21 replies to this topic

[Kip Powick]

You have no doubt heard about the horrific vehicle crash in SW Ontario.....So far.... 11 died when a flatbed truck T-boned a 15 pax van which apparently did no stop when coming off a country road and onto a main two lane road. The driver of the flatbed died as did the driver of the van and nine of the twelve passengers, all migrant chicken farm workers from Peru. I saw on- scene video and it was heart stopping, the van was hurtled about 500 feet into the side of a farm house which was located near the intersection.

A real tradgedy and one that is compounded by the fact that the NOK are all, (except the flatbed driver), from a country so far away and probably without financial means to come here and take their loved one home.

It was a bad day yesterday...we were driving westbound, home from Kingston, when we noted the eastbound lanes of the 401 were closed due to an accident. The two car haulers were leaving with the wreckage just as we drove by. One vehicle had  a fairly new red Hyundia Accent on it, looked like it had been ripped open by a can opener and the other vehicle looked like it was a Taurus, but had no front end, no engine visible.

What apparently happened was the little red car got on the 401 about 6 km from the crash site and was travelling westbound in the eastbound lanes and hit the Taurus which was heading eastbound, head on. How that could happen is beyond me, (getting on the 401 going in the wrong lanes). Apparently numerous drivers had to pull over to let the red car go by and you would think the driver would know something was wrong when they did not see any other traffic going westbound and that there was a concrete median to the right of the car instead of to the left.

Each car had a lone occupant.....the red car had one occupant, a 23 year old female going to work in Trenton, and the other car had a 23 year old female from Oshawa going to ????

Another two families coping with totally unexpected grief this morning.

Hug your kids, kiss your partner.....you never know when.

[blues deville]

There are a couple of 401 access roads (Wooler Rd, Brighton) that at night can be confusing, but after you've entered the highway with on coming traffic, that would have to be a clue you've made an error.
It seems to happen every once and awhile. Unfortunate.

[seeker]

Very sad stories.  I'm surprised to see that it was a young woman driving.

[malcolm]

seeker, on 08 February 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

Very sad stories.  I'm surprised to see that it was a young woman driving.

In actual fact:

Quote

The driver of the van, identified as David Armando Blancas-Hernandez, 45, also did not have the Class F licence required to drive a vehicle carrying more than 11 passengers, Insp. Lawson said. Mr. Blancas-Hernandez held a standard Ontario Class G license,indicating he had lived in the province for some time.

Quote

The driver, who OPP identified Tuesday as 38-year-old Christopher Fulton from London, Ont., was the sole occupant of the truck.

The reports now say it was the driver of the van who ran a stop sign.
Read more: http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz1loXO6KAm
/Stats/Tracker.gif?plckUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ftheairlinewebsite.com%2Findex.php%2Ftopic%2F392543-death-on-wheels%2Fpage__pid__1577151%23entry1577151&plckUserId=null&plckGcid=Pluck4&plckCurrentTime=1328723660635

[seeker]

Malcolm, I was referring to the accident Kip mentioned between two small cars, not the van/truck accident.

[conehead]

seeker, on 08 February 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

Very sad stories.  I'm surprised to see that it was a young woman driving.

Really?  You mean the gender that pays lower insurance premiums supposedly because they are "better" drivers?  From what I witness everyday on the highways, it does not surprise me at all.

[seeker]

conehead, on 08 February 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Really?  You mean the gender that pays lower insurance premiums supposedly because they are "better" drivers?  From what I witness everyday on the highways, it does not surprise me at all.

"Young" was the operative word.  Not that I want to get into a young vs old driver argument but my impression is that this particular type of accident (driving the wrong way on a divided highway) is more common to older drivers.  To be clear; I generally consider older drivers to be more cautious and more conservative but also less observant and less likely to notice they are driving the wrong way.

[conehead]

Yes, you're right. It does seem that when we hear of a driver going the wrong direction on a divided highway, they are usually either elderly (and confused), or just plain drunk.

[Kip Powick]

Perhaps we will never know, but this is what I think happened.....

Attached Files

•   MAP.jpg    60.07K   37 downloads

Edited by Kip Powick, 08 February 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Don Hudson]

Kip, I think your description of the two-cars freeway accident is a plausible scenario. The puzzle is indeed why was the oncoming traffic accepted as normal, mainly by the driver of the red car? Acceptance of normal, (or, more seriously, actual denial of one's actual circumstances...how many times have we heard, "I just can't believe ______"?

We had a similar accident not far from home. Take a close look at this freeway exchange in Tsawwassen, Hwy 99 N-S & Hwy 17 E-W. The twin bridge over the freeway is Hwy 17.

