The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

An investigation into a fatal crash involving a Tesla Model X being driven on autopilot in Mountain View, Calfornia, has found that the driver was distracted using his mobile phone.

 

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held a public board meeting on Tuesday ( February 25) during which it determined the probable cause for the fatal March 23, 2018, crash.

 

Based on the findings of its investigation the NTSB issued a total of nine safety recommendations whose recipients include the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, SAE International, Apple and other manufacturers of portable electronic devices.

 

The NTSB also reiterated seven previously issued safety recommendations.

 

The NTSB determined the Tesla autopilot system’s limitations, the driver’s overreliance on the autopilot and the driver’s distraction – likely from a mobile phone game app – caused the crash.

 

It found that the Tesla vehicle’s ineffective monitoring of driver engagement was determined to have contributed to the crash.

 

Systemic problems with the California Department of Transportation’s repair of traffic safety hardware and the California Highway Patrol’s failure to report damage to a crash attenuator led to the Tesla striking a damaged and non-operational crash attenuator, which the NTSB said contributed to the severity of the driver’s injuries.

 

“This tragic crash clearly demonstrates the limitations of advanced driver assistance systems available to consumers today,” said NTSB chairman Robert Sumwalt.

 

“There is not a vehicle currently available to US consumers that is self-driving. Period. Every vehicle sold to US consumers still requires the driver to be actively engaged in the driving task, even when advanced driver assistance systems are activated.

 

“If you are selling a car with an advanced driver assistance system, you’re not selling a self-driving car. If you are driving a car with an advanced driver assistance system, you don’t own a self-driving car.”

 

He continued: “In this crash we saw an overreliance on technology, we saw distraction, we saw a lack of policy prohibiting cell phone use while driving, and we saw infrastructure failures that, when combined, led to this tragic loss.

 

“The lessons learned from this investigation are as much about people as they are about the limitations of emerging technologies.

 

“Crashes like this one, and thousands more that happen every year due to distraction, are why ‘Eliminate Distractions’ remains on the NTSB’s Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements.”

 

The 38-year-old driver of the 2017 Tesla Model X P100D electric vehicle (EV) died from multiple blunt-force injuries after his SUV entered the gore area of the US-101 and State Route 85 exit ramp and struck a damaged and non-operational crash attenuator at a speed of 70.8 mph.

 

The Tesla was then struck by two other vehicles, resulting in the injury of one other person.

 

The Tesla’s high-voltage battery was breached in the collision and a post-crash fire ensued. Witnesses removed the Tesla driver from the vehicle before it was engulfed in flames.

 

The NTSB learned from Tesla’s ‘Carlog’ data (data stored on the non-volatile memory SD card in the media control unit) that during the last 10 seconds prior to impact the Tesla’s autopilot system was activated with the traffic-aware cruise control set at 75 mph.

 

Between six and 10 seconds prior to impact, the SUV was traveling between 64 and 66 mph following another vehicle at a distance of about 83 feet.

 

The Tesla’s lane-keeping assist system (autosteer) initiated a left steering input toward the gore area while the SUV was about 5.9 seconds and about 560 feet from the crash attenuator.

 

No driver-applied steering wheel torque was detected by autosteer at the time of the steering movement and this hands-off steering indication continued up to the point of impact.

 

The Tesla’s cruise control no longer detected a lead vehicle ahead when the SUV was about 3.9 seconds and 375 feet from the attenuator, and the SUV began accelerating from 61.9 mph to the preset cruise speed of 75 mph.

 

The Tesla’s forward collision warning system did not provide an alert and automatic emergency braking did not activate. The SUV driver did not apply the brakes and did not initiate any steering movement to avoid the crash.

 

The driver was an avid gamer and game developer. A review of mobile phone records and data retrieved from his Apple iPhone 8 Plus showed a game application was active and was the frontmost open application on his phone during his trip to work.

 

The driver’s lack of evasive action combined with data indicating his hands were not detected on the steering wheel, is consistent with a person distracted by a portable electronic device.

