Sharp rise in fatal road accidents involving animals

maximus otter

Well-Known Member
[h=2]There has been a sharp rise in the number of fatal road accidents involving animals according to the latest figures released by the Department for Transport.[/h]Deer_2028601c.jpg

The DfT said eight people were killed last year, compared with one in 2010 and six during the year before.



Details of the accidents, which took place in rural areas, are sketchy but are believed to have involved deer or sheep.



“We have pointed out that these animals do cover large areas of the country,” said Andrew Howard, the AA’s head of road safety.

“If you hit them, you should not assume that you are going to escape scot-free.”



Last year fatalities were reported by police in North Yorkshire, Humberside, Warwickshire, Norfok, Thames Valley, Wiltshire, Strathclyde and northern Scotland.


It is estimated that 450 people are injured in accidents involving deer, which in turn kill more than 40,000 of the animals.
In recent weeks a 29-year-old man was killed in Angus after his motorcycle collided with a deer in northern Scotland and only last week three members of the same family were killed when their car swerved to avoid a deer and hit a tree.


Jochen Langbein, who runs the Deer Collisions website, believes the number of accidents is under-reported.


“If the car hits a dead animal then it is classed as an object and not recorded.”


In a study for the Highways Agency, Mr Langbeln found that 65 per cent of deer-related accidents took place in the South East and eastern England.


Up to 13 per cent of accidents involving deer took place on trunk roads with certain stretches of the M3, M27 in Hampshire and the parts of the M11, A12 and M25 being particularly vulnerable.


According to his report there are at least 350 human injuries a year which, he estimates, costs the economy £24 million.


He calculates at least 11,500 vehicles in England alone will incur significant accidents because of collisions with deer, adding a futher £16 million to the cost to the economy.


In addition he has recommended detailed research into more than 50 deer collision hotspots, to see what can be done to reduce the number of accidents.

Sharp rise in fatal road accidents involving animals - Telegraph

maximus otter
 
Well this might not go down well but shows the deer down south are not being properly managed. Most areas were accidents occur have deer over 10x higher than what the areas should hold this is down to two many acres being manage for profit and not for sustainable deer management. It is also the reason why the southern areas oxford Norfolk etc get hit hard by poachers. But i am sure it will not belong before England follow the lead of Scotland and make each landowner responsible for his own deer and accidents will be blamed to landowners.
 
Well this might not go down well but shows the deer down south are not being properly managed. Most areas were accidents occur have deer over 10x higher than what the areas should hold this is down to two many acres being manage for profit and not for sustainable deer management. It is also the reason why the southern areas oxford Norfolk etc get hit hard by poachers. But i am sure it will not belong before England follow the lead of Scotland and make each landowner responsible for his own deer and accidents will be blamed to landowners.

Whoa there cowboy.... "accidents blamed on landowners"... In the normal course of events you can only really "collide" with a deer by driving into it. Drivers are responsible for how they drive and should adjust their speed so as to be able to stop in the distance which they can see to be clear ahead... If they can't stop, they are driving too fast. You know that.

Deer are wild animals and belong to no one until taken. So, just how do you attribute blame to any landowner? ie. How do you attribute blame to a landowner for motorists collisions with wild deer? ... Clearly, farmed animals are a rather different matter, but only in "fenced" landscapes.

Landowners have only recently been made responsible for recording and reporting details which they previously did not have to record and where deer are known to be present may have to subscribe to management plans. As far as I know, that is the limit of their new "responsiblities". "Liabilty" for wild deer is a new one on me... please explain.
 
Last edited:
Could be wrong here but I'm pretty certain when i was in Finland last year i was told by the locals that when an accident involving a Moose or deer happens, the land owner adjacent to the accident is held partly responsible for not managing his herd properly and has to pay part costs for compensation and / or vehicle repair.

Seems fair enough to me, even as a land owner, if you can't be arsed to manage your deer properly why shouldn't you be held partially responsible? Sure, deer cross boundaries and roads, but you can and indeed should try to keep numbers down!
 
Could be wrong here but I'm pretty certain when i was in Finland last year i was told by the locals that when an accident involving a Moose or deer happens, the land owner adjacent to the accident is held partly responsible for not managing his herd properly and has to pay part costs for compensation and / or vehicle repair.

Seems fair enough to me, even as a land owner, if you can't be arsed to manage your deer properly why shouldn't you be held partially responsible? Sure, deer cross boundaries and roads, but you can and indeed should try to keep numbers down!

How is that fair?

