What is known about how and why five persons were killed in a collision on May 23, 2025 north-east of London, Ontario? What is known is that five persons were killed in a collision on May 23, 025 north-east of London, Ontario. No, this is not a mistaken doubling of a sentence. It is a reality that we know nothing about how and why those five persons were killed.
Many are accepting of this fact. But as a collision reconstructionist who has spent the majority of my life studying how and why people die in collisions, this is far from acceptable.
What is appalling is that absolutely nothing has been revealed by the investigating OPP even through they are the only ones with critical information that could explain what happened. it is understandable that some information would need to be withheld if it could compromise the investigation leading to charges against the surviving driver. But that is not the case. Information which should have nothing to do with those charges has been withheld. What we are talking about is very basic information about the travel directions of the vehicles and the identity of those vehicles, and where the actual collision occurred. Even worse, it is the OPP that has the only information that can help to explain how and why those five persons perished – which should have nothing to do with charges- but they have withheld that basic information.
The purpose for the existence of police forces is to protect the public from a multitude of dangers. Some of those dangers are very real. Those dangers involve dangerous persons who must be appended and dealt with before they cause further harm. But that is not the only purpose for maintaining a police force. Police must be there to protect the public from all possible dangers because there is no other agency that can perform that function. When a fatality or serious injury occurs police are given the exclusive authority to close down the scene of the incident and to conduct an unbiased investigation. But that cannot end at this juncture. While police conduct an investigation it must be understood for what purpose. It cannot be for the purpose of providing its findings to a select few political entities who can withhold that information from the general public. That approach is what occurs in many undemocratic countries where persons die, or disappear, for unknown reasons. True democracies, as practical failures that they are, strive to achieve a transparency that makes the system work for the people. When we become complacent to the failures of our democracy, our democracy crumbles, and becomes no different that the autocratic regimes that we fight to prevent.
Official news agencies also have a role in this. News media are not collision reconstructionists. And frankly, many do not recognize collision evidence from a hole in the ground. But they are also the only link between a collision and the general public. Their reports, that are published in articles by major news entities, are technically well-written to give the appearance that they have a good grasp of the issue on which they are reporting. But they do not have a good grasp of collision issues. Nor could they be expected to have a good grasp of the issues when the understanding of those issues requires many years of dedicated training. It is bad enough when a police officer is handed the reigns of an investigation and is given the title of “Collision Reconstructionist” with only a few years of training, by a trainer who previously had a limited understanding of collision reconstruction. And this is the system under which we operate.
Official news media reported that the collision occurred around 1630 hours on Friday, May 23, 2025. The fatally injured persons had been attending “a sporting event” in Dorchester which is about 15 kilometres to the south of the collision site. They would have been travelling back home to Walkerton which is about a 2 hours ride to the north. These persons were reported to be in an SUV. The fatally injured included 4 young females and their teacher, a 33-year-old male.
The only useful observation about the collision was reported in an article posted on May 24, 2025 by Dale Carruthers of the London Free Press. He observed that:
“Deep tire marks were visible in the westbound lane of Thorndale Road, just west of Cobble Hills Road that is controlled by stop signs. The marks suggest a vehicle was travelling west before crossing into the eastbound lane and coming to rest in a ditch.”
A site photo accompanied this comment and this showed the typical evidence of a large truck entering a roadside ditch. However that photo cannot be shown here because news media claim copyright to all their photos. So even if there could have been some educational benefit from reviewing the photo, much like all information about the collision, official news media work hard at preventing such public benefit.
The Carruthers comment confirmed that a vehicle had been travelling westbound on Thorndale Road near Cobble Hills Road. But nothing was said whether the collision was intersection-related or how far the collision evidence was from the intersection. The Carruthers photo was taken too close to the final rest position of the truck such that no information could be obtained about its relationship to the intersection. A collision with that many fatalities could occur in a number of ways, including the possibility that the SUV driver was travelling eastbound on Thorndale Road, lost directional control of the SUV and then travelled into the path of the large truck. So the Carruthers comment was of minimal help. I waited patiently for a number of days for an explanation of these very basic facts, but no further information was provided.
