
Additional Speeding Data & Speed Display Board Evaluation in London Ontario Canada
Background
Recently Gorski Consulting has been involved in a study of speeding and the functioning of a Speed Display Board (SDB) erected on Hale Street in London, Ontario, Canada. Preliminary results of the study were posted on October 11, 2024, in a Gorski Consulting website article entitled “Motor Vehicle Speed Detection in London, Ontario, Canada”. That article discussed the analysis of a two-hour video session conducted on October 5, 2024 between 2050 and 2250 hours. Since then additional video sessions were completed and analysed comprising of 8, 2-hour sessions. The present article will review the results from 7 of these sessions. The dates and times of the 8 sessions are noted below.
October 4, 2024 between 2100 & 2300 hours
October 5, 2024 between 0600 & 0800 hours
October 5, 2024 between 1600 & 1800 hours
October 5, 2024 between 2050 & 2250 hours
October 14, 2024, between 1500 & 1700 hours
October 15, 2024, between 1700 & 1900 hours
October 21, 2024 between 1800 & 2000 hours
October 30, 2024, between 1000 & 1150 hours.
There was a technical problem with a portion of video from one of the cameras in the October 4, 2024 session that prevented last hour of the session from being analysed. Thus the first hour of that session could still be analysed but this has not been done. For the present article only the results from the last 7 sessions will be reviewed.
The table below shows these results.
The SDB was removed on November 4, 2024 or exactly one month after it was erected. Looking at the results in the table there is no indication that the speeds of vehicles were lowed by the presence of the SDB. The average maximum speeds were substantially higher than the Posted Maximum Speed for the road. Also of concern is the high percentage of vehicles found to be travelling at 20 or more kilometres above the posted speed limit.
Because of the erratic functioning of the SDB only a small segment of the northbound vehicles could be included in this documentation. The SDB was confused whenever two or more vehicles existed in the 180-metre detection zone. So the only observations that could be included were those where there was only one vehicle present in that zone. On a number of occasions, even when a single vehicle was present in that zone, the SDB would, inexplicable, fail to detect the presence of the vehicle.
In other instances the SDB would continue displaying a speed well after the observed vehicle had exited the detection zone. In those instances when a second vehicle entered the detection zone the speed from the exited vehicle continued to be displayed and so the data from the second observation had to be aborted because it could not be certain whether the SDB was still showing the speed from the first vehicle or whether it was now showing the speed from the vehicle that entered the detection zone.
In conditions where it was sunny, or partially sunny, the SDB had difficulty detecting a vehicle in the detection zone, even when only one vehicle existed. Thus many observations in those conditions had to be aborted.
In many instances the SDB was late in detecting a vehicle until it was almost leaving the detection zone. It was not clear why this occurred. This often occurred in daylight hours. Yet upon approaching darkness, or in nighttime conditions, the SDB was often able to detect vehicles close to the start of the 180-metre detection zone. Our decision was to include those vehicles in our analysis even though the SDB was late in detecting them, so long as only one vehicle was present in the detection zone and there was no ambiguity as to the vehicle speed being reported by the SDB.
Despite these difficulties previous testing has shown that SDBs were reasonably accurate in displaying speed. This was confirmed on previous occasions by our multi-video camera testing where we could independently compare the SDB’s display to the speed that was calculated from our synchronized video-camera test methods.
So the primary problem is that the results from the SDB would not be reliable if an analyst was attempting to determine the average speed of all vehicles passing through the site. Because of the problems that the SDB had in detecting every vehicle such an analysis would not be possible. It is not known at this time whether the SDBs erected on Hale Street had the capability of recording events and creating a file of all the displays from the SDB. This could be a concern if officials from a municipality were to use such data blindly without knowing that the file would be greatly corrupted by the discussed detection problems.
It is reasonable however, from our experience in assessing the SDB’s functioning, that accurate speed data can be selected from the display by watching its function through video while also watching a vehicle passing through the detection zone, and then selecting those observations where the displayed speed was known to be accurate.
