






Study Shows Problem of Vehicle-Wildlife Collisions Increasing
Over-Application of Pavement Crack Seal May Be a Hazard to Motorcyclists
Legal Problems: The Liabilities of Roadside Maintenance
Utility Company Must Keep Stored Poles Outside Roadside "Clear Recovery Area"
|
|
Study Shows Problem of Vehicle-Wildlife Collisions Increasing
Calling their article "Vehicle-Animal Crashes: An
Increasing Safety Problem," Warren E. Hughes, A. Reza Saremi, and
Jeffrey F. Paniati wrote about vehicle-wildlife collisions for
the August 1996 issue of the ITE Journal. The authors, all
members of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
reviewed a recent study from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). That study used Highway Safety Information System (HSIS)
data "to gain a better understanding of the magnitude and nature
of the problem [of vehicle-animal crashes] and potential
countermeasures."
The Study
The University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research
Center maintains the HSIS data used in the FHWA study. This
linkable data from California, Illinois, Maine, Michigan,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah, and Washington provides a range
of representative information. FHWA contracts the gathering and
compiling of the data to: "monitor safety trends, study
emerging highway safety issues, conduct highway safety research
and evaluate potential countermeasures."
In the present study, FHWA analyzed the data with the
specific objectives of learning the characteristics of vehicle-
wildlife collisions and determining whether those characteristics
would reveal commonalities that could lead to targeted
countermeasures. The study used HSIS data reported between 1985
and 1990 from the states of Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
and Utah.
Trends
Over seven years, the number of vehicle-wildlife collisions
increased by 69 percent--from 21,470 in 1985 to 36,332 in 1991.
These increases also represented an increase in the total
percentage of all reported crashes that involved a vehicle-
wildlife collision--from 4.7 percent in 1985 to 8.2 percent in
1991. Since the data included only those collisions that someone
reported and that happened on state-maintained highways, these
figures probably significantly understated the problem. While
the data documented that vehicle collisions involved several
types of animal, deer were by far the animal most frequently hit.
Data from this five-state study showed that from 2 to 10
percent of reported vehicle-wildlife collisions resulted in
nonfatal injury to a driver or passengers, and less than 0.1
percent of vehicle-wildlife collisions resulted in one or more
driver or passenger fatalities. Data from the national Fatal
Accident Reporting System revealed that only 0.3 percent of fatal
collisions in 1991 were vehicle-wildlife collisions. This
represented a total of 112 fatal crashes where the first harmful
event was hitting an animal.
The authors offered several theories about the reasons for
these trends. They suggested:
| |
This increase could be a result of continued development and
changing land use patterns, increases in deer populations,
and increases in traffic volume through areas populated by
deer.
|
|
Characteristics of Vehicle-Wildlife Crashes
Most of the reported vehicle-wildlife collisions happened on
rural rather than urban roads. In Maine, this study showed that
about 12 percent of all the crashes reported on two-lane rural
roadways were vehicle-wildlife collisions. In Michigan, that
figure rose to more than 33 percent. By contrast, vehicle-
wildlife crashes made up under 2 percent of all crashes reported
on urban roadways in all five states during the years studied.
Average crash rates were lower where average daily traffic rates
were higher.
In all cases, more collisions with wildlife happened at
night than during daylight hours. Although the figures varied
from state to state, 69 percent to 85 percent of vehicle-wildlife
collisions were at night. Vehicle-animal collisions most
frequently happened between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., with 6:00
p.m. to midnight the second-most-common time span for such
collisions. While data were not available to correlate vehicle-
wildlife collisions with traffic counts at specific times of day,
vehicle-wildlife collisions did represent a disproportionate
percentage of all reported crashes during these two time periods.
November had the highest number of vehicle-wildlife
collisions, and October the second highest. These seasonal peaks
occur because fall is the mating season for deer. Describing
deer behavior during fall months, Gene Mueller wrote in the
Washington Post, "[M]ale deer do inexplicable things and caution
by the usually wary animals is cast to the wind."
Breaking roadways into 0.5 kilometer overlapping sections,
FHWA researchers evaluated the geographical clustering of
vehicle-wildlife collisions on rural roads. They found that few
roadway segments had more than one such collision per year, and
many sections had none. In Michigan, however, 14 percent of the
0.5 km sections averaged more than one vehicle-wildlife crash per
year between 1985 and 1990. Of Michigan's rural roadway
sections, about 3 percent reported more than two vehicle-wildlife
crashes per year during the six-year time span of the study.
Countermeasures
The authors mentioned countermeasures currently used to
reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions:
- advance deer-crossing warning signs;
- management of roadside landscape and vegetation;
- programs to keep animals off roadways (i.e., fences,
underpasses, and interceptive feeding areas);
- measures to control the growth of animal populations;
- roadside reflectors that redirect headlight beams to
create "optical fences" and stop wildlife from crossing
the roadway; and
- deer whistles that mount on vehicles and emit a sound
to scare deer off roads.
Concluding that "no single countermeasure will be able to
address the vehicle-animal crash problem," the authors
recommended testing and using a combination of countermeasures.
They suggested revising policies for installing deer-crossing
signs. Use of these signs should be limited to roadways with a
significant history of vehicle-wildlife collisions. Limited use
would encourage motorists to consider the signs a meaningful
warning. The authors encouraged further evaluation of warning
reflector systems as a "low-cost countermeasure." Moreover, they
looked to sophisticated in-vehicle detection devices being
developed as part of rural intelligent transportation system
applications as a promising countermeasure. Finally,
incorporating information on deer behavior into driver education
programs might help alert motorists about where and when the
danger of vehicle-wildlife collisions is greatest. That
awareness will better prepare drivers to avoid such collisions.
Copyright © 1997 by TranSafety, Inc.
Back to the Road Management Journal Index
|