Agent13, I hear what you're saying and I believe you are correct in so far as only specific incidents (like certain high profile deaths) seem to garner enough attention to warrant such probes. The government only investigates and / or proposes legislation for those cases. And there in lies the basis for some of Mr. Newell's comments. The Ontario government picks and chooses what facts and which statistics are used to forward their chosen cases. Furthermore, again as Mr. Newell has indicated, they are reluctant to produce this information so others may scrutinize it. That in turn leads to speculation as to why the government feels the need to hide such information.

Although we are getting somewhat off topic I think it pertinent to point out a couple of issues regarding the accidents you have cited. In the case of your friend's death there may well have been factors you were not aware of that the court took into consideration when sentencing the individual at fault. I understand that gives little comfort to those effected by his death. But, you must understand that things are different in a court of law then they are in the court of public opinion.

Let me use the accident on highway #37 to illustrate. There was a huge outcry over those deaths and I recognise why. However, that doesn't justify the vilification of all truck drivers or the virtual lynching of this one in particular. I understand he (the truck driver) was to have been in court two weeks ago but I have not heard the outcome of this case. Please understand that I am in no way condoning nor condemning the actions of any of the drivers involved. I'm just saying that I believe I can look at it objectively without bias and by so doing I see things others do not.

The driver of the big rig has to take responsibility for the initial crash but, was he distracted as you stated? Maybe he misjudged his speed and the distance required to safely stop. Perhaps he had a mechanical failure, sneezed, or it was a combination of several other things. Again, I'm not making excuses just stating that there may well be more to it then the blanket statement that distracted driving covers. He is responsible because the law states you must be in control of your vehicle. However, what happened after that first impact was out of his control. The fact that the death car crossed into the path of southbound traffic indicates that either the wheels were turned, the car was angled towards the side road or both.
When making a left turn from one road onto another the vehicle turning should remain in the lane with the front wheels pointed straight ahead. This is done so that if hit from behind the vehicle will remain in it's lane and not do exactly what happened here, get pushed into oncoming traffic. Also, the driver would have lessened the damages and the extent of injuries if she had been watching her mirrors and recognized that the truck was not going to stop. Had she been doing so she might have been able to release the brakes allowing the vehicle to absorb more of the impact force by rolling forward. She may have been able to avoid the crash if she'd had the time and presence of mind to accelerate. Again I emphasize that I'm not trying to shift blame. I'm just attempting to highlight the other variables at work that people in the heat of the moment fail to consider.

Back on topic, even though this thread is dated now, I applaud Mr. Newell's efforts to uncover the truths behind some of our governments dealings.
Such topics always have a way of polarizing people into the us against them camps. When really it should be a lightening rod that draws us all together against a common foe.