The observations shown in the above table are only those where a driver was not interfered with selecting a speed of their own free will. Thus they were not obstructed by vehicles ahead of them and their reported speed was not corrupted by any other vehicles with the SDBs detection zone. Thus these observations are an accurate reflection of what speeds drivers selected even though a Maximum Posted Speed sign was located, and clearly visible, just beyond 100 metres south of the start of the detection zone. It was noted that of the total of 719 observations there were only 4 in which a vehicle’s maximum speed was 40 km/h or lower. This is only about 0.56%. So one could argue that about 99.5% of northbound drivers on Hale Street were speeding because they were travelling above the posted speed limit. The Maximum Posted Speed sign had been erected in September 2022 or over two years prior to this study.
Discussion
When a maximum posted speed of 5 km/h is posted on any roadway it is highly likely that all motor vehicles travelling through it will be ‘speeding’. But is that a fault of the drivers or is it the fault of posting an unreasonably low maximum speed? Any reasonable person would conclude that the 5 km/h posted speed was unreasonable. So an important component of the issue is whether a posted speed limit is reasonable. Reductions in motor vehicle speed provide obvious benefits. Vehicles travelling at slower speeds are likely to improve traffic safety. But a negative aspect is that they also increase the time required for persons to reach their destinations. These two conflicting issues need to be kept in mind when considering what speed should be legal on any roadway.
Another short-sighted viewpoint expressed by many is that the posting of a lower speed limit will automatically reduce vehicle speeds. This study on Hale Street demonstrates the fallacy of such a belief since the speed limit was reduced over two years before this study yet the observed speeds are elevated.
Even when roadways are designed with speed-limiting features, they may not improve the overall benefit to society. Speed humps, in-lane obstructions and narrowed lanes are believed to improve safety by reducing vehicle speeds. But much of the research does not take into account the complicated factors that are neglected. While average speeds may be reduced there is little information whether the behavior of the small percentage of high-risk drivers is modified. In fact, the reduction of speed by the vast majority of drivers may simply hide the existence of the small percentage of high-risk drivers who continue to drive recklessly.
Also, many ‘minor’ collisions that are caused by speed-limiting features are hidden from official statistics. When a vehicle strikes a hazard marker placed within a lane there could be relatively minor damage but the reality is that it is costly. A vehicle must be taken into an autobody shop to make those repairs. And the owner loses time which is also a cost that is not taken into account. And when such a roadway obstacle is struck it may also sustain damage that needs to be repaired. A roadway repair crew must come to the site and do the repairs but often that cost is not taken into account. Vehicles are also damaged by striking the curb of a narrowed roadway. And collisions can occur when drivers travel too quickly over a speed hump. All these instances are not taken into account yet they are factors in the cost-benefit analysis to society as a whole.
Yet there is reason to be concerned about the elevated, observed speeds on Hale Street. Our estimate indicates that Hale Street has a width of about 11.4 metres. When we consider that most lanes on collector roads would be about 3.5 metres wide, then a typical street would be about 7.0 in width. The additional 4.4 metres of width on Hale Street means that those attempting to cross it will experience some challenges when motor vehicle speeds are high. It is also likely that vulnerable persons might be in danger. Pedestrians crossing Hale Street may have difficulties so there has to be some research done to determine how many pedestrians exist in the area, how many of them cross Hale Street and whether their characteristics (age, frailty) might need additional attention. There is a transit bus route on Hale Street which might also attract pedestrians. And the volume of cyclists using Hale Street must also be taken into considerable.
In all this study has demonstrated some challenges on many fronts. However it also provides some useful data about the existence of motor vehicle speeding in London and how the functioning of Speed Display Boards may need a second look.
Four-Fatal Telsa Impact & Fire on Lakeshore & Cherry in Downtown Toronto
Not unexpectedly many questions will not be answered regarding the cause-of-death of four occupants of a Tesla that reportedly struck a guardrail and pillar while subsequently catching fire on Lakeshore Boulevard near Cherry Street in downtown Toronto early Thursday morning, October 24, 2024. News media that reported the tragedy did not answer basic questions that ought to have been asked if the public were to be properly advised about what occurred.
