News and Information

Fatal Pick-up Truck Collision on Perth Cty Rd 112 on July 29, 2010 - Was Visibility A Factor?

It was reported that this morning, shortly after midnight, a pick-up truck collided with a tree and earth embankment at the intersection of Perth County Road 112 and Perth-Oxford Road, just south of Harmony, Ontario. The Pick-up truck had been travelling southbound on County Road 112 where the road terminated at a T-intersection with Perth-Oxford Road. The vehicle did not stop at the T-intersection but travelled, at highway speed, through the intersection and collided with a tree and earth embankment. The vehicle then caught fire. A 40-year-old male driver was reportedly fatally injured as a result of this collision. Here are several views looking southbound on Perth County Road 112 leading up to the area of impact at the T-Intersection. First we present a long distance view:


You can see how the vehicle travelled along a down-slope of the road and crashed at the T-intersection in the background. Next we present an intermediate-distance view which is closer to the intersection:


You should now be able to see the Checkered warning sign and yellow Chevron signs indicating the termination of the road. Now we present a closer, southbound view of the intersection.

You should be able to note two trees located to the left (east) of the signs and this is where the vehicle came to rest and became engulfed in flames. The tree closest to the signage is the one that the Pick-up truck struck before it rotated to a position between the two trees. Looking at this last photo you should recognize that the truck did not simply travel straight down the road to impact but that it moved to the left (east) by several metres as it approached the impact. This would suggest that the driver attempted to steer to the left before impact.

Below is a southbound view showing the signage and the struck tree located just to the left (east) of the signs. Further to left (east) you should recognize the blackened area where the vehicle burned.


The extent of damage to the struck tree is evident from the amount of bark that has been removed and from the amount of scarring to the wood beneath it. Even without seeing the vehicle this evidence would tell us that the impact was at highway speed. One would tend to question at this point why such a high speed impact would occur when the site photos would suggest that the signage was quite visible.

We have to be careful about making such judgments. Remember, these photos are taken on a sunny afternoon, not just after midnight. Just because the signs are visible in daytime does not mean they were visible at night. That would seem to be a peculiar statement given the reflective condition of such signs, but we must be careful about such judgments. Sign position and headlight aim must be evaluated before drawing conclusions. Remember that this site contains a pre-crash vertical alignment such that the headlight aim may not be directly toward the signs. The headlight aim could be above or below the position of the signs and this needs to be evaluated at night.

An investigator should make note of the height of warning signs with respect to the nearby roadway. The photo below shows a measurement tape being placed at the sign to note how high it is relative to the ground around it.

Below is a closer view of the tape showing a height of 163 centimetres to the bottom of the sign.

Obviously this measurement is not sufficient because we still do not know the actual vertical position of the sign with respect to the aim of the vehicle's headlight as the vehicle is approaching the sign. Total Station data should reveal this but a photo like the one above helps to explain matters that might come up at a trial. An investigator might attend the site at night and place a vehicle at several locations along the road with its headlights on, preferably on high beam. The investigator could then use two procedures involving reading from a light meter. First he could stand at the position of the vehicle and take spot-meter readings. Spot readings are ones that measure the amount of reflected light coming back to the observer. Measurements can be taken of the sign but also of the background to consider the difference in contrast. A second procedure might involve the investigator standing in the vicinity of the signs and taking illumination readings. Readings of illumination would tell the investigator how much light is reaching the area at the signs. Light readings should be taken at differing heights because the amount of light thrown onto an area will differ such that the headlights might provide sufficient illumination of the ground just below the sign but not the sign itself.

I also want to demonstrate that collisions such as these can provide some helpful clues as to whether the lights of a vehicle we on or off at the time of impact. Investigators are aware of the condition of "hot shock" that causes the filament of a light bulb to stretch from its tightly wound condition into something that resembles spaghetti. When such deformation occurs it indicates that the filament was hot at the time of impact and therefore that the light must have been on. The trick is to find the tiny filament in such an area of destruction.