What has to be noticed closely is that while the bridge to the south has the two east-bound lanes of Hwy 17, the north bridge's lanes have one lane going west-bound, and one going east bound.

Drivers, especially those not familiar with the exchange, may reasonably assume that the twinned bridge's lanes are "two-lanes-west", and "two-lanes-east". Not so.

And there are no dividers or vertical/flexible red markers to divide these lanes. There are just yellow double lines which can be (and have been) missed in darkness, heavy rain or inattention.

A family van travelling west over the bridge one evening moved to the "left lane", perhaps to pass a slower vehicle? to ensure he was in the "correct" (left) lane to go south instead of circling around to enter Hwy 401?

Who knows, they're all dead, killed in the head-on with a north-bound car coming from the Tswwassen ferry terminal.

Of course this is a human factors issue, with a strong engineering design element. In my view this also has elements of criminal negligence on the part of those city engineers/designers because confusion is both possible and probable and still is because the design hasn't changed, (so perhaps city government should also be held responsible when the next fatal accident occurs?)





The next series shows how serious this design is flawed:





Detail of the traffic direction over the two East-West Hwy 17 bridges:





Here's what the west-bound lanes look like:




The west-end of the bridge does not appear unusual in the sense that one could "see" a "right turn lane" and the "correct" southbound road, especially at night, or in rain or with no oncoming traffic as cues.





The left lane on the right (north) bridge leads directly into oncoming traffic:



There are two of the usual round signs with the horizontal bar signalling "Do Not Enter".



But in the Hwy 401 head-on, there were three of those signs on the exit plus a "Wrong Way" sign just before the entrance to the 401 going westbound into eastbound traffic:






Most drivers do not miss these signs, nor do they miss all the other cues, including the oncoming traffic.

So the question is, once the person is on the freeway heading the wrong direction, what makes it make sense to continue? Panic? Denial? Inability to form a plan of action, (stop, pull to far left or right side, put on flashers, wait for clear, turn around),  and resorting to false hope in the face of extreme danger? Is this in the driver's education curriculum as part of defensive driving, (as in What if you actually do this?)

Lots of questions, which, one hopes, families affected by these terrible tragedies will eventually ask.

Don

Edited by Don Hudson, 10 February 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[Kip Powick]

Lots of questions, which, one hopes, families affected by these terrible tragedies will eventually ask.

I agree Don, Lots of questions............. but when I think back, there have been times when due to "mind preoccupation", I have actually missed a turn-off and then there are times we all encounter...."how did I get home, I don't even remember passing X and Y and Z ???"

In the case out here, the red car driver may have been thinking about the Super Bowl party she had been to and was driving on "auto-pilot" and the visual cues were just not at the forefront of her conscientiousness. Sad cases, yours and mine......death never takes a holiday.

[Don Hudson]

Yep...been there, Kip. Scary...there but for...

I know it isn't possible to design against all human perceptions/beliefs/wrong decisions which have possible/probable serious outcomes but the example of Don Bateman's contribution to aviation is a great example that with enough thought, political motivation, money and capable people, big changes can occur.

The fatality rates for vehiclular accidents (in the US, about one B747-planeload of people every three days), has been normalized and, under heading names which further normalize and increase acceptability, are therefore invisible to all of us so change is difficult to create and sustain. The design flaws in the example above are clear but are still in place last time I drove this route.

But driving a car is one of our most sacred rights, isn't it?

And politicians and designers will not tread where angels fear...

Don

[boestar]

No matter how idiot proof you attempt to make something.  They will always create a better idiot.

Don:
Driving os a Privledge NOT a right.  It is a privledge we do not revoke often enough IMHO.

[J.O.]

Road accident prevention is nowhere near where it needs to be when you consider the statistics. Our approach to safety improvement and enforcement is completely bass ackwards.

How do you enforce safer driving when your primary approach is to occasionally park a marked car along the road and catch speeders with radar. What about the weaving, late for work, tailgating, bagel eating, cell phone talking, mascara applying, "I own the road" drivers who proliferate our roads every rush hour? It'd be a whole lot more effective if the cops would patrol in an unmarked Jetta looking for these folks. And we should make the fines for such behaviours much more painful. How about a $1500 fine for commiting any of the above- and a requirement to attend a one-day lecture on road safety followed by a new driver's test? That might change some behaviours.

I couldn't help but notice that the OPP were laying the blame for the Hampstead accident on the dead driver of the van, with nary a mention of the fact that he was driving directly into the sun which made the stop sign difficult to see, as reported by witnesses at the scene. Let's not bother to look for ways to improve safety at intersections. I wonder how long it will take for that corner to be equipped with bigger signs and rumble strips, now that we know how unsafe it is. Will we do anything to prevent similar accidents at other intersections? Somehow I doubt it.