The news media were able to obtain a quick response from police when it came to blaming the Tesla’s speed for the results. However there was not evidence provided to support that comment. Any event data that might exist in the Tesla’s control modules would take time to download, more time than normal because the vehicle’s burned condition would make it harder to locate the relevant modules and “dig them out” of the fire debris. So it is highly unlikely that police conducted any such download before commenting on the speed. Traditional methods of estimating speed of a loss-of-control vehicle would involve examining any evidence on approach to the impacts, estimating how much crush existed on the vehicle as a result of the impacts, and then considering what additional speed loss occurred after those impacts. These three areas of evidence are difficult to judge/calculate in a short time so once again, it is doubtful that any proper speed estimate was determined at this early stage of the investigation. But news media seemed to take that information blindly, and report it to the public, without questioning it.
Another issue is that a guardrail was reportedly struck yet the Tesla also struck a “pillar”. Generally, that is not supposed to happen. We spend considerable money to erect guardrails for the specific purpose of preventing vehicles from striking something dangerous that is beyond those guardrails. So why was the “pillar” struck? And did news media even try to find out what pillar was struck? Even without knowing the precise location of the impacts a previous visit to the area in February of 2024 confirmed that the area was under construction and that guardrails were positioned essentially against the pillars that held up the Gardiner Expressway. Anyone with even minimal knowledge of roadside protections would understand that a guardrail is meant to deflect errand vehicles from stiff and immovable objects such as concrete pillars but, in doing so they need space so they can be deformed laterally. This is what protects vehicle occupants during the re-direction phase of contact. But when a guardrail is placed directly against a concrete pillar it is essentially useless because the guardrail has no time or space in which to complete that re-direction. Driving along Lakeshore Boulevard confirmed that many pillars were far too close to guardrails in the area. But news media never seemed to recognize that or question it.
Furthermore there was the issue of road construction and whether it existed at the time that the collision occurred. Nothing was mentioned about this yet it is common that re-directing traffic in construction zones is one of the ways in which dangerous vehicle motions are generated.
And the matter of the occurrence of a vehicle fire seemed to be a commonplace event in the minds of news media. As if vehicle fires should be expected, regardless of any circumstances. Yet one of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSSs) deals specifically with preventing vehicle fires in crashes. New vehicles that catch fire in controlled tests would not be allowed on Canadian roads if they failed those tests. Did the news media ever ask anyone whether it was reasonable for the Tesla to catch fire in this collision?
One of the ways one can assess collision severity is by looking at the extent of deformation or crush to a vehicle. While there was obvious fire damage to the Tesla, what few images of the vehicle existed did not show a massive extent of crush. Nothing that should mean that a fire was inevitable. But did the news media question that?
A lot of questions, no answers and likely no answers ever in the future.
Another Acquittal Seems Like Bad Dream From “Groundhog Day” Movie
A comedic movie from 1993 entitled “Groundhog Day” seems out of context with the latest news of another acquittal of a man who was finally found innocent decades after a murder in Winnipeg, Manitoba in the mid-1970s. Watching the news conference unfold on October 3, 2024, in front of the Law Courts building in Winnipeg, demonstrated that the two have a bazaar relationship.
At the news conference were lawyers for the convicted/acquitted man, Jerome Kennedy and James Lockyer, director of the Innocence Canada.
Bill Murray, who starred in the Groundhog Day movie, became trapped in a time warp such that he kept reliving Groundhog Day, over and over again, until he came to a special realization about life. This realization released him from his time warp prison and the movie ended. While the movie was just fiction, one could believe that what goes on in many courtrooms in Canada is also just that, fiction, with a large spoonful of deception.
In real life, the news conference was about the acquittal of an indigenous man, Clarence Woodhouse, who was convicted of murder, based on false statements developed by police who reportedly tricked Woodhouse, who was not fluent in English, and “coerced and manufactured the statement from Woodhouse” (statement from Crown Attorney).
This process is a Groundhog Day time warp because it has recurred over and over again, after persons have lived in prisons for many years, before being rescued. Names of past persons who were rescued from murder convictions include Steven Truscott, David Milgaard, Donald Marshall, and Guy Paul Morin. But these high profile cases are just the tip of the iceberg. Many wrongful convictions are never reported, often because they involve lesser crimes than murder.