I simply say that a collision resulting in a final rest position that is very close to its area of impact will be beneficial in helping you to locate the filament that you seek. Let us look at the photo below which shows the base of the struck tree. Often parts of a vehicle can become embedded in the struck material and by making close observations you can identify what it is that has been imbedded. Look closely below and see if you can find the metal reflector from a headlight that is imbedded in the embankment.


If you cannot find it then below is a closer view:

Once you see that this reflector is imbedded in this location then you know that other parts of the headlight must be somewhere nearby. It is apparent that the police investigators in this case did  not look closely enough because they did not find the helpful evidence. Slightly higher and to the right of the reflector we can see the housing of the filament imbedded in the earth as shown below:
It is simply a matter of recognizing what it is that you are looking at. I pulled this housing out of its imbedded location and we can see it below.

You should be able to see the coils of the filament. Below is another view.


Now for all you budding CSI experts, tell me what you see. Are the filaments stretched indicating hot shock (headlight was on) or are the filaments perfectly wound in their pre-crash condition? Send me your opinion.

I'm simply presenting you with methods and procedures to follow when encountering such a case. Note how important it is to recognize what you are looking at. If you encountered such an investigation for the first time you would simply not consider that such a small piece of evidence could exist and you would not even bother to look for it. Even if you looked you would not recognize what it is that you are supposed to be looking for. So it is simply an issue of becoming familiar with the examination for such events so that you become familiar with the evidence that typically occurs.

Unidentified 65-Year-Old Woman Dies Of Minor Injuries In London Ontario Crash Without Explanation

A crash occurred in London, Ontario on the morning of July 21, 2010 at the intersection of Wonderland Road and Sarnia Road. The London Free Press reported at that time that a 65-year-old passenger of a northbound vehicle was transported to hospital with minor injuries.

A video accompanying the story showed that a southbound, left-turning vehicle, operated by a 17-year-old driver was damaged at the right door area and this was consistent with the reported information and final rest positions of the vehicles.

However the vehicle occupied by the deceased passenger showed only moderate front end damage, barely enough to begin crumpling the front hood and showing no deformation further back such as at the front wheel-wells. This was a late model vehicle which should have contained an event data recorder. The bottom line is that the London Free Press reported this morning that this unidentified 65-year-old, female passenger passed away, without explanation.

As I have mentioned numerous times in my articles on this website, the public is kept in the dark and does not have the knowledge to question these facts. The deceased passenger was riding in a modern passenger car in a relatively moderate frontal impact. The air bag in front of her had obviously deployed therefore she should have received a substantial amount of protection.  Why did she pass away? A simple note by the reporter could have been inserted to note the discrepancy but informing the public that there were additional circumstances that could not be discussed. Those additional circumstances could include the frailty of the passenger from a pre-crash illness. That illness need not be reported by the reporter. Or perhaps there were complications at the hospital that also did not need to be reported.

But if this passenger passed away due to some failure in the functioning of the safety features of the vehicle then the public has a right to know. Persons of frail age or health are transported daily in every city and their safety is as important as that of any citizen. The families of frail and ill relatives need to know how to properly transport them and what dangers are common or possible.

An air bag can be a wonderful friend when it operates properly and when an occupant is seated in a proper position to receive its protection. However when the occupant is out-of-position and is struck by the unfolding bag the results can be catastrophic. Similarly seat belts can be wonderful and live-saving in a vast majority of situations. However an infirm, elderly or physically disabled passenger is often not fitted properly in a seat-belt. That seat-belt friend, when not positioned properly on a fragile passenger can be the passenger's worst enemy even in a seemingly minor collision. It is assumed by safety designers that the seat-belt webbing will be placed at the proper height, length and position because they assume that the passenger will be of "normal" stature, health and age. But obviously that cannot be the case in a large segment of our society and therefore seat belt fitness becomes a problem.

Whether it is an air bag problem or a seat-belt problem official agencies do not want to discuss it. They fear that if the public is made aware of its occurrence they will stop having faith in the systems and begin disconnecting air bags and not wear seat belts. While there is some minor reason for this concern it gives very little credit to the reasoning of the vast majority of people who I believe can be made to understand why such events happen when they are given the proper and honest information. Whether it is a small child that is left in your custody by its parents for a week-end or whether it is an elderly family member that you have agreed to transport to a medical appointment, who have a responsibility to educate yourself how to transport that vulnerable person to and from their destination. You must learn what dangers exist and how to minimize them.