Edited by J.O., 13 February 2012 - 05:21 AM.

[Don Hudson]

boestar, re, "Driving os a Privledge NOT a right. It is a privledge we do not revoke often enough IMHO.", yes, I know; that was the ironic point I was making...I described it as a "sacred" right because the idea that driving is a "privilege" is as invisible as the automobile death rate. Any attempt to take away that "right", as J.O. suggests, would be met with a "how dare you!...how am I ever going to ___________ if I can't drive my car?!" In fact in BC, part of the drunk driving law was declared unconstitutional because of its effect of immediate arrest without trial, (but the 0.05 limit thankfully remained). IIRC, the impounding of vehicles of owners involved in street-racing was similarly found against "human rights" for the same reason. In my view, I think we should have public crushings of vehicles used in street racing, the very next day after being caught, but I suppose that's against some right too.

J.O.
The fatality rate, and the reasons for such fatalities such as poor road and signage design as described in my post above (a design which hasn't changed) are acceptable and tolerated by our society. It is "okay" for "others" to die in a car accident. There is no outrage because such deaths are all but invisible in the normalcy of our daily news.

Traffic deaths are "normalized" through frequency of reports and through chronic absence of resources to carefully investigate cause in the same way an aircraft accident is investigated. When we hear the news about a traffic fatality we go about our daily business with but a passing thought to the unfortunate family who must deal with death of a loved one. Our daily lives and our attention-spans are paralyzed by news and societal issues; - there are just too many to care more deeply so it is left to governments at all levels to "do something". Accident investigation which can drive design changes or physical changes in roads and signage just doesn't exist with the same importance and political force as aviation's process.

True, it has changed, especially with social media. Drunk driving is one example in which I would call the societal response "spectacular". But it is "human error" (an innocent, unsuspecting and largely preventable mistake) which receives the least attention and therefore the fewest resources. In fact, perhaps except for those accidents which beg for comprehension and change, (such as those discussed here), the notion of "accident" is an accepted dismissal of cause and possible change, and excuses those who design roads and signage even though every one of us knows of at least one example in our travels of a serious flaw in road design which has, or may, be the root cause of a fatal accident.

Car safety has improved vastly in the past fifty years...when I learned to drive there were no such things as seatbelts. There were sharp, pointy, chromed things and a stylish, non-collapsing steering wheel and the car seating was as soft and comfy as one's favourite living room chair, (that's the notion that the market was targeting..."head-of-family-male-comfort", or "father has best". Some people today still believe that). Today a vehicle is a technological safety cocoon and the manufacturers target safety consciousness by showing test crashes as "proof" of why people should buy their car. That's an astounding change in one generation.

Road design has also improved for the same reasons that RNP standards in aviation have emerged and navigation accuracies have grown: the need for more vehicles in roughly the same amount of space requiring the need for smaller clearances. Thus, freeways are much safer today than they were in the days of no seat belts. But we cannot point to such overall levels as reason to accept that accidents are "accidents". As with aviation, within an overall high level of safety, there are glaring counter-examples where risk is "locally" high and which, because city governments and their taxpaying base are already heavily burdened, and there is no steady lobby for change, do not face the changes required which may make safer, specific cases such as the ones described in the thread.

Don

Edited by Don Hudson, 13 February 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[Moon The Loon]

J.O., on 13 February 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Road accident prevention is nowhere near where it needs to be when you consider the statistics. Our approach to safety improvement and enforcement is completely bass ackwards.

How do you enforce safer driving when your primary approach is to occasionally park a marked car along the road and catch speeders with radar. What about the weaving, late for work, tailgating, bagel eating, cell phone talking, mascara applying, "I own the road" drivers who proliferate our roads every rush hour? It'd be a whole lot more effective if the cops would patrol in an unmarked Jetta looking for these folks. And we should make the fines for such behaviours much more painful. How about a $1500 fine for commiting any of the above- and a requirement to attend a one-day lecture on road safety followed by a new driver's test? That might change some behaviours.

I couldn't help but notice that the OPP were laying the blame for the Hampstead accident on the dead driver of the van, with nary a mention of the fact that he was driving directly into the sun which made the stop sign difficult to see, as reported by witnesses at the scene. Let's not bother to look for ways to improve safety at intersections. I wonder how long it will take for that corner to be equipped with bigger signs and rumble strips, now that we know how unsafe it is. Will we do anything to prevent similar accidents at other intersections? Somehow I doubt it.