When news conferences are held announcing an acquittal there is often a collective exuberance, expressing a happy occasion. Little emphasis is given to the point that there was a “wrongful” conviction and therefore that there was a wrongful action, by someone, often in the justice system, who destroyed someone’s life. While apologies are given and government money is passed on to the acquitted, nothing further is ever reported as to who was responsible for the miscarriage of justice.
In the Woodhouse retrial Chief Justice Glenn Joyal reportedly apologized to Woodhouse stating “You were wrongfully convicted, You were innocent”. It was also reported that Joyal determined the conviction involved systemic discrimination. It was reported that the judge then went to some length to discuss past wrongdoings of the justice system.
While I have not spent many days in courtrooms, my three dozen appearances as an expert witness in motor vehicle collision cases have led to my own recognition of what took place during those trials.
In one of the earliest trials in the 1980s I witnessed a female driver convicted of killing another driver solely on the false testimony of “witnesses” who claimed to have seen a red vehicle pass them on a dark and rainy night. In fact, I conducted a detailed study of the two involved vehicles. Transport Canada had purchased both vehicles and brought them to Ottawa. Both vehicles were placed on axle stands, a few feet apart, and I spent a full week exploring the vehicle damage, taking measurements and creating scale diagrams. This led to my typical procedures of identifying “points of mutual contact” whereby I could determine how the vehicles moved with respect to each other. This also led to the determination of the direction of rotation of the vehicles which turned out to be contrary to what the witnesses stated. Yet I recall vividly the reported words of the judge who claimed that the manner in which the vehicles moved was obvious from how the vehicles were positioned at rest. He did not need no explanations from an expert. He believed he clearly understood the evidence even though he never conducted a detailed investigation of a damaged vehicle in his life. He further commented that my report was just a series of unreliable personal suppositions. I later contacted a forensic expert at Toronto’s Centre of Forensic Science and obtained further support from another well-known engineer who also supported my conclusions. Despite our opinions this still did not convince the judge. It took an appeal of the conviction to finally exonerate the female driver who went through years of hell in the process. Naively, I concluded that this case was just an outlier while I continued to believe in the ability of the justice system to perform properly.
It took a number of further incidents in the future where I finally came to the conclusion that, indeed, there are major problems with the proper functioning of the justice system. Some judges, who I believed would be unbiased analysts of evidence, have demonstrated that they are unreliable. And because they are accountable to no one, end up destroying the foundations of the justice system that we must all rely on. Whenever a global comment like this is made it affects the reputation of all judges simply because they wear the same cloth and carry the same title. And that is unfortunate.
In my experience the justice system has always been plagued by inappropriate operators, whether they be civilian witnesses, expert witnesses, police and lawyers (on both sides of the aisle). It was always the judges, who were required to be totally unbiased and independent of these coercions, who kept the system in balance. While I have observed some high-quality triers-of-fact I have also observed the opposite: judges who seemed to purposely ignore objective evidence, or prevented evidence from being entered in as testimony, for the seeming purpose of being able to make their decisions solely on their “inferences”, which do not require any objective evidence for their support. These decisions can be called “Because I Say So” or BISS decisions, because they are based on the often mistaken belief that the judge is perfectly capable of discerning who is telling the truth and who is lying regardless of what additional objective evidence may exist. Many years of bench work can be helpful but it can also be misguiding when a judge comes to the belief that they no longer need to listen to evidence as the conclusion has already been made in their mind.
How is it that, after so many years, Justice Joyal was capable of determining there was systemic discrimination in Woodhouse’s case yet that was not appreciated in the original trial? While many glowing comments are made at news conferences where speakers explain how the system has been changed for the better I, regrettably, do not see it in real life.
What Does It Mean When 99.4 % Of Detected Drivers Are Speeding?
On September 1, 2022 the posted maximum speed on Hale Street in London, Ontario was reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. On October 4, 2024 the City of London erected four Speed Display Boards (SDBs) along Hale Street between Trafalgar and Dundas Streets. Gorski Consulting examined the functioning and data from one of these boards located in front of the residence at 361 Hale Street, which is located about 200 metres north of Trafalgar Street.
