Canadian wildlife-vehicle collisions: An examination of knowledge and behavior for collision prevention
Author(s): Vanlaar, Barrett, Mainegra Hing, Brown, Robertson
Poster Presentation:
Abstract:
Background:
Given the number of fatal wildlife-vehicle collisions that occur annually, this research was conducted to examine the discrepancy between the knowledge of what to do when encountering wildlife on the road compared to the behavior to avoid a collision. This is important as the results from this research can be used to inform education campaigns that enforce positive behaviors among drivers.
Aims:
This study examines drivers' responses to wildlife on Canadian roads. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that knowledge of what to do when encountering wildlife on the road does not always translate into the appropriate behavior to avoid a collision.
Methods:
Data from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation's (TIRF) 2016 Road Safety Monitor (RSM) and data from TIRF's National Fatality Database from 2000 to 2014 were analyzed to test hypotheses based on the theory of planned behavior (TBP). Logistic regression and piecewise linear regression were used.
Results:
Analyses of the data showed that the prevalence of fatal WVCs has remained relatively consistent, and that the majority of persons killed in WVCs died in crashes that involved large mammals. The majority of fatalities occurred in the summer (182 or 38.4%) and fall (163 or 34.4%). The RSM data revealed that 60.9% [50.5, 70.4] of respondents who previously hit an animal indicated that drivers should slow down and steer straight when confronted with wildlife, while 47.3% [37.1, 57.6] of respondents indicated this was the action they took when they hit wildlife. Comparatively, 59.5% [56.6, 62.4] of respondent who have not hit an animal indicated this was an appropriate response. Additionally, 33.2% [24, 44] of respondents who previously hit an animal indicated that drivers should swerve to avoid a collision with wildlife, while 37.5% [28.2, 47.8] of respondents indicated this was the action they took when they hit wildlife.
Discussion:
Three primary conclusions were made as a result of this research. First, 40.5% of drivers who have not hit wildlife and even 39.1% of those who had, are unaware of what the safest method of WVC prevention is. Second, knowledge of behaviors to avoid a collision – safe and unsafe ones alike – are important predictors of actual behaviors. Third, while a subgroup of drivers may have the knowledge and intention to slow down and steer straight, the perceived control at the time of the event may prevent this from occurring.
Given that TBP is not an all-encompassing behavioral theory, there may be limitations in its use in the analysis. However, TBP is one framework that can be used to interpret the results and provide an explanation as to why knowledge does not always translate into behavior.
Conclusions:
Many drivers are unaware of what the safest method of WVC prevention is. Further, while a subgroup of drivers may have the knowledge and intention to adopt the safest possible behavior, this is does not necessarily translate into the optimal behavior.