Original source · versioned page text
2019-03-12 P&E Agenda - Item 5 - Attachment 2 - Koala Infrastructure & Feasibility Report
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (31.9 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
3.1.5. Wildlife Warning Reflectors Wildlife warning reflectors, manufactured and distributed under the brands Swareflex (Austria) and Strieter- Lite (USA), were designed to scare ungulates from roadways at night by reflecting light from the headlights of approaching vehicles into the eyes of animals on the roadside. These reflectors have been popular in Europe and North America and there has been interest in investigating their application in Australia (Ramp & Croft 2006). The ability of wildlife warning reflectors to elicit a response relies on the extent of the visual field of the target fauna species (Ramp & Croft 2006). An understanding of the colour spectrum visible to the species is required to ensure that the reflected light can be seen. Efficacy Two studies in the early 1990s reported positive results from trials on the Proserpine rock wallaby in Queensland and along State Highway 18 in New South Wales (Ramp & Croft 2006). However, the Brieger et al. (2016) systematic literature review (53 references) and re-analyses of the original animal-vehicle collision data indicated that light-reflecting devices did not significantly reduce the number of animal-vehicle collisions. Ramp and Croft (2006) examined under controlled captive conditions the behavioural responses of two representative species of macropodids to light from headlights with and without the addition of wildlife warning reflectors. The study investigated whether the reflected light evoked a sufficient alerting or evading behavioural response in the macropodids that would result in fewer collisions with vehicles and failed to record such a response. 3.2. Soft Infrastructure – Modifying Motorist Behaviour High-speed traffic is considered a major cause of wildlife–vehicle collisions (Glista et al. 2009). Slowing traffic speed and increased driver awareness may assist in mitigating the effect of roads by reducing the potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. Measures aimed at modifying driver behaviour to travel at slower speeds and actively look for wildlife to avoid potential collisions, and increasing visibility of roadside or on-road fauna can include speed reduction measures, speed limit enforcement, lighting, signs, road reserve management and road threshold treatments. These measures are commonly employed as they do not involve construction of large or complex structures, are relatively inexpensive and often complement other management objectives. Development of effective low-cost mitigation methods would allow wider application and promote safer motorist behaviour. 3.2.1. Wildlife and Speed Signs Wildlife warning signs are aimed at improving safety by reducing the incidence of wildlife–vehicle collisions and injuries and fatalities to wildlife and drivers. Signs are the most commonly used and widespread form of road mitigation and are likely to continue to be the most commonly implemented mitigation measure of wildlife–vehicle collisions due to their relatively low cost (Huijser et al. 2009; Bond & Jones 2013). The most commonly used wildlife warning sign in Australia is a black animal silhouette on a reflective yellow diamond (Bond & Jones 2013). In Queensland, hazardous wildlife signs are used to warn road users of the unexpected presence of wild animals on the road. The signs are only for animals large enough to potentially cause human injury and/or vehicle damage, there are no symbolic warning signs for small animals as it is believed that ‘the efficacy of warning signs to protect small animals that may wander onto the road is at least doubtful’ (Department of Transport and Main Roads 2014). Efficacy A roadside traffic sign does not control the actions of a driver but aims to influence driver behaviour to precipitate a desired response (Burbridge et al. 2010). Evidence of the effectiveness of wildlife warning signs Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 14 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.