So what happened with the 65-year-old passenger in the accident on Wonderland Road is something we will likely never know. But the public will be less informed as a result of it and a similar event will be more likely to re-occur. This is one of the reasons why I like to discuss these matters in an independent open forum such as this website. In my eyes an informed public is a safer one.

Legality of Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) To Be Addressed At Trial in the Fall of 2010

In 2002 the Ontario government adopted Regulation 239/02 entitled Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways. This set of rules discussed issues such a frequency of road patrols, snow and ice removal, roadway/roadside deficiencies, luminaire repair, regulatory/warning sign replacement, traffic signal repair and bridge repairs. The rules were developed by a task force organized by the Ontario Good Roads Association (OGRA) made up principally of those agencies who are defendants in law suits brought upon them by plaintiffs. The Standards were found wanting in an earlier trial (Thornhill v. Shadid, 2008) wherein Justice J. Howden had concerns over the issue of notice versus constructive notice, as well as other matters. Consequently the OGRA reconvened a meeting of the task force and made changes to the Standards that became revised and adopted by the Ontario government as Regulations 22/2010 and 23/2010 on February 18, 2010.

These are legal proceedings and matters for discussion by lawyers. I do not profess to be a lawyer nor am I concerned that my comments are, legally speaking, incorrect or lacking legalese. But the matters being discussed are of particular relevance to my line of work, being involved in the assessment of motor vehicle collisions and how roadway conditions may have been a factor in their causation.

The legality of the Standards has been challenged by a law suit brought on against the Municipality of York (City of Vaughan) as a result of a traffic accident that occurred on Dufferin Street in Vaughan on December 12, 2004. In that collision Amelia Silveira reportedly lost control of her vehicle on the slippery winter road and collided with another oncoming vehicle. From what I can decipher, I would term "procedural or legal interpretation issues" were brought to the court by the defendants.  These were heard at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on February 4, 2010 and Justice Lauwers' decision was released on March 5, 2010.

Lauwers essentially decided to launch a separate trial to deal specifically with the legality of the Standards to be heard sometime in the fall of 2010. I have reviewed the decision, the relevant regulations, the OGRA revisions and applied them to my own observations and experience which I will cover in this article.

Firstly, I am not surprised that the Ontario Ministry of Transportation asked a group representing defendants in civil litigation to draw up the Minimum Maintenance Standards since the Ontario Ministry of Transportation itself is a defendant in these civil suits. In fact, Justice Lauwers instructed the plaintiffs in the Silveira case to name the Ministry of Transportation, along with the Municipality of York as defendants. It would appear to any independent, outside observer that there is a conflict of interest when the defendant makes up the rules for how that defendant will be judged in a court of law and this is exactly what is taking place. To suggest that the Task Force that made up the MMS and then revised them are somehow independent members of society is certainly a big stretch of reality. Never-the-less, the status quo is what it is and I am in no position to make it otherwise.

Some of the major shortcomings of the MMS were noted in the OGRA-suggested revisions. For example, the original MMS required that defendants have actual knowledge of a deficiency rather than constructive knowledge. Constructive knowledge is a situation where the defendant ought to have known of the deficiency but failed in some way to gain that knowledge to their own negligence. Again, fair-minded persons should find such an omission in a government law offensive. Actual knowledge was being used by defendants to prevent plaintiffs from proceeding with a trial because the law appeared to prevent such plaintiffs from proceeding unless there was actual knowledge of a deficiency by the defendant. The fact that such a situation existed for several years in Ontario is deplorable.

In another section of the MMS it states that the duty to repair deficiencies only applies with respect to motor vehicles using the highway. Again, simply deplorable. If a cyclist fell over and became quadraplegic as a result of striking a pothole the claim could have been disallowed because it did not involve a motor vehicle. What right-minded person would believe that this was fair treatment? Was the Task Force that developed these Standards unaware of this omission? How naive could one be to believe so?