 

Seven safety issues were identified in the crash investigation:

 

Seven safety issues were identified in the crash investigation:

• Driver Distraction
• Risk Mitigation Pertaining to Monitoring Driver Engagement
• Risk Assessment Pertaining to Operational Design Domain (the operating conditions under which a driving automation system is designed to function)
• Limitations of Collision Avoidance Systems
• Insufficient Federal Oversight of Partial Driving Automation Systems
• Need for Event Data Recording Requirements for Driving Automation Systems
• Highway Infrastructure Issues

To address these safety issues the NTSB made nine safety recommendations that seek:

• Expansion of NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program testing of forward collision avoidance system performance.
• Evaluation of Tesla autopilot- equipped vehicles to determine if the system’s operating limitations, foreseeability of misuse, and ability to operate vehicles outside the intended operational design domain pose an unreasonable risk to safety.
• Collaborative development of standards for driver monitoring systems to minimize driver disengagement, prevent automation complacency and account for foreseeable misuse of the automation.
• Review and revision of distracted driving initiatives to increase employers’ awareness of the need for strong cell phone policies prohibiting portable electronic device use while driving.
• Modification of enforcement strategies for employers who fail to address the hazards of distracted driving.
• Development of a distracted driving lock-out mechanism or application for portable electronic devices that will automatically disable any driver-distracting functions when a vehicle is in motion.
• Development of policy that bans nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving by all employees and contractors driving company vehicles, operating company issued portable electronic devices or when using a portable electronic device to engage in work-related communications.

Lessons learned from the emergency response to the post-crash fire will be incorporated into a separate NTSB report on electric vehicle battery fires. That report is expected to be released in the third quarter of calendar year 2020.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Transport for London (TfL) will be introducing a new 20mph speed limit across 8.9km of the capital’s roads within the Congestion Charging Zone from Monday (March 2).

 

TfL will recalibrate all the speed cameras and a dedicated Metropolitan Police speed enforcement team will target speeding drivers across London from April.

 

Speed is a factor in around 37% of collisions in London where a person dies or is seriously injured, which is why reducing the speed limit is key to the Mayor’s Vision Zero commitment to eliminate death and serious injury from London’s transport network, says TfL.

 

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I am absolutely determined to do everything I can to eradicate all deaths and serious injuries on London’s roads and these new measures are a vital step along the way to helping us to achieve this.

 

“By cutting speed limits on TfL’s roads within the Congestion Zone we are saving lives, while at the same time making our streets more appealing for Londoners to walk and cycle around the capital.”

 

Andy Cox, Metropolitan Police Detective Superintendent, added: “Excessive speed unfortunately remains a common cause of serious and fatal collisions across London and the consequences can be devastating for those involved and their families.

 

“Safe speeds are key to achieving the Vision Zero ambition and it’s vital that those driving or riding on our roads respect the law on speed limits. We will actively target speeding and dangerous drivers and ensure they are dealt with robustly.”

 

Figures from 2016, 2017 and 2018 show 131 people were killed in speed-related collisions on London’s streets.

 

A further 2,256 people were reported as seriously injured in collisions where speed was recorded as a contributory factor.

 

Cutting speeds from 30mph to 20mph significantly reduces the likelihood and severity of these collisions, saving lives, says TfL.

 

People walking and cycling are particularly vulnerable to speeding vehicles and nine pedestrians have already tragically died on London’s roads this year.

 

Jeremy Leach, London Campaign coordinator for 20’s Plenty, said: “Getting maximum speeds down to 20mph has a huge impact on making roads feel and be safe for all Londoners and 20’s Plenty is really pleased that reducing speeds is right at the heart of TfL’s plans for safe streets across London. This though is only the first part of a wider programme to tackle the dangers that speeding causes to us all.

 

“We look forward to news of more 20mph limits on TfL’s Red Route roads and more encouragement for the last few London boroughs to go 20, all supported by the huge commitment that the Metropolitan Police are putting into tackling speeding drivers.”

 

The changes mirror the lower speed limits already in place across many borough roads in central London.

 

A new TfL marketing campaign will focus on the changes coming into force on 2 March, highlighting the importance of lower speeds and encouraging road users to comply with the new 20mph speed limits. The campaign is live across radio, print and digital advertising.

 

Over the next five years, TfL will work with boroughs and the public to introduce lower speed limits more widely across the capital.

