Scotland dva
- Thread starter 6pointer
- Start date
That's a very low figure, considering the amount of dead deer you see at the side of a road, never mind the ones that manage to remove themselves so far and die under a bush, although still extremely upsetting for the families involved.
There would be no way of preventing these accidents, impossible to secure roads to that extent. What I do see though is an increase in preventative measures taking place. Long stretches (A9 I'm on about here) having a fence at the road side, but what may happen as a result of this, is when the deer reach the end of the fence they will then cross, reducing the danger from the fenced area, but moving the danger to another area.
I wonder if a document showing how many vehicle deaths by cattle/horses/sheep etc would be obtainable for a comparison.
TJ
There would be no way of preventing these accidents, impossible to secure roads to that extent. What I do see though is an increase in preventative measures taking place. Long stretches (A9 I'm on about here) having a fence at the road side, but what may happen as a result of this, is when the deer reach the end of the fence they will then cross, reducing the danger from the fenced area, but moving the danger to another area.
I wonder if a document showing how many vehicle deaths by cattle/horses/sheep etc would be obtainable for a comparison.
TJ
Last edited:
ScottishDeer
Well-Known Member
Two DVAs are what are known about and what can be recorded. How many crashes are there where the car is wrapped around a tree in a rural road with no real explanation? Just because only 2 fatalities had deer found at the side of the road doesnt meaning there has only been 2 DVAs.
Taken from SNH report on DVCs
Department of Transport guidelines (DfT, 2009) value the economic cost of human injury traffic accidents across all severities at £ 75,000 per incident; so that the annual estimated economic burden posed by 65 human injury DVCs in Scotland per year would be calculated at £ 4.9 million.
Just a thought!
Taken from SNH report on DVCs
Department of Transport guidelines (DfT, 2009) value the economic cost of human injury traffic accidents across all severities at £ 75,000 per incident; so that the annual estimated economic burden posed by 65 human injury DVCs in Scotland per year would be calculated at £ 4.9 million.
Just a thought!
About 141 people die in the UK each year while putting on their trousers. Perspective is a wonderful thing, and something that seems lacking in some quarters.
I came close to getting killed by a deer whilst beating I was standing on the edge of some maize around 5ft tall whilst the beaters were walking towards me two roe spikers came bounding out of it they went just either side of my shoulders I have no doubt in my mind that had I been 12 inches either side they would have hit me straight in the head pretty scarey to be honest but got no sympathy from the lads that's for sure
6pointer
Well-Known Member
C N So you believe all you read do you lol and i wounder how many deer get blamed for accidents when it could be any number of animals. £75,000 per accident is a load of crap and they know it. Propaganda spin and lies that's all we have had from the deer sector over the last few years.
If you thnk people are really stupid cut and paste from the SNH crap.
Here is an extract from an email i got back after contacting insurance companies my self.
DR Jochen is the chap that did the reasurch for SNH.
The broad 'average claim cost' of £1350 per claim offered based on the sample of Fortis Insurance records , changes very little irrespective whether considering all UK claims or merely those for Scotland. On average among our samples of over 5000 insurance records obtained from just one insurance company (Fortis ...now named Ageas) over the years, around 18% occur in Scotland and most of the remainder in England , with less than 1% in Wales). That greatest numbers occur in England is unsurprising, as total traffic volume in England is close to 4-fold that carried on Scottish roads.
If you thnk people are really stupid cut and paste from the SNH crap.
Here is an extract from an email i got back after contacting insurance companies my self.
DR Jochen is the chap that did the reasurch for SNH.
The broad 'average claim cost' of £1350 per claim offered based on the sample of Fortis Insurance records , changes very little irrespective whether considering all UK claims or merely those for Scotland. On average among our samples of over 5000 insurance records obtained from just one insurance company (Fortis ...now named Ageas) over the years, around 18% occur in Scotland and most of the remainder in England , with less than 1% in Wales). That greatest numbers occur in England is unsurprising, as total traffic volume in England is close to 4-fold that carried on Scottish roads.
Last edited:
pitiliedon
Well-Known Member
It does seem odd that deer related RTA's in addition to over munched SSI's were one of the main sticks SNH/DCS used to beat the deer sector with and push for reduced numbers. I also seem to remember the figures quoted being skewed by roe/fallow collisions from some of the southern deer parks yet we were to reduce the deer up here? I wonder if it's helped any?
Also i know i'm not the only one to bend a car while avoiding a non-existant deer spotted at the last minute ,with the advantage of Beer-o-vision!