The original MMS failed to separate conditions of routine patrolling from those where deteriorating environmental conditions required more frequent assessment and action. Apparently this error has been corrected in the revised MMS although I have yet to review that regulation to satisfy myself.

For snow removal the revised MMS continue to discuss snow removal to something less than the width of the highway. It would seem bazaar that roadway engineers believe safe road widths in the range of 7.0 metres are required in good weather yet, when weather conditions deteriorate and maintaining control of a vehicle is more difficult then it is acceptable to reduce the safe travel width of the road to 5.0 metres. This is the recommentation that the revised MMS continue to allow.

I can imagine the scenario of two vehicles approaching each other on a curve, each travelling in the 5.0 metres of cleared road surface. In this zone of limited visibility, a low-class roadway already may have a deficient quality of smoothness on its tar and chip surface. I know this as a fact from my own testing. Now you ask the driver to change his/her position in the lane so that the right side wheels travel onto the unplowed section of roadway because there is no other alternative to pass by the oncoming vehicle. That un-plowed section might contain a snow depth of unknown levels but would likely be even greater than normal because the plow would heap the plowed snow from the middle of the road onto this right section of the lane. These engineers would see nothing wrong with the right side wheels of a vehicle penetrating this deep "snowbank" just before reaching the on-coming vehicle. Yet they will warn you that it is unsafe for vehicles to enter an edge drop-off of 8 cm or more as is clearly indicated in the section of the MMS regarding acceptable edge drop-offs. I cannot believe the illogical reasoning. I am simply shaking my head since the courts will know nothing of this issue.

A really sly proposal by the Task Force is to suggest to municipalities that they can gain constructive knowledge of road conditions by only patrolling "representative" roads in their area. By patrolling these representative roads they can estimate what conditions exist on the other nearby roadway. It means that if locally blown snow is thrown onto a roadway to a depth of 1 metre then the municipality is not at fault because the representative roadway that they patrolled did not have that 1 metre of snow cover. And if an obstacle or unusual event blocked the road and made it impassable or if a warning sign became missing or if visibility was reduced by the presence of an object  then again, no fault by the municipality because their patrol of the adjacent roadway indicated there was no problem.

I am presently aware of numerous roadways in my area that contain significant deficiencies that have not been addressed and are simply waiting for the next accident to occur. Part of the problem is that the courts believe that so long as a road inspector has driven through a road segment then that constitutes sufficient diligence by the municipality. What the courts do not understand is that you cannot perform a proper roadway inspection from a moving vehicle alone. For example a roadway with major deficiencies in its cross-slope cannot be detected by a road patroller whose vehicle travels parallel to the wheel depressions in the lane because that patrol vehicle is not changing lateral position in the lane like someone might prior to a collision. Again, visibility obstructions cannot be detected from a road patrol pick-up truck when the driver might have an eye height that is 50 centimetres higher than the 105 centimetres assumed in most safety standards in North America. Even if the road patroller was in a position to make a determination I know for a fact that is does not occur. I am presently monitoring a number or roadway deficiencies in southwestern Ontario and have done so for several months. In that time period roadway patrollers should have travelled past the deficiencies numerous times yet nothing has been done to correct the problems. Either the patrollers are not recognizing the problems, they are simply ignoring the problems or they are not conducting the inspections that they say they are.

The OGRA discussion of luminaire inspection is equally deficient. They recommend inspection of luminaires once per year because "most outages are reported by the public and repairs are completed in a timely fashion". This is similar to saying most roadway deficiencies are reported by the public so we do not have to inspect roadways.

This is the same recommendation for inspection of warning signs: once per year. Yet the Task Force confirms that "Signs are often obscured by vegetation and motorists are unable to see the sign. Just in my previous article of a couple of days ago describing my observations at the site of a fatal collision on Wilmot Line west of Waterloo I showed you some photos of some chevron signs that were likely obscured by vegetation. It is frightening to think that it is deemed acceptable for a road patrol to examine those signs in July and then not re-examine them until the following July. Yet not a word was mentioned in any public media about any investigations that found a problem with the signage. The newspapers and television reporters are simply clued out. This is what we are faced with in the revised MMS future.