A few days later another news media article was posted by Bryan Bicknell of the London local CTV news. Part of the title included the phrase “How could this have possibly happened”. While such postings attract the public’s attention they are of useless benefit when they do not provide a useful answer to the important question: How did this collision happen? Bicknell reported that “Middlesex OPP said late Friday afternoon an SUV collided with a transport truck, before colliding with a second vehicle at the intersection“. Well that seemed odd. I had looked through several news media accounts and no one had reported that the collision had occurred “at the intersection”. While this information would still be of minimal value at least it narrowed the possibilities as we could rule out the scenario where the SUV was travelling opposite to the direction of travel of the truck.
The Bicknell article quoted a local land owner who made a useful comment:
“Well, the only thing out of the ordinary is that it has the hill over there, which is a little difficult seeing traffic coming this way,” he explained, referring to drivers coming from the south and checking to their east for any westbound traffic.“
The Bicknell article showed a photo of “Signs seen near the Cobble Hills Road and Thorndadle Road intersection” but nothing was written whether this signs were relevant to the collision or where they were with respect to the intersection. It would be unclear to anyone viewing the photo what the point was of including it in the article.
In another news article posted by CTV news in London on May 28, 2025, it was reported that local councilors in Thames Centre had requested “a safety study” of the intersection. Yet it would take place after the OPP had completed their investigation. This decision was unanimous. But for what reason and on what basis? If they did not have any information about the police investigation was it appropriate to pay the cost of an official safety study? Or did they, in fact, know something that was not revealed? Very often discussions are held beneath the public’s radar and without the public’s knowledge when something exists that could be troublesome to someone who could be found liable for something. But again, nothing was officially mentioned.
After over a week had passed I finally had enough of the secrecy and decided to attend the collision site in person. On the morning of Sunday, June 1, 2025 I drove to the site. I took the route from Dundas Street northward along Cobble Hills Road which would have been the direction that the unidentified SUV was travelling to the collision site. The photo below was taken as I approached northward on Cobble Hills Road and approached Thorndale Road. The orange circles are meant to highlight the presence of a “stop ahead” sign and then the actual stop sign in the distance. Stop Ahead signs, like many warning signs, are usually posted about 300 metres from an intersection, so the view below is still a long distance from the intersection.
The image below shows a Google Maps view of the collision site and the orange lines indicate the pre-crash travel directions of the truck and SUV.
The next Google Maps view below shows some features of the intersection including the locations of the northbound stop sign, the northbound stop bar, and the presence of one of two large signs that were described in the CTV News Bicknell article but nothing was written about their relevance.
Unfortunately much of the knowledge about what happened in the actual collision is held within the file of the OPP investigation. A issue is whether the northbound SUV passed through the stop sign without stopping or whether it accelerated from a stopped position from the stop bar. This information could be easily obtained by downloading the crash data from the event data recorder of the unidentified SUV. The release of such basic information would not compromise the ultimate conclusions of the OPP and what charges they might lay. The collision event data merely describes what a module recorded, not an opinion. And the release of such basic information would help in considering whether there were some safety problems with the site and whether an expensive traffic study is required. But again the OPP refuse to do so.
Barring the basic information from the uncooperative OPP, it requires that both possibilities be considered. The photo below is a view looking north on Cobble Hills Road showing the positions of the stop sign and the stop bar. The locations of such signs and markings must be based on information about the characteristics of the intersection, what kinds of vehicles use it and how those vehicles pass through the site. Northbound drivers must detect the presence of the stop sign and then must search of the location of the stop bar. While it is often said that drivers must “stop at the stop sign” that phrase is actually incorrect. Drivers must not stop at the location of the stop sign but must stop with the front end of their vehicle at the location of the white-painted stop bar. That distinction is an important matter.
The position of the painted, white stop bar is dependent on some analysis that is required about how long it requires a northbound vehicle to safely cross through the intersection. But the position of the white stop bar is also dependent on the line-of-sight of the northbound driver. So the northbound driver must be able to stop at a location where he or she can see a sufficient distance along both directions of the crossroad so a proper decision can be made when to proceed to cross the road. If sufficient visibility is not available after coming to a stop at the stop bar drivers should pull forward, slowly, to obtain a better view. However, another consideration is that the position of the stop bar must also be adjusted for instances where vehicles travelling on the cross-road (Thorndale Road) make a turn onto southbound Cobble Hills Road. So longer vehicles such as large tractor-trailers and farm vehicles hauling trailers require a wider berth to get around an intersection and if the stop bar is too close to the intersection collisions could occur with vehicles stopped at the stop bar. So there must be some traffic data gathered about how many large and long vehicles use the intersection. One must see that all such considerations must be made for a detailed traffic study simply because the OPP have refused to release some basic information about this collision.