Presumably, the van driver had driven the route before. Regardless, if he couldn't see properly and fail to see an intersection let alone a stop sign, then he was driving too fast for the conditions. And stop sign or no, nobody should EVER enter an intersection if it appears it will be unsafe to do so. Some years ago, I was driving westbound on old Hwy 17 between Hawkesbury and Ottawa. Speed limit 90. Daylight, sun not a factor. I saw the car approaching the road via a farm road. It accelerated and launced across the highway at about 80 kph nearly t-boning the car in front of me in the process. Thankfully, it didn't. Maybe the driver who nearly got clipped ahead of me didn't see him until the idiot was in front of him because there were no brake lights until the jerk crossed the highway.

My niece and nephew and daughter-in-law all just learned to drive. My only advice to each of them when driving: Expect The Unexpected.

Rumble strips don't work well in most places in Canada. They get shaved down by snow plows.

Couldn't agree more though about the OPP out on bright sunny days filling the coffers of Queen's Park from drivers who are no threat to anyone.

[Specs]

Moon The Loon, on 13 February 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Couldn't agree more though about the OPP out on bright sunny days filling the coffers of Queen's Park from drivers who are no threat to anyone.

Ever see an OPP radar car pull out hard from the gravel cross median access road on the 401 as they put their foot to the floor to catch up with the speeder?

It's happened twice to me in recent years and nearly scared me senseless.  Driving along serenely around dusk when instantly, out of of nowhere -  a huge cloud of dust, flashing lights in and out of the cloud, gravel flying everywhere, a loud as hell f&*^ing siren.and then his fishtail onto the hard surface off my front quarter.  Literally - nearly ran me off the road the first time.  I actually pulled over a bit of a ways up the road just to collect myself because if I caught up with the cop I'd have probably stopped and ................

[DEFCON]

Don

“Drunk driving is one example in which I would call the societal response "spectacular"

Spectacular, perhaps, but has the situation improved all that much when weighed against the associated loss of personal freedom?

Drunk drivers are bad news for certain and do need to be dealt with, but is chasing the proverbial needle in the haystack; i.e., blocking the roadway to shake everyone down that comes by, the most ‘appropriate’ response?

Why the various degrees of infraction and associated penalties; i.e., was the drunk stopped by chance as above, just driving irregularly and pulled over, involved in an motor vehicle accident, or injured and or killed someone? The law sounds like a game of chance to me?

If the crime of ‘Impaired Driving’ is as ghastly a crime as most today seem to believe, why doesn’t the ‘time’ match the ‘crime’? Perhaps it could be simplified; impaired is impaired regardless of how one’s caught and a two step penalty system applied; a first offence not involving injury or death results in an automatic ‘solid’ 6 months in a facility specifically designed and intended to ‘rehabilitate’ the offender, and for a second conviction and or any involving serious injury or death, ‘life’?

When judging the severity of the final penalty; keep in mind, it could be you or your loved one lying dead in the morgue.

[DEFCON]

Specs

In a case like that, pursue the issue 'properly'. Cops are people too and they can and do get distracted by the game of pursuit they're engaged in. Careless driving is the first thought that comes to mind.

[mo32a]

Specs, on 13 February 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Ever see an OPP radar car pull out hard from the gravel cross median access road on the 401 as they put their foot to the floor to catch up with the speeder?

It's happened twice to me in recent years and nearly scared me senseless.  Driving along serenely around dusk when instantly, out of of nowhere -  a huge cloud of dust, flashing lights in and out of the cloud, gravel flying everywhere, a loud as hell f&*^ing siren.and then his fishtail onto the hard surface off my front quarter.  Literally - nearly ran me off the road the first time.  I actually pulled over a bit of a ways up the road just to collect myself because if I caught up with the cop I'd have probably stopped and ................

I watched an unmarked RCMP SUV on Hwy. 99 south of Vancouver set up right on the tail of a "new Canadian" driver flip on the lights and siren and scared the $hit out of the poor lady who slammed on the brakes and pulled into the center median. The cop almost rear ended her, he had to swerve into the other lane to avoid ramming her, and I had to brake hard even though I knew it was coming.
I wish I had stopped and told the cop what an idiot he was.

Another time, coming home from a hockey game, pitch black, wet, a VPD motorcycle cop jumps out from behind a pillar right in front of me and holds up his hand to get me to stop. Again I had to hammer the brakes to avoid hitting him, if I had had my head down for a second to tune the radio or whatever, that guy would have been a hood ornament.
I did express my feelings rather vehemently to him, it scared the heck out of me.