Similar recommendations of 1 year inspections for bridges and sidewalk problems are discussed. If a municipality is notified of a problem then it has 14 days to fix it. So, a problem could exist for 1 year and 13 days and the municipality could not be found responsible for its existence.

The general problem with all these rules is that they are laid before a court that is not familiar with the specific problems and requirements to make a roadway safe. The court is simply provided with evidence that a defendant has following the guidelines set forth in the MMS and they are scott free. It leaves an excuse for courts to make unjust decisions regardless of the facts of the case which do not have to be heard. That is not how our complicated world works. The full range of possibilities through which a municipality can act improperly cannot be covered by these general rules. It must continue to be the case that liability must be evaluated by the specific facts of each case.

Let me conclude that this discussion is not being made by a plaintiff-biased expert who is being paid by the plaintiff bar. I have equally represented defense and plaintiff clients when asked. In fact, I have equal concerns regarding the procedures and tactics applied by plaintiff counsel and I am privy to all their tactics. I have nothing to gain from these comments and much to lose from both clients on both sides of the issue. Our society needs none of this, from one side or the other. We need safe roads, accountability for our actions, restitution only for reasonable matters and above all, freedom from special interest groups.

Guilt In 17-Yr-Old Driver's Fatal Collision of September, 2008 Is Evaluated

An unidentified, 17-year-old male driver was convicted of careless driving in a Kitchener-area court on Tuesday in relation to a crash that occurred in September, 2008 on Wilmot Line near the intersection of Cedar Grove Road just north-west of Waterloo, Ontario. The crash took the life of his young passenger and girl-friend, 17-year-old Hayley Price-Geddes.

It as reported that the collision occurred in darkness when the Ford Escort attempted to negotiate a right curve. A police expert claimed the vehicle could have stopped if it had been going the posted speed limit of 60 km/h.

"Instead, it braked and skidded on the curve, slid sideways, continued into the ditch, flipped over and hit a tree with its roof. The impact bent the car and spun it around the tree."

These are curious comments. The collision occurred on a gravel road. It is quite unlikely that the police expert could have deciphered whether the tire marks he observed were from "skidding" due to braking or whether they were due to marginally-sliding sideways (yaw marks) in attempting to negotiate a curve.  Such yaw marks are far more typical while skid marks are rare. I also say this because of the rapid rotation that must have occurred in order to bring the vehicle to a sideways position as it exited the road. When braking occurs it essentially equalizes the tire forces and the vehicle tends to plow in a straight line in the direction it was travelling. Such action does not induce large rotation rates.

I also say this because of the relatively short distances and sharp curve involved. We need to examine some photos to appreciate this. The case caught my curiosity so I attended the collision site yesterday and took some photos. The photo below is a view looking northward along the path that the Escort took as it approached the right curve.

 I want to draw your attention to three, yellow, chevron markers that are in place to inform drivers that the road changes direction sharply to the right (more on this follow). What you should recognize is that this is a sharp curve or that the radius of the curve is very small. In such a case the distance needed to exit the roadway at the curve is very small. For example, if we look at the angle that the Escort travelled toward the impact with the tree, the distance from the normal travel path of a vehicle to the left edge of the road was about 6 metres. Then there was an additional 10 metres of distance through the under-brush to the tree. It would not be uncommon for drivers to travel 70 km/h on roadway that is posted for 60 km/h. In fact, the maximum speed must be set 10 km/h below the "design" speed of a roadway.

But let us use the 60 km/h instead to prove my point. At this speed a vehicle travels about 16.7 metres every second. Thus, even if the driver was travelling the posted speed the 16 metres travelled between its normal position on the road and its impact with the tree would take only one second. It should be incredible for the police expert to suggest that this young driver would decide to brake hard at this curve to come to stop in the available 16 metres. Why would any driver apply such hard braking rather than attempting to use the tire force to attempt to travel around the curve? So the idea posed by the officer to the court is illogical. Clearly the issue is whether, while attempting to negotiate this sharp curve at say, 70 km/h, a reasonable driver could have problems. Now let me draw your attention to those three chevrons I noted above.