Even before coming to a stop at a stop bar many drivers look to the left and right to observe what traffic exists that is approaching the intersection. The photo below shows a view as a northbound driver approaches the stop sign and then looked to the right (east) long the crossroad. The orange circle in this photo draws attention to the fact that the view to the east is obstructed by a sign, some trees/bushes and a small knoll (vertical alignment) that exists just east of the intersection.
The photo below shows another view to the east of a northbound driver as their vehicle comes closer to the stop bar. Now we can see that there are two large signs blocking the line of sight of the driver. The closer sign is a “Welcome” and informs drivers that this is the Oxford County border. The sign slightly further to the east indicates the name of the Township (Zorra). Neither of these two signs need to exist at this location. They could easily have been placed a few hundred metres to the east. And this would help in allowing northbound drivers a better view of westbound vehicles coming over the crest of the knoll.
So why did roadway officials place these, non-essential, information signs at this dangerous location?
Let us now consider the viewpoint of the westbound driver of the truck. The photo below shows a westward view on Thorndale Road and the approach to the intersection at Cobble Hills Road. For this view we can now appreciate that there is a vertical alignment (a small hill) that is just east of the intersection. The orange circle below highlights the presence of the two large, information signs on the south roadside. This view is shown from the eye level of a passenger car driver (about 120 to 140 centimetres above the pavement) and the view of a truck driver would be somewhat higher (about 240 to 260 centimetres above the pavement).
As the truck gets closer to the intersection the photo below shows the two large signs in the orange circle, the location of the northbound traffic stop bar, and the orange traffic cones in the distance where the truck came to rest after the impact. If the SUV did not stop at the intersection there could still be some opportunity for the westbound truck driver to detect the oncoming SUV and begin braking to avoid the collision, if there was sufficient visibility along Cobble Hills Road south of the intersection. One can see that the two large signs have the effect of preventing a view of northbound vehicles approaching the intersection.
As we approach the area of impact the westward view below shows the presence of some truck-like tire marks which might indicate that the truck driver attempted to steer to the right to avoid the collision. Such a possibility cannot be known for sure without a closer examination of all the evidence and a review of the OPP site photos.
Another westward view below shows the area of impact. It is very common in serious intersections collisions for gouges to be created by one or both of the involved vehicles at the point of impact. While the character of those gouges can differ from one incident to the next it would be expected that a scenario where all five occupants of a struck SUV would sustain fatal injuries would require that the impact be very severe and that we should expect to see some deep gouges in the pavement. But that is not the case. Only a single scrape mark was created at the point of impact.
This leads to a number of possibilities that cannot be resolved without more information from the OPP investigation. The above photo shows the general area where the SUV travelled to its final rest position which is north-west of the area of impact. While the distance that the SUV travelled after impact is not unusual, the fact that it travelled to the north side of the intersection leads to some thoughts about what had to exist at the point of impact. If the SUV was travelling with some speed at the time of impact then this could explain why it travelled to the north even though it was severely impacted by the very large mass of the truck. However if the SUV was travelling at a slower speed, consistent with accelerating from a stop, then we might expect a less likelihood that it would travel to the north, but could be pushed further to the west, or even be carried into the south ditch along with the truck. However, the presence of a just a single scrape mark in the pavement could suggest a less-severe impact and the possibility that the SUV was struck near the rear of its right side and such an overlap could allow the SUV to be pushed to the rest position where it was found. So much of this further consideration is dependent on reviewing the basic information from the OPP photos of the vehicles and the collision site. Even a few photos would help explain what actually occurred.
The view below shows the area where the SUV travelled after impact. Tire marks in the grass ditch indicate that is was still upright at this location. The SUV came to rest at the edge of the plowed field to the north-east of the intersection.
The photo below shows that tire marks existed in the area where the SUV came to rest. Such evidence needs to be treated with caution. Many disturbances are created after a collision by various emergency personnel, some treating the injured parties. And ambulances and tow trucks can create evidence that could look like something related to the actual collision. So one must have a good many years of experience in examining a large number of serious collisions to be able to consider what is collision-related and what is not. Again, more information from the OPP investigation could clarify what was collision-related.