 

TfL aims to introduce safer speed limits across a further 140km of its road network, focusing on high-risk sections of road, town centres where people walk and cycle, and streets neighbouring ambitious local speed reduction programmes led by London boroughs.

 

Achieving lower speeds in London is vital for achieving TfL’s Vision Zero commitment to eliminate deaths and serious injuries from the transport network by 2041.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Highways England will have a new type of barrier at its disposal that can be deployed within hours to manage traffic on the M20 during periods of cross-channel disruption.

 

The technology will be designed to ensure that the M20 is kept open at times of disruption, whilst also allowing the motorway to retain three lanes, a hard shoulder and 70mph speed limits in both directions during normal traffic conditions.

 

This will be a marked improvement in comparison to Operation Brock which required a month of overnight closures to deploy the metal barrier required for the contraflow system previously used. The new system should be in operation by the end of the year.

 

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: “After listening to frustrated residents and businesses affected by Operations Brock and Stack, we’ve invested in a new solution to boost Kent’s resilience and keep its vital road network moving, even at times of disruption.

 

“This state-of-the-art technology can be deployed quickly, simply and safely, ensuring motorists across the county can get to where they need to be with minimum fuss, whatever the circumstances.”

 

Moveable barriers are already used in cities around the world, including Auckland, Sydney, San Francisco and Vancouver.

 

The technology has been chosen by the Department for Transport and Highways England as a long-term solution to Operation Brock and Stack and will ensure Kent is prepared for any disruption on the Short Strait, such as from industrial action or bad weather.

 

The new solution also means that Highways England’s work on an ‘off road’ replacement for Operation Stack has been stopped. As part of this, previous Highways England plans for a new large lorry holding area in Kent are no longer being pursued.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The number of people killed in road accidents where the driver was over the drink drive limit has not dropped since 2010.

 

Provisional figures released by the Department for Transport (DfT) estimate there were 240 such deaths in 2018, exactly the same rate of fatalities ten years ago.

 

The total number of casualties caused by drink driving increased to 8,700 in 2018, up 1% from 2017.

 

The number of accidents where a driver was over the alcohol limit rose by 4% to 5,900 in 2018, compared with the previous year.

 

Road safety charity IAM RoadSmart is calling for the government to introduce a ‘smarter’ package of measures to tackle this important issue.

 

Measures being advocated by IAM RoadSmart include a further lowering of the drink-drive limit in England and Wales to match Scotland, wider use of drink-drive rehabilitation courses and also following the example of Scotland by seizing the vehicles of repeat offenders.

 

Neil Greig, director of policy and research at IAM RoadSmart, said: “Once again progress on reducing the toll of death and injuries from drink-driving has stalled.

 

“There is no one simple answer to reducing these figures, but IAM RoadSmart believe we now need a much smarter package of measures from the government including a lower drink-drive limit to reinforce good behaviour, fast-track of evidential roadside testing machines to release police resources and tailored approaches to help drivers with alcohol problems.

 

“Rehabilitation courses work and we think all those convicted of drink-driving should be sent on one automatically rather than having to opt in.

 

“More use of alcohol interlocks and extra penalties such as vehicle forfeiture, as used in Scotland, could all be part of a more joined-up approach to the problem.”

 

Hunter Abbott, managing director of breathalyser firm AlcoSense, says that nly 42% of drivers involved in an accident in 2018 were breath-tested by police.

 

“This has declined steadily since 2008, when 55% of motorists were breathalysed after a collision,” he said. “Of those who actually were tested following an accident, more than 3,800 were over the limit – at 4.4%, that’s the highest failure rate for 10 years”.

 

The overall number of breath tests is also the lowest on record.

 

Just 320,988 drivers were tested by police at the roadside in 2018, according to Home Office figures – less than half the 670,023 breathalysed in 2009.

 

“Casualties will not reduce until better enforcement is in place, combined with stricter limits and drink driving awareness campaigns”, continued Abbott.

 

“England and Wales have the highest drink drive limit in the developed world, far above the ‘point of intoxication’ when the cognitive effects of alcohol on a person are measurable.

 

“At the English/Welsh limit, despite not contravening the law, research shows you are 13 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than when sober.