Below is a photo showing my measurement tape placed on top of the east chevron which is the one closest to the vehicle's travel path and therefore the one that would be most exposed by the vehicle's head-lights. Then the photo after that shows the reading of about 125 centimetres above the ground.

 Is there a problem? Well, lets look at the surrounding vegetation on this bright July day. Oh, and recall that the actual collision occurred in September or perhaps two, weed-growing months later than what I show here. The photo below shows my measurement tape identifying the tallest weeds in front of the noted chevron.

You should see that the weed height approaches about 100 centimeters. What will happen with this by September? Many of the weeds will grow much taller and block the view of the sign. But this is daylight and the sign appears visible. What would happen at night-time? Let me go on.

If you looked closely at the first photo you would have observed the position of the three chevrons that are to the left of the travel path of the approaching vehicle. Where would the vehicle's headlights be pointing as the vehicle is approaching the curve? Certainly not at the signs but to the right of the signs. Furthermore, the design of headlights is such that illumination of areas to the left of the vehicle is reduced to prevent glare from blinding on-coming drivers. So not only are the headlights not pointing at the sign but the effectiveness of the headlights would also be reduced due to the positioning of these signs. And if the signs are masked by tall weeds then it is understandable that the signs may not be visible to the driver in time to warn him.

Further, let us look at the cross-slope of the road in the curve. I took some simple measurements using a four-foot carpenter's level and my measurement tape. Commencing from the right edge of the vehicle's travel path I took cross-slope measurements at one-metre intervals over to the left edge of the normal travel path of northbound vehicles. At the one metre mark the slope was 7.0 % to the right, at 2 metres at it was 4.5%, at 3 metres 5.5%, at 4 metres 1.6%, at 5 metres it was level, at 6 metres 1.2% to the left.

So, if the driver was travelling with his left side wheels at about the 3 metre location the 5.5 % cross-slope would tend to pull him into the right curve. But if his wheels happened to stray to the 4, 5 or 6 metre locations the cross-slope would be 1.6, level or even a negative 1.2%. The negative 1.2% would mean that the road would be helping to pull the vehicle off its surface. Did the police investigators tell the court that this road feature existed? I can tell you from experience that the answer is almost always "No". This is evidenced by the reported comments of Justice of the Peace Zeljana Radulovic who wrote in her verdict:

"There is no other rational conclusion except that the accident occurred as the result of not taking due care and attention to the road condition, visibility on the road and adjustment of the speed according to those conditions." Well certainly. But the Justice is not an accident reconstruction expert. She cannot look at the photos of the site and ask important questions such as "Was the signage of a proper height and position? Was the road cross-slope unusual? Or was the posted speed correct for the very limited radius of curve?" An expert such as I attends such a hearing and the lawyers simply twist the facts and the Court determines that it has the ultimate right to make its decision regardless of an expert's 30 years of experience in the field. This is the status of our legal system.

Did anyone inform the court whether other collisions also occurred at this site? I will venture to say, probably not. But let me demonstrate. In another portion of the roadside I found another tree which is shown in the photo below.

Why is there a big scar on this tree some 15 metres into the brush? Below is a closer view.

Maybe the lawyers would conclude that a wandering bear (or elephant?) happened to work on it. But I know that this damage is from another collision. If someone had looked around the tree they would have observed what I did. Some of the evidence is shown in the photo below.

This debris is not from an Escort's roof colliding with a tree. It is from the front end of a different vehicle. So now you can look at the tree damage and know what type of damage is caused to a tree from such an impact. But the Escort must have really caused a lot of visible damage to the tree that it struck if it was speeding - wouldn't it? Well let's take a look. Below is an overall view with my pen pointing to the area containing the tree apparently struck by the Escort.

Now the view below is a closer view where we can see the actual tree and a wooden cross erected at the base of the tree as a monument to the tragedy.

I apologize to the family for showing this but it is necessary to prove a point.

Look at the tree. Where is the large scar that was evident in the previous impact I showed you? There is essentially nothing there. I looked closely. Yes there is a minor tear in the bark as shown below.

But surely this is minimal compared to the earlier tree damage that I showed you. The only other evidence on the tree is some glass fragments still clinging in the bark as shown in the photo below.

