1 / 37

Deer-Vehicle Collisions in Southeastern Michigan: Environmental and Human Dimensions

This study examines the environmental and human factors contributing to deer-vehicle collisions in southeastern Michigan. It identifies key factors affecting collision frequency and develops predictive models. Management recommendations are provided to mitigate collisions.

lena
Download Presentation

Deer-Vehicle Collisions in Southeastern Michigan: Environmental and Human Dimensions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Environmental and human dimensions of deer-vehicle collisions in southeastern Michigan. Shawn J. Riley Alix Marcoux Krishnan Sudharsan Brent Rudolph

  2. Acknowledgements • Michigan Department of Transportation • The Institute for Public Policy and Social Research • Michigan Deer Crash Coalition • AAA Michigan

  3. DVCs in Michigan 80,000 Annually • 64-68K DVCs (reported) • 1,500+ injuries • 10+ fatalities 70,000 60,000 50,000 Number of DVCs 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year

  4. Conceptual Model + DEER LANDSCAPE DRIVER

  5. Environmental Dimension

  6. Objectives • Identify and assess environmental factors affecting the frequency and rate of DVCs in southern Michigan • Develop predictive models that explain why DVCs occur on the landscape • Provide management recommendations on how environmental factors may be managed to alleviate DVCs based on knowledge gained in objectives 1 and 2

  7. Study Area Detroit

  8. OAKLAND WASHTENAW MONROE DVCs in the study area Y2000-2003 10% of total crashes 3.5% of total crashes 6.4% of total crashes

  9. Methods • 1999-2001 DVC locations (SEMCOG) • 450 random DVC points selected from each county (150 each from 1999 to 2001) • 800 meter radius buffers built (502 acres) • 450 random non-DVC points at least 800 meters away from DVC points placed on roads • 800 meter radius buffers built • Buffers clipped from 2001 land cover classification

  10. Model Results

  11. MONROE MONROE

  12. WASHTENAW WASHTENAW

  13. OAKLAND OAKLAND

  14. Human dimensions: driver characteristics, knowledge, and attitudes related to DVCs

  15. UD-10 Crash Report Data • 186,930 collisions reported • 9,790 (5.2%) involved deer • Rate: 1.8 – 5.3 DVCs/1,000 drivers

  16. Accident Timing Characteristics 8:00 0:00 4:00 24:00 16:00 20:00 12:00 Time of Day 80 1400 70 1200 Non-DVCs 60 DVCs 1000 50 800 40 Collisions per 100,000 drivers 600 30 400 20 200 10 0 0 Time of day

  17. Month of Year:DVCs vs Non-DVCs per 100K drivers 4000 180 160 DVCs 140 3000 120 Collisions per 100,000 drivers 100 2000 Non-DVCs 80 60 1000 40 20 0 0 Oct July Jan Aug Nov Feb Dec April May Sept June March

  18. Driver Characteristics Gender 70 Male Female 60 50 40 Percentage 30 20 10 0 DVCs Non-DVCs Licensed drivers

  19. Driver Characteristics Age & Gender Average DVC driver age = 39.9 years 6 Male 4 Female DVCs as a % of all accidents 2 0 <20 35-39 55-59 65-69 75-79 25-29 45-49 Driver age (Years)

  20. Survey Research Deer-Vehicle Collision in Michigan: A Survey of Your Views

  21. Survey Response Rate • 3,681 surveys sent • 266 Ineligible surveys • 1,653 Responses • 48.4% Response Male Female 600 500 400 Number of Respondents 300 200 100 0 Monroe Oakland Washtenaw

  22. Gender 46.2% Male 52.7% Female 1.1% No Response Age average 47.9 years Years in County average 23 years Level of Education 22.1% High School or less 36.3% Some College 21.9% 4-year college degree 19.7% graduate/professional degree Respondent Demographics

  23. DVC Involvement • 284 (12%) respondents were a driver in a DVC • 196 of the DVCs occurred within the last 5 years • 64% of drivers were male • 18% of drivers involved in at least one DVC within the past 5 years have had more than one • 102 respondents involved as passenger • Only 1 injury was reported

  24. Percentage of respondents who reported past involvement in a DVC 30 25 20 Percentage 15 10 5 0 Urban Suburban Rural Area where respondent lived

  25. DVC Non-reporting Rates • 53.7 % did not report their DVC to the police • 71.5% thought it wasn’t necessary • 15.4% experienced no damage to deer and/or car • 47.9 % did not report their DVC to their insurance co. • 37.3% thought it wasn’t necessary • 27.3% experienced little or no damage • 13.6% thought it would affect insurance rates • 10.0% thought they did not have the correct coverage

  26. Deer and Drivers (cont.) • 77.9% think DVCs are a serious problem in Michigan ( Drivers involved in DVCs (85.5%) were more likely to perceive DVCs as a serious problem than those who had no prior involvement ) • 78.6% of respondents involved in a DVC believed it could not have been prevented

  27. Concerns that respondents had about DVCs • Losing control of car while swerving to avoid a deer • Injuring others • Cost of car and property damage • Being injured • Insurance rate increase • Injuring or killing deer • Cost of repairing other property damage • Medical bills

  28. Behavioral Intentions • A majority of respondents expressed a willingness to slow down by 10mph if it would significantly reduce their chances of DVC involvement • Drivers who had been in a DVC were more likely to slow down in response to a deer crossing sign

  29. Calculating Mean Knowledge Scores • Answered a series of 5 questions • Score between 0 – 10 • 0 having no knowledge and 10 being most knowledgeable • 20-30% were unsure about: • Peak DVC times • Peak DVC season • Type of road DVCs occur on

  30. Mean Knowledge Scores of Respondents • Respondents previously involved in DVCs had higher mean scores • Men had higher scores than women • People from rural areas had higher scores

  31. Driver Attitudes of Current Deer Population Levels • 48.0% want deer population kept the same • 22.7% want deer population reduced • 21.4% are unsure • 8.0% want deer population increased • Drivers involved in DVCs were more likely to want reduced deer populations than those who had no DVC

  32. Drivers’ Preferred Education Channels (Respondents could choose more than 1 option)

  33. Dispelling myths • DVCs are not random • There ARE actions that can be taken to reduce DVCs • “Place” matters!

  34. Management Implications • Underreporting rate means that there in southern Michigan DVCs may be as great as 2X current estimate. • Need to educate about specific risk factors • E.g., Season, road types, deer activity patterns, rural - urban risks • Need to communicate that DVCs can be avoided. They are not “unavoidable.” • Need to report? Drivers don’t know why. . .

  35. Research Needs • Calculations of individual driver risks under different situations. We assessed the risk of DVCs, but not the individual risk to individual drivers. • Assessment of fine scale factors, such as sight distances, topography, vegetation management, etc.

  36. Research Needs • Education is always suggested, but. . . Seldom a specific message, seldom a specific approach … and, Seldom evaluated … • Specific information and education campaigns to reach “highest risk” populations, e.g., rural male commuters. Sources and channels to affect driver behavior?

  37. - Thank you - For more information: www.fw.msu.edu/people/riley/

More Related