 

“We call on the Government to increase the number of road traffic officers, in order to restore roadside breath testing to the levels of a decade ago.

 

“The Home Office should also stop ignoring robust scientific evidence and the advice of road safety experts – the drink drive limit should be reduced from its current dangerously high level.”

 

Abbott is the founder of AlcoSense and a member of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS).

 

Greig concluded: “Drink-drivers are simply not getting the message, and these figures will not improve until policy changes.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Flett News

The latest emission figures are measured by attaching equipment to cars and physically driving cars on public roads to simulate real-world driving conditions. This is fine for standard cars but the manufacturers should also assess the emissions when fitted with options and extras.

 

For example if a car has bigger wheels fitted the emissions can increase. But without that information drivers could be exposed to higher Benefit In Kind tax and Road Tax could increase.

 

Businesses should therefore consider reviewing their fleet policies due to a lack of WLTP CO2 data for some cars, says the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association.

 

The WLTP CO2 value, derived from the new emissions test, will be used for tax purposes from April, but a shortage of reliable data threatens to disrupt the move to a new VED and company car tax regime, it says.

 

VED and company car tax for newly registered vehicles will use CO2 figures based on the more accurate WLTP standard from April 1 and 6 respectively.

 

However, many vehicle manufacturers are struggling to provide WLTP data for their cars, with the result that BVRLA members currently only have accurate CO2, electric mileage range or RDE2 compliance (latest NOx emissions standard) information for around 80% of base (pre-option) models.

 

With average lead times for cars at around 9-12 weeks from ordering, this data gap is hindering the leasing sector’s ability to provide accurate quotes on many different vehicles and their various configurations and options.

 

“The introduction of WLTP-based motoring taxes is adding yet another layer of complexity and confusion to a fleet sector that is already having to cope with a deluge of new automotive technology and local authority air quality measures,” said BVRLA chief executive, Gerry Keaney.

 

“The BVRLA and its members are working with OEMs and third-party data providers to bridge this gap, but in the meantime, we would recommend customers consult with their lease providers to assess the impact on their fleet policies and procurement.”

 

WLTP CO2 data is available for the entire BMW range at www.bmw.co.uk. Rob East, general manager of Corporate Sales at BMW UK, said: “With the BIK tax liability a key consideration for many company car drivers when choosing a new vehicle, it’s imperative that we provide our customers with this information.

 

“This transparency allows them quickly to make an informed decision as to whether their favoured BMW works for them from a tax point of view. Without WLTP details, they simply have no way of knowing.”

 

He added: “Ensuring the easy availability of these details underlines our drive to make it as straightforward as possible for business customers to purchase a new BMW.

 

“It also reflects the increased level of interest that there is in our key corporate models such as the new 1 Series and new 3 Series.”

 

The BVRLA has contacted the SMMT, which represents vehicle manufacturers, to offer its support in addressing the WLTP data shortage. It is also working with HMRC on its forthcoming WLTP communications plan. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

I know that you like to read legal stories that make no sense whatsoever – so here is one that makes no sense whatsoever. It shows that you can be held responsible for the health and safety of anyone who breaks into your property! Totally ridiculous.

 

The article revolves around the following incident. Click on the link before reading further

 

https://garagewire.co.uk/news/thief-crushed-to-death-while-stealing-catalytic-converter/

 

The question was asked – what liability could there be on the garage where someone breaks in and ends up getting injured or getting killed when they are there unlawfully?

 

Some people think that if you have broken into someone else’s property with ill intent then you deserve anything and everything you get.  This is not so in the eyes of the law – as Norfolk farmer Tony Martin found when he shot burglars encroaching into his home in 1999 killing one of them – as he was sent to prison initially for murder but downgraded to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.

 

It is the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 which imposes a duty of care on landowners (occupiers) to take reasonable care for the safety of trespassers in respect of any risk of their suffering by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises – or to things done or omitted to be done on them.

 

The threshold test is set out in Section 1 (3) of the Act which provides that a duty is owed to trespassers in respect of any such risk if

 

(a)        The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;

 

(b)        The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger; and

 

(c)        The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection.