This is an example of persons making judgments about evidence they know nothing about. They looked at the damage to the roof of this Escort and observed the likely substantial intrusion into the occupant space and determined that the Escort must have been flying. It is evident from the newspaper article I read in Wednesday's Kitchener Record as was stated: "The extensive damage was part of a circumstantial case called to show that the driver - who can't be named because of his age - was speeding on the rural road when he came upon a sharp curve and lost control." But did anyone inform the court that the roof of an Escort is extremely soft? Government testing of roof strength requires that a slow compression of about 1 1/2 times the vehicle's weight be applied to a corner of the roof. What does that mean? A vehicle with ABS and maximum braking on a new asphalt surface can apply a force close to the "weight" of the test vehicle. Surely such a roof test is weak. But more importantly it is applied close to, or involves the support of the roof pillars. If a collision involves a pole or tree contacting the middle of the roof there  is very very minimal protection because there is not structural substance there. Did the police expert inform the court of this fact? It is obvious from looking at the minor damage to the struck tree and comparing that damage to the damage caused by the frontal impact of the other nearby tree. Was the court informed of that? Would the court be capable of understanding that without expert assistance? No, instead the court wishes to use words to the effect that it knows exactly how this collision occurred and what caused it. There is no "other rational conclusion".

I feel very much sympathy for the family and friends of Hayley Price-Geddes. A beautiful girl who passed away in an unfortunate twist of fate. And I do not blame them for their possible anger at what they may believe is the responsibility of another similarly inexperienced boy. But motor vehicle collisions are far more complicated that the simple explanations that are brought forward. Their causes are from a multitude of influences. A roll of the dice where luck many times changes the outcome for the better or worse. Before we judge the actions of this young driver we should be appraised of all those influences not just those that we want to hear.

New Traffic Signal at Huron and Vesta in London Ontario Was Recommended by Gorski Consulting Over 12 Years Ago

It is interesting to note how my analysis of roadway issues was condemned by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a court case several years ago (Johnson V. Milton (Town)) yet roadway authorities continue to use my recommendations to improve their road systems.

I noted this morning that the intersection at Vesta Road and Huron Street was invested with a new traffic signal. This was a recommendation I made over 12 years ago as a result of my detailed analysis of the traffic patterns relating to my reconstruction of a collision where a young female pedestrian was struck while attempting to cross Huron Street at Vesta Road in 1997.

Below are some views of the traffic signal installation taken this morning. The first photo is a view looking west along Huron Street toward the traffic signal at the intersection with Vesta Road.

 Below is a view looking north, across Huron Street, showing some young children using the newly installed crossing. Had such a crossing existed at the time of the collision in 1997 a child would likely have used it and would not have been struck.

Finally, the photo below shows the location of business establishments and high rise apartments at the intersection. The movie cinema that was located next to the Dollarama Store in 1997 is no longer in operation therefore the number of vehicles and pedestrians using this area has diminished in comparison to the situation in 1997. Even so the City of London has decided to install the traffic signal demonstrating that my original recommendations should have be followed at that time.

In a preliminary report dated April, 1998 we concluded there were several deficiencies at this intersection that warranted installation of a traffic signal.  We advised that the placement of a bus stop caused pedestrians to attempt to cross Huron Street at an unsafe location. We discussed the presence of a public library and various business establishments, including a movie cinema and large residential apartment buildings that increased the presence of traffic units in the area. We discussed the negative effects of reducing the four lanes of Huron Street to two lanes and how this exacerbated the traffic problems. We also discussed the number of turning motions in the area that contributed to the traffic difficulties. Our detailed studies involving videotaped analysis of traffic and compared the traffic at this location to other major roadways in London such as Wellington Road at Emery and Highbury Ave at Fuller. We also documented average speeds at all the sites. The analysis revealed that a traffic signal was warranted in every category of the recommendations provided in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

I continue to provide such analysis despite the peculiar conclusions about my background that were drawn by Justice Moldaver of the Ontario Court of Appeal. It demonstrates the lack of practical understanding the some justices have in assessing expert testimony while maintaining a willingness to use destructive commentary about expert witnesses while not being aware of important details.

