This is an open letter to New West police and ICBC giving them an opportunity to explain their side of what happened and requesting answers to some simple questions.

On July 26, 2016 I was involved in a near-fatal crash while cycling home from work.

The lawsuit with the provincial government auto insurance monopoly has been “settled” so I can now speak about this event. I have many, many questions that I hope to get answered.

Near-fatal

Witnesses stated that I was not breathing at the time and had, among many others injuries, a punctured lung. My understanding of the data leads me to believe I was in imminent risk of death so throughout this letter I’ll refer to it as a near-fatal crash and, I hope, that will not be disputed.

The Facts I’m Aware Of

This crash occurred at 5:30pm on a Thursday, which is the height of evening rush hour. The crash happened on East Columbia St, which is an extremely busy street.

I was headed “West bound” on East Columbia St. The woman who hit me was traveling “East bound”, the opposite direction. I was in a designated, painted bike lane.

My data from Strava shows that I stopped for the red light at Keary St., 1 block prior to the crash.

The drivers statement to the police was “I didn’t see the cyclist, the sun was in my eyes”.

Witnesses stated to the police that the driver who hit me was going “very quickly” and “probably at least 50km/h”. The speed limit on that stretch of road is 30km/h.

The Sun Was In My Eyes, I Didn’t See Him

According to the police report, the excuse the driver gave for hitting me was that the sun was in her eyes.

Here’s a map of the crash site:

As you can see at the top right of the map, the driver was heading exactly due North at 5:30pm in July. It is physically impossible, in the Northern hemisphere for the sun to be in your eyes driving north-bound at 5:30pm.

The questions I have for New Westminster police and ICBC are:

• Is it standard practice not to consider time of day & location of sun when a driver provides an excuse like “the sun was in my eyes”?
• Was the officer not standing there, taking a statement from the driver, and thinking “wait, the sun isn’t in my eyes right now”.
• Is that Really a valid excuse? There’s plenty of literature in drivers education material that says “if you cannot proceed safely, do not proceed”.

Witnesses State The Driver Was Going Approx. 50km/h

According to the police report, witnesses stated the driver made the left turn at approximately 50km/h. The speed limit in this area is 30km/h and very clearly stated right where the crash occurred.

The questions I have for New Westminster police and ICBC are:

• Is it standard practice not to issue a ticket when witnesses state a driver was exceeding the speed limit?
• Is the driver not guilty of gross negligence if she had a crash while violating the Motor Vehicle Act?

Witnesses State

The police report notes these witnesses who approximated the drivers speed. These witnesses also rendered first aid and saved my life.

The questions I have for New Westminster police and ICBC are:

• Is it standard practice not to record the name & contact details of witnesses?
• Is there any checks & balances in place to ensure police reports/investigations meet a minimum level of compliance? If a report mentions witnesses without names does that meet the minimum level of compliance the NWPD requires of its staff?
• If this does not meet the minimum level of compliance required what documentation & punitive/corrective actions have been taken against the employee who filed this report?

Semi Commercial/Medical Area

Here is Google Streetview of the area where the crash happened.

Note the number of businesses and medical offices in the area. Especially note the:

• TD Bank, that has been robbed before.
• Save On Foods
• London Drugs
• TransLink corporate office
• Corner store
• Medical offices

The questions I have for New Westminster police and ICBC are:

• How many of these offices/businesses were asked for security camera footage that might show the crash and surrounding details?
• Is it acceptable crash investigation to request no additional/follow-up details? Does this meet NWPD audit & compliance requirements?

Phone Usage or Distracted Driving

I do not see any documentation that the driver was ever even asked (she could easily lie) if she was looking at her cell phone when she nearly killed me. On top of that I see no confirmation or data confirming she was not distracted.

We all know and agree that distracted driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving.

And no one can argue distracted driving is not common:

The questions I have for New Westminster police and ICBC are:

• How many motor vehicle crashes in BC are confirmed to involve a phone or distracted driving?
• How many motor vehicle crashes in BC are confirmed to NOT involve a phone or distracted driving.
• Subtracting confirmed from not-confirmed, how many motor vehicle crashes in BC are not fully investigated for the possibility of distracted driving?

