Chapter 2 Countermeasure Summaries

Chapter 2 Countermeasure Summaries

CHAPTER 2 COUNTERMEASURE SUMMARIES The DVCIC staff has reviewed and summarized a significant amount of deer-vehicle crash (DVC) countermeasure literature (see toolbox bibliography) to complete the detailed summaries in this chapter. Documents also continue to be retrieved and reviewed as their existence becomes apparent. When necessary, and if possible, updates and addendums to this toolbox will be posted at www.deercrash.com. This website also contains a much longer list of DVC and DVC-related documents. The different categories of DVC countermeasure literature found during the creation of this toolbox were described in Chapter 1. If available for a particular countermeasure the content of this toolbox focuses on the evaluation results documented in governmental reports, peer- reviewed journals articles, and/or papers from professional society conference proceedings. This chapter provides a detailed and realistic summary of the current state-of-the- knowledge with respect to the effectiveness of 16 individual DVC countermeasures. However, the amount and quality of the literature that exists for each potential DVC countermeasure varies dramatically. Each countermeasure discussion in this chapter has been written as an individual summary with its own introduction, detailed literature review, and conclusions. The length of each summary is related to the amount of information currently available and the complexity of the evaluations completed. DVC summaries for the following countermeasures are presented in this chapter: · In-Vehicle Technologies; · Deer Whistles; · Roadway Lighting; · Speed Limit Reduction; · Deicing Salt Alternatives; · Deer-Flagging Models; · Intercept Feeding; 9 · Deer Crossing Signs and Technologies; · Roadside Reflectors and Mirrors; · Repellants; · Hunting or Herd Reduction; · Public Information and Education; · Roadside Vegetation Management; · Exclusionary Fencing; · Roadway Maintenance, Design, and Planning Policies; and · Wildlife Crossings. The experimental design, results, and/or documentation of the studies summarized are evaluated with respect to accepted research practices, and their general usefulness, validity and transferability. In addition, if relevant and appropriate, information about the installation (e.g., physical characteristics) and maintenance of a countermeasure is discussed. The state-of-the-knowledge related to the DVC-reduction effectiveness of each countermeasure continues to evolve and slowly increase. Additional countermeasures are also constantly being suggested, and it is expected that the length of this list will increase as the use and evaluation of these measures is documented. 10 IN-VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES The availability of in-vehicle technologies that might help drivers avoid a deer-vehicle crash (DVC) has grown in recent years. The design details of these technologies vary, but the documentation reviewed indicates that most appear to combine sensing devices and displays. Their primary objective is to show the driver where an animal is located (i.e., enhance their vision), typically at night, far enough away to avoid a DVC. Some concerns do exist about the effect and usefulness of these devices as they are currently designed. There is the potential for false or multiple indications that could impact their effectiveness (e.g., much like false alarms from radar detectors). In addition, with the introduction of any new technologies that interface with the driver of a vehicle there are always concerns about driver compliancy, information overload, and/or distraction. Literature Summary Two in-vehicle “vision” systems have been deployed and others are being developed. Documented studies that evaluate the DVC reduction effectiveness of these specific devices and/or their interaction with the driver were not found. However, these technologies are new and limited in their use, and it is unlikely that a properly designed DVC reduction study have even been possible. It is expected that the viability of offering these technologies in vehicles (i.e., whether they would appeal to the consumer) has been studied by the manufacturers. For example, Honeywell™ and Raytheon Commercial Infrared™ have partnered to develop and market Bendix XVision™ (1). This infrared system is designed specifically for trucks and buses to improve driver night visibility (1). The Cadillac Night Vision™ system also uses infrared technologies to increase the night vision of drivers that have purchased the technology option (2). The cost of this option in a new Cadillac DeVille™ is currently about $2,250 (2). Conclusions No published studies were found that evaluated the usefulness or DVC reduction capabilities of these technologies. However, as previously mentioned, the application of these technologies in the general vehicle population is very recent and the ability to do this type of large-scale study probably has not been possible. The results from a DVC 11 reduction evaluation of these technologies as they are used by a range of drivers would be of interest. Their potential to reduce the number of DVCs (if properly used) does exist. Currently, the cost of in-vehicle vision systems is high, but it may decrease if demand and competition increases. References 1. Transportation News: Infrared Night Vision System Lets Drivers See and Avoid Danger. http://www.honeywell.com/en/trans/announcement_details.jsp?rowID=2 &docID31&catID=10. Accessed March 2002. 2. Cadillac.com - Models - DeVille - Safety & Security. http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/deville/nightvision.html#more. Accessed March 2002. 12 DEER WHISTLES There are a number of deer-vehicle crash (DVC) countermeasure devices sold to the general public that indicate they use “ultrasonic” noise to alert deer to the approach of a vehicle. These devices are commonly referred to as “deer whistles”. Deer whistles have existed for a relatively long time (they were introduced in the late 1970s) and have even been distributed to drivers by some insurance companies for a reduced fee rate. The primary objective of deer whistle devices is to alert a deer by producing a noise that draws their attention and reduces the risk of a DVC occurring (e.g., the deer freezes or flees). The manufacturers of these devices, for the most part, indicate that they produce ultrasonic noise in the range of 16 to 20 kilohertz (kHz). The devices reportedly produce this noise (which is outside the range of human hearing) as air passes through them. Typically, the manufacturers indicate the device operates on vehicles traveling 30 miles per hour (mph) or faster, and that the ultrasonic noise can be heard up to about a 1/4-mile. More recently, some noise-related devices have also been introduced, but are not air- activated. These devices are electronically powered and can be designed to produce the manufacturer specified level of noise at any vehicle speed. No studies or independent analysis of just electronic devices was found in the literature. A few studies, however, were discovered that considered the effectiveness of air-activated deer whistles and the hearing capabilities of deer (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). One of these studies also included electronic whistles, but the possible difference in effectiveness between them and air- activated whistles was not the focus of the investigation (3). These studies are discussed in the following paragraphs. Literature Summary The DVC reduction effectiveness of deer whistles has not been vigorously studied. Much of the literature reviewed consisted of non-scientifically defined anecdotal evidence as its basis for an effectiveness discussion. However, there have been some very specific declarations made about the DVC reduction effectiveness of deer whistles based on this type of approach. The scientific validity of this type of claim was considered questionable by the authors of this toolbox and they are not repeated. 13 Another method that has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of deer whistles appears to include the comparison of safety or crash data for a group of governmental agency vehicles (typically one to several hundred) before and after the device was installed. Typically, the time period considered before and after the devices were installed was months, years, or not documented. A general discussion of the results from these types of studies is briefly described in the following text. The primary weakness of this research is typically the small sample size, length of time period considered, and general lack of control comparison. Published documents that focus on the effectiveness of deer whistles and also describe the study design and results were found in only a few instances. These studies are discussed in this summary. An analysis that considers the hearing capabilities of white- tailed deer is also summarized. Before-and-After Evaluations Some before-and-after studies have attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of air- activated deer whistles. The details of few of these studies have been properly documented. One study in Onodaga County, New York was documented (1). The Sheriff’s Department in the county mounted deer whistles on 55 patrol cars (1). The documentation for the devices indicated that they were supposed to activate at vehicle speeds above 30 mph and be heard by animals at a distance of 400 yards (1). In an October/November 1988 newsletter article about the devices it was reported that only two patrol cars had struck deer since 1986 and that five others had sustained minor damage avoiding collisions with deer

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    200 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us