Fatal Loss-of-Control Collision on Gideon Drive Is A Testimony For Seat Belt Use

Just yesterday I prepared an article on the loss-of-control collision of an Elgin County OPP police cruiser where the vehicle was obviously travelling at tremendous speed, yet the Constable survived. Unfortunately these events are a toss of the dice in that you can never predict the outcome. Such is true of the subject of this article whereby a driver of a pick-up truck sustained fatal injuries as a result of a loss-of-control collision on Gideon Drive, on the western outskirts of London, Ontario on July 7th, 2010. I examined the site today and have the following photos to share.

First, the London Free Press reported the following:

" A Southwold man was killed in a single vehicle crash on Gideon Dr. Wednesday night (July 7th). Middlesex OPP said Vaughan Ireland, 37, was the driver and sole occupant of a Ford Pick-up truck that was headed westbound on Gideon when it left the road and rolled into the south side dith. Police said Ireland was not wearing a seatbelt and was partially ejected from the truck in the crash. He as taken by ambulance to London Health Sciences Centre University Campus where he later died. Gideon Drive between Woodhull Road and Brigham Drive was closed until 3:00 a.m. Thursday."

First, here is a photo of the accident site, looking west, taken from several hundred metres east of the final rest position (FRP) of the vehicle.

 The Pick-up truck travelled off the road surface just behind my car which is parked on the south shoulder of the road. What is not apparent is that just behind the camera is a curve in the road such that the Pick-up truck would have travelled perhaps 300 to 400 metres past the curve before it finally left the road.

Below is another westward view but showing the tire marks on the north shoulder where the Pick-up truck travelled before crossing the road toward its eventual rollover on the south roadside.

 The presence of such tire marks is fairly routine as this is the most common manner in which vehicles begin their loss of control.

What is unusual is that at this point the Pick-up truck is not travelling very quickly. This can be observed by noting the angle of the "yaw" marks as they cross the road. When a vehicle is travelling very quickly it cannot change its travel direction "very much" in a short distance. This means that tire marks are generally more parallel to the road length as opposed to being at a considerably angle to the length of the road. Certainly one could take a chord and middle ordinate of the yaw mark and make a calculation which would demonstrate this but that is not always needed. Simply looking at the angle of the tire marks to the length of the road can provide an experienced investigator with a clue as to the vehicle's general speed. Besides that, you will also note in the following photos that, once the vehicle began its rollover it did not travel very far to its final rest position - another sign of the vehicle's speed.

So the photo below shows the tire marks as they cross the roadway and head toward the south roadside.

You can see from the tire marks that the Pick-up truck is upright and leading with its right side as it heads off the road. The tire marks end abruptly as the vehicle encounters a small elevation change just before the vehicle enters onto the soccer field. This is where it began to rollover. Below is a further view along the vehicle's path to its final rest position.

Someone placed some plastic bins at the points where the tire marks terminated an the rollover began. You can note the final rest position of the Pick-up truck by the dead (yellow) patch of grass in the background. The fluids such as battery acid, coolant, oil, etc. seep out of the vehicle at its rest position and this is what kills the grass - it is fairly simple to locate the final rest position of a vehicle by recognizing such evidence.

The final photo shows the view from the opposite direction, looking north-east from where the Pick-up truck came to rest. What should be obvious to you is that the vehicle did not travel very far after beginning its rollover - certainly less than 20 metres. This is the tragedy of this event. This was a simple rollover that would likely have resulted in minimal or no injury had the driver stayed inside the cab. A rollover at this speed would not result in any roof crush or anything that would harm a driver as long as a seat belt was properly (snugly) worn. Unfortunately, as happens so often in these events, a person does not think of using a seat belt and this is the tragedy that results.

You could be a gambler, and just like the police constable in the previous article. You could believe you are invincible at whatever speed you travel. Sure, a lucky break here and there will only make you a better believer of that. But the most honest stories that could be told are those that would come from the deceased who were lucky several times and did not heed the warning until it was too late. So let me say it for them: Wear your seat belt and wear it properly. If someone comes along with a story that says seat belts are bad in a rollover, come and see me and I will give you the real facts.