Moving over to where the truck came to rest the photo below shows a view of the gouged south ditch at the truck’s rest position. Large evidence like this attracts the attention of news reporters and photos are taken to give the public something to look at. Rarely is such evidence of great importance to the reconstruction of what happened in a collision. It is mostly the fine, detailed evidence that is important yet it is unrecognized and rarely reported.
It should be noted that many large trucks are also capable of recording “sudden stop” data and this would provide further information about the truck motions. Care must be taken however not to destroy the sudden stop data when towing the heavy truck from the collision site.
Reports indicate that a third vehicle was struck in this collision but no further information is available about the circumstances.
Returning to the characteristics of the intersection I noted, as shown in the photo below, that both the northbound stop bar and its stop sign were a substantial distance south of Thorndale Road. It would mean that northbound vehicles would travel a longer distance cross Thorndale Road. In an official investigation I would be taking detailed measurements of these locations and/or I would have a laser scan made of the intersection for further study.
interestingly Google Maps contains a view where a northbound farm tractor can be seen pulling a large trailer across Thorndale Road as shown in the two photos below. These views provide a demonstration that the drivers of such vehicles need considerable time to make their crossings and if insufficient visibility is available of westbound traffic approaching on Thorndale Road a collision could occur. The two information signs are not visible in the two photos below and it is not clear whether they are obscured from view of the nearest tree or if they were not present at the time of this Google Maps display.
While driving in the vicinity of the site I happened to be driving eastbound of Thorndale Road west of Cobble Hills Road when I came upon a Speed Display Board (SDB) positioned on the south roadside about 800 metres west of Cobble Hills Road, as shown in the photo below. This is peculiar because neither of the involved vehicles were travelling eastbound on Thorndale Road. If the SDB was set up in response to the subject collision one would expect it to be placed somewhere along the pre-impact paths of the two primary vehicles. If the reported third vehicle had something to do with the collision results certainly nothing has been publicly reported.
To summarize, the lack of reporting of this tragic collision creates unappreciated consequences that continue from other, similar tragedies. Failing to report the facts is not without consequences. When very basic information was reported in official news reports many members of the public posted social media comments about their opinions about the matter. Many, who had no real information about what happened, posted racial slurs against the truck driver. And some comparisons were made to the truck driver in the Humboldt Broncos collision in Saskatchewan in April of 2018. Many stated that it was the fault of these unprofessional “foreign” truck drivers who are given a license to kill, and similar statements. While these comments are offensive their useful part is that they provide an unbiased reflection of the prejudice that exists in the minds of far too many Canadians. Prejudice that used to be highlighted in the deep southern U.S. treatment of black persons, or the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Or the far too many prejudices that exist against certain religious groups, or gay persons and so on. It is the anonymity of the internet which allows these comments to be expressed while the official mask of civility is otherwise seen.
Does the lack of proper reporting of facts truly have no consequences? When Princess Diana was killed in a Paris tunnel in August, 1997, the officials investigating the matter did very little to reveal what actually happened. What resulted was that a very large segment of the world-wide population believed that she was intentionally killed by the British royals, or by the paparazzi photographers who chased her down. This persisted for many years. It took a long and expensive inquiry to finally put many of the rumours to rest. But for some crazed individuals various conspiracies still swirl in their heads.
Similarly, the tragic collision of the Humboldt Broncos hockey team in Saskatchewan in April of 2018, also produced various opinions about the guilt of the “foreign” truck driver while the results of the official police investigation have still not been publicly released. An intersection where trees blocked the view of both drivers played a role in this tragedy and other facts about the suspect structure of the bus or the pre-impact speed of the bus have received little or no mention.
The failure of a proper and timely release of factual information about tragedies like these plays a role in the development of strange, and sometimes racial and prejudicial beliefs in those who are ripe for misadventure.
The mass killing of an innocent Muslim family on June 6, 2021 in London, Ontario is an example of how persons can be manipulated into strange beliefs, and ultimately into murderous actions deploying a motor vehicle as their weapon. Nathaniel Veltman, who was the driver of the southbound pick-up that struck and killed four members of a Muslim family on Hyde Park Road is an example of the directions that that feeble-minded persons can be led to when misinformation replaces objective fact.
Failure to provide objective facts about collisions has its consequences. It does not quell discussion about them, it merely intensifies the misinformation that is spread when officials refuse to correct it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.