Blood Alcohol Content (BAC)

My blood was tested for drugs & alcohol. Granted this was done in the hospital and I’d bet this is standard procedure when providing blood/drugs to first understand what’s already in the patients system.

But, there appears to be no documentation if the driver who hit me was intoxicated. It’d be easy enough on the crash investigation form to include “no indication of intoxicants”. At a minimum, I’d ask/suggest that all possible causes of a crash are documented as “within the realm of possibility or not”.

Common Sense Easily Identifies The Cause

Common sense makes it really easy to identify the real cause of this crash when considering a few simple facts:

• Strava cycling data shows that I stopped at the red light on Keary street 1-block before being hit.
• During rush hour there is not a single red light cycle at Keary street where cars are not stopped.
• Thus, I was stopped next to cars 1-block prior to being hit.
• The driver claims she did not see me, no mention of if she saw the vehicles who were obviously stopped at the light next to me and therefore driving next to/with me.
• Witnesses state the driver made the turn at 50km/h, which is relatively fast to make a left turn.

Taking those facts into consideration, let’s all be honest, the driver saw a line of traffic coming towards her, and made a rush decision to turn in front of that line of traffic rather than be patient/safe.

 

The questions I have for New Westminster police and ICBC are:

• Would your staff not normally apply logic & common sense in determining the cause of a near-fatal crash?
• Would your staff not normally consider other explanations than the one provided by the at-fault driver?

 

Conclusions

I will write up another post about the hell ICBC has put me through so do not need to go into that here as well.

It is important to note that both ICBC and the New Westminster police receive public/government funding and oversight. With that in mind:

• Very little time or effort was put into investigating my near-fatal crash.
• ICBC put large amounts of time & effort into accusing me of fraud and of exaggerating the impact of this crash on me, the victim.
• In fact, civil servants applied more time, money, and effort to accusing me of fraud than investigating the cause of the crash or who was legitimately at fault.
• In BC, because of ICBC, there is no scale of fault or negligence. A driver who kills a cyclist is treated the same and suffers the same consequences as one who rear-ends another driver. Compare that to private insurance jurisdictions where your insurance rates correlate directly with how much your claim(s) have cost the insurance company.

The gist of all this is, I think it’s reasonable to expect that a public organization, such as NWPD & ICBC are, would provide open data on the efficacy & impact of their operations. Essentially, the public deserves to know what audit & compliance are in place and every year a report on the number of files that pass or fail the internal audit & compliance checks.

Questions Requiring Answers

Here is a summary of the questions I have outlined in this post. I will come back and update answers here when I receive them:

• Is it standard practice not to consider time of day & location of sun when a driver provides an excuse like “the sun was in my eyes”?
• Was the office not standing there, taking a statement from the driver and thinking “wait, the sun isn’t in my eyes right now”.
• Is that Really a valid excuse? There’s plenty of literature in drivers education material that says “if you cannot proceed safely, do not proceed”.
• Is it standard practice not to issue a ticket when witnesses state a driver was exceeding the speed limit?
• Is the driver not grossly negligent if she had a crash while violating the Motor Vehicle Act?
• Is it standard practice not to record the name & contact details of witnesses?
• Is there any checks & balances in place to ensure police reports/investigations meet a minimum level of compliance? If a report mentions witnesses without names does that meet the minimum level of compliance the NWPD requires of its staff?
• If this does not meet the minimum level of compliance required what documentation & punitive/corrective actions have been taken against the employee who filed this report?
• How many of these offices/businesses were asked for security camera footage that might show the crash and surrounding details?
• Is it acceptable crash investigation to request no additional/follow-up details? Does this meeting NWPD audit & compliance requirements?
• How many motor vehicle crashes in BC are confirmed to involve a phone or distracted driving?
• How many motor vehicle crashes in BC are confirmed to NOT involve a phone or distracted driving.
• Subtracting confirmed from not-confirmed, how many motor vehicle crashes in BC are not fully investigated for the possibility of distracted driving?
• Would your staff not normally apply logic & common sense in determining the cause of a near-fatal crash?
• Would your staff not normally consider other explanations than the one provided by the at-fault driver?