Background
A previous article on this testing entitled “Motor Vehicle Speed Detection in London Ontario Canada” was posted to the Gorski Consulting website on October 11, 024. This article described the study and provided results from one of the 2-hour video sessions from October 5, 2024. Subsequently the data from 2 additional, 2-hour, video sessions was analysed and this will be reported in the current article. The three analysed sessions are described below:
- Saturday, October 5, 2024, between 2050 and 2250 hours.
- Monday, October 14, 2024, between 1500 and 1700 hours.
- Tuesday, October 15, 2024, between 1700 and 1900 hours.
Results
The results from these sessions showed the following with respect to the observed maximum speeds of northbound vehicles passing through the detection zone:
- Oct 5/24: Average Detected Maximum Speed in 87 observations = 54.02 km/h.
- Oct 14/24: Average Detected Maximum Speed in 147 observations = 53.90 km/h.
- Oct 15/24: Average Detected Maximum Speed in 112 observations = 55.74 km/h.
The percentage of vehicles travelling at 20 km/h or higher above the posted speed limit (i.e. 60 km/h or higher) was also noted:
- Oct 5/24: 13 of 87 observations or 14.94 %
- Oct 14/24: 16 of 147 observations or 10.88 %
- Oct 15/24: 28 of 112 observations or 25.00 %
It was also noted that there were only 2 observations, in all three sessions of 346 observations combined, where the maximum observed speed of a northbound vehicle was at 40 km/h or lower. Thus 99.42% of northbound motor vehicles were observed to be travelling above the posted maximum speed of 40 km/h. This result has taken place over two years after the maximum posted speed was reduced so it is difficult to argue that drivers needed more time to adjust to the change in posted speed.
Discussion
In the City of London, like in many cities, there is an increased number of speed camera installations which identify a speeding vehicle and a citation is sent to the vehicle owner. If such a speed camera was present along Hale Street essentially every moving motor vehicle could be cited for speeding. While road safety is affected by motor vehicle speed it is also important to document other exposure factors such as the numbers and characteristics of pedestrians, cyclists and characteristics of the road segment. It remains unknown what intentions the City of London has with the posting of the SDBs on Hale Street. Unfortunately the City of London has always been secretive in its operations and has never released any useful data to the public to support its actions.
Doug Ford Government Teaching Ontario How To Cycle Backwards
Politics is creating a greater rift between cyclists and motor vehicle drivers as the Doug Ford government in the Canadian Province of Ontario is threatening to remove previously installed cycling lanes because their installation by local governments has “gone out of control”. Politicizing such issues as cycling safety is a continued demonstration that some governments will use whatever means are available to attempt to stay in power, even if it means throwing flames on a conflict that jeopardizes public safety.
The creation of cycling lanes should not be an emotional issue but it has become so. Opponents on both sides ought to be looking at good-quality, objective data to understand where their opinions should reside.
At Gorski Consulting we believe and understand that active transportation, including cycling, along with mass public transit, are extremely important to nullify the real effects of climate change. Changes in how we move must be made and these changes need to be made in a way that creates the least conflict, including targeted education that informs why change is needed. Regrettably, the government of Doug Ford is a negative influence in these essential changes.
Ontario Continues To Mis-Report Numbers of Fires in Motor Vehicle Collisions
The latest version of the Ontario Road Safety Annual Report (ORSAR) in from 2021 and this is reports collision data that is almost 4 years old. Yet it is the only document that can hold the Government of Ontario accountable for its road safety actions. When new developments arise that affect the public’s safety government data cannot be reliable when it is reporting old data. The issue of vehicle fires is one that is becoming more important and this demonstrates how the Government of Ontario is not properly informing the public able this growing incidence.
Background
Looking back at previous publications of the ORSAR we can see how the government has reported the numbers of vehicle fires as shown in the table below.
We have previously reported that the actual incidence of vehicle fires is higher as demonstrated by the small sample of fire articles that we are able to track from news media reports. That data is shown below.