Also i know i'm not the only one to bend a car while avoiding a non-existant deer spotted at the last minute ,with the advantage of Beer-o-vision!
ScottishDeer
Well-Known Member
Fair points, Never thought of it that way.
Pitiliedon, I can't comment on how dcs used that data but agree it should be looked at area specific.
Pitiliedon, I can't comment on how dcs used that data but agree it should be looked at area specific.
Dan Gliballs
Well-Known Member
Our Deer Group are working alongside SNH, Dept of Transport and the Northern Constabulary to monitor the DVC's along the A830. (i say DVC's as they are now classed as "collisions" not accidents! The same way an RTA is now an RTC! Apparently accidents dont happen any more?)
Hopefully we can come up with a solution that suits ALL parties.
We lose iro 35-40 deer per year on our stretch, the majority being Stags in the winter.
The problem with previous figures is that the deer got the blame for almost all the accidents, (its an easy get out clause aint it?) yet nobody actually checked whether it was true, the numbers collated over the years werent accurate, figures were coming in from the Police, the Roads Depts and from Estates, many carcasses will have been double, maybe even treble counted.
Hopefully now with the data we are gathering as a Deer Group we will get and more accurate number.
Hopefully we can come up with a solution that suits ALL parties.
We lose iro 35-40 deer per year on our stretch, the majority being Stags in the winter.
The problem with previous figures is that the deer got the blame for almost all the accidents, (its an easy get out clause aint it?) yet nobody actually checked whether it was true, the numbers collated over the years werent accurate, figures were coming in from the Police, the Roads Depts and from Estates, many carcasses will have been double, maybe even treble counted.
Hopefully now with the data we are gathering as a Deer Group we will get and more accurate number.
Last edited:
Tamus
Well-Known Member
I've been thinking about this thread all day... Ok...a few brain cells take a long time to process much.
To my mind the figure quoted must definitely be wrong.
We simply cannot know how many tragedies have arisen through a well meaning public vainly attempting to avoid collision with and injury to such beautiful and iconic animals as deer. My own wife is more or less steady around all game and yet she nearly crashed travelling down the very twisty "clyde-side" road, when a roe buck came crashing out of the roadside hedge and jumped across her bonnet, several years back, during the rut. Our two kids were in the car at the time. They might all so easily have perished. How many unexplained road accidents and deaths have actually arisen in similar circumstances? ... we can probably never know.
I suspect in reality many deaths have occurred and the deer involved were often either unknowingly injured and subsequently died elsewhere themselves or were lucky enough to never be injured at all... and I also suspect the number of such incidents is rising, dramatically, in direct proportion to the explosion in urban and peri-urban deer numbers. I also believe that ultimately there is only one truly effective safeguard against much greater tragedy. Sadly, most male deer must be introduced to birth control techniques. It's for the greater good of all concerned.
To my mind the figure quoted must definitely be wrong.
We simply cannot know how many tragedies have arisen through a well meaning public vainly attempting to avoid collision with and injury to such beautiful and iconic animals as deer. My own wife is more or less steady around all game and yet she nearly crashed travelling down the very twisty "clyde-side" road, when a roe buck came crashing out of the roadside hedge and jumped across her bonnet, several years back, during the rut. Our two kids were in the car at the time. They might all so easily have perished. How many unexplained road accidents and deaths have actually arisen in similar circumstances? ... we can probably never know.
I suspect in reality many deaths have occurred and the deer involved were often either unknowingly injured and subsequently died elsewhere themselves or were lucky enough to never be injured at all... and I also suspect the number of such incidents is rising, dramatically, in direct proportion to the explosion in urban and peri-urban deer numbers. I also believe that ultimately there is only one truly effective safeguard against much greater tragedy. Sadly, most male deer must be introduced to birth control techniques. It's for the greater good of all concerned.
6pointer
Well-Known Member
Tamus grow a set for Christ sake if there is a death and an animal has bee hit there will be a full investigation and the animal will be named. The problem comes when there is no animal and so foolish person swerves and hits a tree. What animal caused it can only be a guess. Here was me thinking you were a sane educated man lol.I have people in my car trying to stop for pigeon squirrels foxes and some time but very rare in these parts deer. Do the average driver say its Bambi i will swerve or its a badger i will run it over i don't think so. 
Tamus
Well-Known Member
Tamus grow a set for Christ sake if there is a death and an animal has bee hit there will be a full investigation and the animal will be named. The problem comes when there is no animal and so foolish person swerves and hits a tree. What animal caused it can only be a guess. Here was me thinking you were a sane educated man lol.I have people in my car trying to stop for pigeon squirrels foxes and some time but very rare in these parts deer. Do the average driver say its Bambi i will swerve or its a badger i will run it over i don't think so.