I could shoot every deer that lives on my farm... in fact I think I may just have done that a couple of weeks ago. I will now be at pains to report that officially in last month's returns.

Does that put me in the clear if a "neighbours" deer come onto my land, then jumps back off in front of speeding motorist?

Does the direction the deer is travelling in have any relevance?

What if I am managing deer but no-one around me is?

Am I also to be held responsible if a fox, hare, rabbit or any other animal steps into the way of a motorist who then crashes trying to take evasive action?
 
Tamus you are correct never drive fast than your ability to stop or faster than you can see clear ahead. But what i believe will happen in areas of high DVC,s Landowners will be told to sort out the problem and told there responsibility if they do not act then the deer will be removed forcefully. The DI boys will move in and lower the number dramatically.
May i also say Tamus the areas were most accident occur are already well known. These areas the deer have been left to get to unhealthy high numbers normally for profit with out thought to the welfare of the deer or the local community . Time the English lads realise that there is more to managing deer than the foreigners wallet.
 
Well this might not go down well but shows the deer down south are not being properly managed. Most areas were accidents occur have deer over 10x higher than what the areas should hold this is down to two many acres being manage for profit and not for sustainable deer management. It is also the reason why the southern areas oxford Norfolk etc get hit hard by poachers. But i am sure it will not belong before England follow the lead of Scotland and make each landowner responsible for his own deer and accidents will be blamed to landowners.[/QUOTE


I have to agree especially where land owners have huge numbers of fallow and will not allow any shooting what so ever, the area mentioned A12/M25 especially at junction 28 has huge numbers both sides but no control or if there is any? the population gets larger and larger each year and is a dangerous spot for drivers and deer surely some responsibility should be put on the land owners to reduce the numbers.
 
Good point, where would liability end if that was the case? I guess what I mean is if a heavy population of deer on someone's ground blatantly isn't being managed and its caused an accident or even multiple accidents said land owner should be held in some way accountable. If you're good enough to own the land you should be good enough to manage it properly - deer included.
 
Tamus you are correct never drive fast than your ability to stop or faster than you can see clear ahead. But what i believe will happen in areas of high DVC,s Landowners will be told to sort out the problem and told there responsibility if they do not act then the deer will be removed forcefully. The DI boys will move in and lower the number dramatically.
May i also say Tamus the areas were most accident occur are already well known. These areas the deer have been left to get to unhealthy high numbers normally for profit with out thought to the welfare of the deer or the local community . Time the English lads realise that there is more to managing deer than the foreigners wallet.

I accept some people probably need to pull their fingers out.

But.... You know how law and liability works. Laws may get brought in to deal with a specific problem but of course they then apply universally... and if the notion of "landowner liabilty" gets going we'll all have to pay for insurance policies to cover that liabilty. What chance do I have to get that cost back? Can I start charging motorists for using roads next to my land? And, almost certainly, some land will be ininsurable because lots of animals cross the roads there and frequently get involved in causing speeding drivers to crash. You are not likely to have a dangerous collision with a UK type of wild animal at low speed... are you?

Round about here the evidence is that most vehicle collisions with wildlife actually involve badgers. Of course I cannot do anything to "control" them. Not allowed to tamper with them in any way...

No... not happy. Not happy at all at the notion of being responsible for drivers and their mishaps with wild animals.

It's also an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a wild animal... if I'm not even driving the vehicle I can't accept the reasoning that I'd be liable for causing that suffering that would arise in a collision... simple as ... as they say.

Start fining the motorists for harming wildlife... the law is already there.
 
I live in an area where the deer are everywhere. Last night a good friend plowed his pickup truck into a large 4x4 whitetail that jumped onto the road from the ditch. It did about $5K in damage. The reason he didn't get hurt? He knew enough not to swerve to try to avoid it. Most fatalities/injuries that occur in this situation are from the driver trying to avoid the animal. Student drivers are always taught to let the vehicle do the work and deal with a bruised car instead of a broken neck.~Muir
 
Well this might not go down well but shows the deer down south are not being properly managed. Most areas were accidents occur have deer over 10x higher than what the areas should hold this is down to two many acres being manage for profit and not for sustainable deer management. It is also the reason why the southern areas oxford Norfolk etc get hit hard by poachers. But i am sure it will not belong before England follow the lead of Scotland and make each landowner responsible for his own deer and accidents will be blamed to landowners.
Down south we most probably have 100 times more traffic than up north, have to agree on people buyin up vast tracks of land for trouphy shooting, but that's what the customers want if you read some of the threads on here. People making a living out of a hobby, nothing to do with deer control however you dress it up.
 
Back
Top