Moose detection distances on highways at night.
Publication Date: 01-JAN-06
Publication Title: Alces
Format: Online
Author: Rodgers, Arthur R. ; Robins, Patrick J.

Read this article now
Try Goliath Business News - FREE!

You can view this article PLUS...

  • Over 5 million business articles
  • Hundreds of the most trusted magazines, newswires, and journals (see list)
  • Premium business information that is timely and relevant
  • Unlimited Access

Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 7 Days!

Tell Me More   Terms and Conditions

Purchase this article for $4.95

Description

ABSTRACT: Moose-vehicle collisions are a serious concern in many areas of North America and Fennoscandia. in northwestern Ontario, more than 400 moose-vehicle collisions occur annually, and 26 fatal collisions have occurred over the last 10 years. To avoid colliding with a moose, a motorist must: (1) successfully see or detect the presence of the animal; (2) determine whether or not the moose poses a threat requiring evasive action; (3) determine what action, if necessary, is required; and (4) implement the action. Whereas perception-reaction times of motorists have been studied in detail, allowing calculations of post-detection distances travelled by a vehicle at different speeds, distances at which a moose can first be seen by a driver at night are unknown. We used a full-size moose decoy to determine the distances at which an animal could be detected at night when it was positioned on each shoulder and in the middle of a highway using high and low beam headlamp settings of different vehicles. Overall, we found the mean detection distance across all vehicle types, headlamp settings, and moose decoy locations to be 105 m (range: 23-210 m). Headlamp setting was a significant factor; on the low beam setting, mean detection distance was 74 m and on the high beam setting it was 137 m. Moose decoy location was also important; combining the data for both headlamp settings, mean detection distances were 89 m, 93 m, and 133 m for the left, right, and centre positions, respectively. There was no relationship between headlamp height of different vehicles and moose detection distance. Comparing our results with previously known perception-reaction times of motorists, we determined that drivers travelling at night in excess of about 70 km/h are very likely to be overdriving the illumination capabilities of their headlamps for moose encounters. For drivers using a low beam headlamp setting, the maximum safe speed drops to about 60 km/h and on high beam setting, rises to about 80-90 km/h. These results suggest that along highway corridors where collisions with motor vehicles present a serious threat to public safety and may have significant impacts on local moose populations, speed limits should be set no higher than 70 km/h at night.

ALCES VOL. 42:75-87 (2006)

Key words: Alces alces, detection distance, moose-vehicle collisions, MVCs, Ontario, visibility distance

**********

Collisions between moose (Alces alces) and motor vehicles are a serious concern in many areas of North America and Fennoscandia (Grenier 1973, Child and Stuart 1987, Child et al. 1991, Del Frate and Spraker 1991, Lavsund and Sandegren 1991, McDonald 1991, Oosenbrug et al. 1991, Schwartz and Bartley 1991, Child 1998, Joyce and Mahoney 2001, Lavsund et al. 2003, Seiler 2003, Timmermann and Rodgers 2005). At least 3,000 moose-vehicle collisions occur annually across North America (Child 1998); a highly conservative estimate since many accidents are not reported and most jurisdictions do not maintain accurate records (Child and Stuart 1987, Romin and Bissonette 1996, Sullivan and Messmer 2003, Transport Canada 2003). In northwestern Ontario alone, more than 400 moose-vehicle collisions were reported in 2002 (Staff Sergeant R. Beatty, Ontario Provincial Police, unpublished data 2004). These accidents injure, cripple, and kill considerable numbers of moose and can result in substantial property damage, human injury, and death; 20% of moose-vehicle collisions result in injuries with a 0.5% human fatality rate (Garrett and Conway 1999, Transport Canada 2003) and 26 human fatalities have resulted from collisions between vehicles and wildlife in northwestern Ontario over the last 10 years (Transport Canada 2003). The economic costs associated with moose-vehicle collisions include the material loss of vehicles, human injuries (ambulances, medical expenses, disability payments), human fatalities (life insurance, funeral expenses), call-out costs for police, veterinarians, and wildlife officials to deal with injured or dead moose, loss of meat and hunting opportunities, and business/societal costs of transportation delays (Seiler 2003, Timmermann and Rodgers 2005); at an average cost of CDN$4,500 per accident, including only vehicle damage and loss of meat value (Transport Canada 2003), the economic cost of reported moose-vehicle collisions is at least CDN $13,500,000 annually in North America.

Notwithstanding the potentially severe social and economic consequences of moose-vehicle collisions, these accidents can directly reduce moose population numbers locally or affect their productivity through alteration of sex and age ratios (Leopold 1933, Peterson 1955, Child 1998). In North America, moose mortalities resulting from collisions with vehicles correspond to about 4% of the annual allowable moose harvest, ranging from 0.3% in Manitoba to 196% (i.e., almost double the annual allowable harvest) in New Hampshire (Child 1998). Of 1,673 non-hunting moose mortalities recorded in northeastern Ontario over a 10-year period (1983-1991), 48% were attributed to motor-vehicle collisions; total incidental fatalities were almost double the combined losses to predation, subsistence harvest, poachers, and unknown causes (Child 1998). Clearly, there is good reason to consider the importance of moose-vehicle collisions in the development of sustainable moose population management programs and the setting of harvest objectives. Moreover, in areas where collisions with motor vehicles may have significant impacts on local moose populations, additional management actions are necessary to reduce the risks and costs of accidents.

A wide range of measures to reduce moose-vehicle collisions have been applied in various jurisdictions, with greater or lesser degrees of success, including; public education programs (e.g., pamphlets, posters, bumper stickers, newspaper advertising, radio and television notices), habitat modification to make roadways unattractive to moose and/or create high quality habitat in areas away from highway corridors, vegetation management to widen transportation routes and improve roadside visibility, adjustments of travel speed, improved lighting and signage, construction of physical structures (i.e., fencing, one-way gates, underpasses/overpasses), reflective mirrors and ultrasonic warning devices, ultraviolet (UV) headlamps, and, more recently, development of intelligent transportation systems (e.g., microwave radar, infrared images, fibre-optic grating, seismic sensors, thermal imaging) (Child 1998, Forman et al. 2003, JHWF 2003, Transport Canada 2003, Timmermann and Rodgers 2005). Of these, properly maintained fencing appears to be the most effective, but is impractical for extensive use because of high installation and maintenance costs (Lavsund and Sandegren 1991, Schwartz and Bartley 1991, Forman et al. 2003, JHWF 2003, Transport Canada 2003). Alternatively, a combination of vegetation management and traffic controls may provide a more practical long-term solution (Schwartz and Bartley 1991, Child 1998). However, management of vegetation may only provide temporary reductions in moose-vehicle collisions and may actually increase the risk of accidents if not maintained to limit the growth of early seral vegetation that may attract moose to highway corridors (Child 1998). Regulating vehicle speed, on the other hand, is inexpensive to implement and maintain relative to other measures.

Most moose-vehicle collisions occur between 1800-0200 hrs on straight and relatively fiat stretches of 2-lane highways with elevated speed limits and traffic volumes, particularly...



More articles from Alces
Distinguished Moose Biologist--past recipients., January 01, 2006
Distinguished Moose Biologist--Award criteria., January 01, 2006
Complexity and information gaps in recovery planning for moose (alces ..., January 01, 2006
History, status, and hunter harvest of moose in Washington state., January 01, 2006
Long-distance dispersal and population trends of moose in the central ..., January 01, 2006

Looking for additional articles?
Click here to search our database of over 3 million articles.