So, are you saying, you don't appreciate me saying "the pill" will solve the problem?
.30 cal pills work for me.
craigievarkiller
Well-Known Member
In Scotland (according to Grampian Police) , the total cost to the public purse (999 services, court costs etc etc) for a road fatality is 1.6 million !!!!! .... eye watering
Tamus
Well-Known Member
For anyone reading this thread who thinks that the culling of deer is inhumane and or not required, for any reason... you make at least a "reasonable" financial point for not culling to prevent road traffic accidents.
Even at the £4.9million figure you quote that's a cost of less than a pound per member of the Scottish population. If the first quoted "two deaths in the last ten years" directly attributed to DVAs (or DVCs... wha'..evva) are costed at a grand total of £2,700.00 (as you suggest... and how's my maths so far?) that equates to an average annual cost of £270.00 or a per capita cost something like 0.00513 pence per annum (assuming a current Scottish population of approx 5.255million souls)
However, I think your reasoning is flawed on three counts...
1) The tragic and avoidable loss of any human life is unacceptable.
2) Human life written off on basis of near immeasurably small financial cost is particularly unacceptable
3)The figures you quote are an entirely speculative representation of fact in the matter, and I seriously doubt their veracity. I find that I consider the reality to be far, far worse and this is also, utterly, unacceptable.
Further, there is the very reasonable contention that number of deer, especially the number of Roe deer, in close proximity to a large proportion of the Scottish population, is expanding rapidly and the opportunity for tragedy (tragedy both for the people and the deer involved) is increasing at least in direct proportion to that increase in deer numbers. There are those who would say that as deer population density nears saturation point the opportunity for, and incience of, collision will actually increase exponentially. I think prudent control measures enacted now will prevent such horrendous tragedies in future.
You may also be interested to know, or it may be worth my saying, that: I never for a moment supported the fallacious notion that an unproven (to this day still "unproven") actual, rather than merely hypothetical, link between BSE in cattle and vCJD in humans was justification for the actions taken in that set of circumstances. However, we can plainly see the evidence in the case of deer numbers and the increasing risk of accidents is quite obvious even to the inexpert observer. This increasing and ever more disconcerting risk provides yet one more set of grounds, to add to the existing ones, for applying at least some control measure to deer population numbers... IMHO...
Are you saying I'm wrong?
Gazza
Well-Known Member
Some time back I applied to both the Police and SNH regarding data held in respect of collisions involving deer in West Lothian.
The Police recording system is easily searched but all depends on the info that was input when recorded. eg Swerved to avoid an animal and collided with whatever will not come up if you search deer. Apart from that there was a vast difference from the info held by the Police and that held by SNH. Knowing the road network of West Lothian fairly well and knowing where there are roe deer to be found it is not difficult to guess where there will be the majority of collisions involving deer and this is confirmed by the info obtained from the Police. In the main these collisions concern deer coming from land owned by the Local Authority. Despite having access to this info and with the knowledge that the deer population is increasing in the area as they are not controlled neither the Police, the Local Authority or the SNH have taken any preventative measures. No deer control, no road signage, no fences. It would appear that the authorities who could do something accept that the occassional collision will occur. If a fatality did occur would an insurance company take the land owner/local authority to task for not controlling deer. Perhaps even the SNH who are after all the Government body who have the responsibility through the WANE Bill to ensure that landowners do control deer on their land.
The Police recording system is easily searched but all depends on the info that was input when recorded. eg Swerved to avoid an animal and collided with whatever will not come up if you search deer. Apart from that there was a vast difference from the info held by the Police and that held by SNH. Knowing the road network of West Lothian fairly well and knowing where there are roe deer to be found it is not difficult to guess where there will be the majority of collisions involving deer and this is confirmed by the info obtained from the Police. In the main these collisions concern deer coming from land owned by the Local Authority. Despite having access to this info and with the knowledge that the deer population is increasing in the area as they are not controlled neither the Police, the Local Authority or the SNH have taken any preventative measures. No deer control, no road signage, no fences. It would appear that the authorities who could do something accept that the occassional collision will occur. If a fatality did occur would an insurance company take the land owner/local authority to task for not controlling deer. Perhaps even the SNH who are after all the Government body who have the responsibility through the WANE Bill to ensure that landowners do control deer on their land.