The graphic shown above is likely a large under-estimate of the actual numbers of vehicle fires occurring because we have limited resources in keeping track of these incidents. The large jump in reports of vehicle fires that is shown after 2015 is likely because we started to become more diligent in tracking news media reports of fires. Yet comparing what is shown in the ORSAR there is an obvious under-reporting of collision fires, even though the news media data are themselves under-estimates of the true incidence.
Data from the latest ORSAR (2021) is shown in the two figures below.
Once again it can be seen that the ORSAR contains a category for “Fire/Explosion” and here we see that there was only one incident of a death, one incident of a personal injury, and 61 incidents of property damage.
Indisputable evidence contradicts what is reported in the ORSAR.
Examples of Fatal and Critical Injury Collisions Involving Collision Fires
As an example, on August 13, 2021 a driver was killed when his vehicle rear-ended a stopped, disabled transport truck on Hwy 401 near Keele Street. The only official announcement was that the vehicle caught fire and the driver died.
Another fatal collision occurred on August 7, 2021 on Blyth Road west of Goderich, Ontario. a single vehicle struck a tree and caught fire. The vehicle was “fully engulfed” by fire.
In another example, a collision occurred at an undisclosed location on a Perth Road near Milverton. New media reported that a person had died at the scene but neither police nor news media reported that a fire had taken place. The only indication of the fire was that a photo was provided by a passerby and included in the news report – That photo showed heavy smoke engulfing a vehicle.
In another example, a fatal collision occurred on June 24, 2021 where a vehicle rear-ended a transport truck on Hwy 400 near the Finch Ave exit. Paramedics indicated that a person was pronounced dead at the scene and police reported that “one” of the vehicles had caught fire.
In another example, a collision occurred on June 17, 2021 near Uxbridge Concession Rod 6 and Ashworth Road. It was reported that a pick-up truck rear-ended a stopped dump truck and the pick-up caught fire. The driver of the pick-up truck was killed.
In another example. an incident occurred on May 8, 2021 on Burnhamthorpe Road and Promontory Crescent in Mississauga, where initial reports did not indicate that a collision occurred, only that a single vehicle travelled off the roadway and caught fire. Subsequently it was reported that a Ferrari sports car had struck a lamp standard and there were reports by witnesses of very large “fireball”. Two persons in the vehicle were reportedly killed.
In another example, police arrived near Howden and Harmony Roads in Oshawa on October 24, 2021 where they located a 2021 Honda Civic that had struck a tree and was engulfed in flames. The lone driver was pronounced dead at the scene.
In another example, on July 7, 2021 a vehicle rolled over and burst into flames outside the Kia car dealership on the Queensway in Toronto. A last report one occupant of the vehicle was in critical condition.
In another example, on January 1, 2021, three vehicles were involved in a collision at the intersection of Wilson Ave and Keels Street in Toronto. One of the vehicles rolled over and caught fire. Officials reported that one person sustained critical injuries but it was not revealed which vehicle that occupant came from.
In another example, on June 29, 2021, police discovered a burning vehicle on the outskirts of Sudbury and they discovered a body in the vehicle. Minimal information was made available with respect to what kind of incident was involved.
In another example, on August 11, 2021, a two-vehicle collision occurred at the intersection of Wonderland Road and Glanworth Drive in South London. One of the vehicles caught fire and an occupant was reported to have sustained fatal injuries. A second occupant sustained life-threatening injuries.
In another example, on December 21, 2021, vehicle struck a backhoe at a construction site on Dundonald Road in Glencoe Ontario. The vehicle then burst into flames and the driver was reportedly killed.
Summary
In summary these are 12 examples where 10 fatalities occurred and 2 persons sustained life-threatening injuries. This evidence is indisputable that fatalities and fires exist that are not being reported in official Ontario statistics such as the ORSAR . In a number of these incidents officials appeared to be lax about confirming whether the fatalities were related to the fires. And this is typical of what is taking place whenever a collision fire is involved. Behind this small list of fatal collisions there is a very large number of injury collisions where fires are involved but are not being reported. And there are even a much larger number of incidents where vehicle fires are not reported because injuries were either minor did not occur.
All this information is based on 4-year-old data because the Province of Ontario has not provided any newer statistics about what is happening now. And that should raise an alarm.
You must be logged in to post a comment.