 

As you can imagine, cases turn on their specific facts such as several years ago when the High Court in Buckett v Staffordshire County Council dismissed a claim brought against them by a Claimant after he fell through a skylight whilst trespassing on the roof a school when he was aged 16.  The court decided that even though his presence on the roof near the skylight ought reasonably to have been foreseen, the council did not owe a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 as the skylight’s structure, makeup and location on the roof did not constitute a danger.

 

Even though children trespassing on the roof and proximity to the skylight was foreseeable, the claimant’s injuries were caused by his own action of jumping onto the skylight.  And because the skylight was not faulty or inherently dangerous, the council was not liable.

 

This followed a principle set by the House of Lords in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council in 2004 where a 12 year old was injured falling on a fire escape when trespassing.  As the fire escape was not defective, in need of repair or otherwise dangerous, the council had no liability. You see what I mean – totally dopey! By Graham Hill

For years I’ve been complaining about the weaknesses of recalls when cars have safety recalls that put drivers’ lives at risk. There are still hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road that haven’t had safety recall repairs carried out. So I find it ridiculous that the Government is introducing legislation for environmental reasons.

 

The Government is seeking new powers in the Environment Bill to compel vehicle manufacturers to recall vehicles when they do not meet the relevant environmental standards.

 

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) introduced the Bill to Parliament on January 30th.

 

It will create new powers to stop the export of plastic waste to developing countries and will enshrine environmental principles in law, while introducing measures to improve air and water quality, and restore habitats so plants and wildlife can thrive.

 

The new vehicle recall powers are included in an effort to help improve air quality in urban areas.

 

Environment secretary Theresa Villiers said: “We have set out our pitch to be a world leader on the environment as we leave the EU and the Environment Bill is a crucial part of achieving this aim.

 

“It sets a gold standard for improving air quality, protecting nature, increasing recycling and cutting down on plastic waste.”

 

As well as the measures outlined, the legislation will also create legally-binding environmental improvement targets.

 

A new independent Office for Environmental Protection will be established to scrutinise environmental policy and law, investigate complaints and take enforcement action against public authorities, if necessary, to uphold environmental standards.

 

The office’s powers will cover all climate change legislation and hold the government to account on its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

 

The Environment Bill was introduced into parliament in October 2019 and has been re-introduced to parliament following the general election. I agree that this is important but not as important as safety recalls that could kill drivers, passengers and other road users. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

UK drivers are risking their licences by breaking the speed limit when overtaking, shocking government figures have shown.

 

According to official stats, in 2017 almost 8,000 vehicles were involved in collisions when overtaking – and over half (55%) of these were cars.

 

Safety chiefs are now urging motorists to watch their speed when overtaking to avoid putting themselves and other road users at risk – and avoid getting hit with heavy fines or even losing their licence.

 

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) is keen to set aside myths that speeding is acceptable when overtaking another vehicle.

 

“The common-sense message is do not overtake unless you are sure you can complete the manoeuvre safely and without causing risk or inconvenience to another road user,” warns an RoSPA spokesman.

 

“Although you should complete an overtaking manoeuvre quickly, never exceed the speed limit for the road.”

 

As rule 125 of the Highway Code states, the speed limit is the absolute maximum you should drive on any particular road. This does not exclude overtaking.

 

Exceeding the speed limit for any reason is dangerous as well as illegal and could see you hit with penalty points, a hefty fine, or even being banned from the roads entirely.

 

While overtaking is, of course, legal, there are strict rules about how and when it is safe to overtake – the most fundamental being that you should only overtake ‘when it is safe and legal to do so’.

 

If you’re caught speeding while overtaking, you could collect a fine up to £2,500 and six points on your licence, depending on your speed and the road you’re caught on.

 

Should you get 12 penalty points or more in any three-year period, you’ll have your licence revoked. By Graham Hill thanks to the RAC

Drivers should book an eyesight test in 2020, says GEM Motoring Assist.

 

This, according to the road safety organisation, would help in reducing collisions and injuries on the UK’s roads.

 

GEM road safety officer Neil Worth, said: “What better time than the year 2020 to get your vision checked properly and ensure the risks you face as a driver or rider are as low as possible?

 

“You should only drive when you’re sure you can see properly.

 

“After all, poor eyesight is linked to more than 3,000 fatal and serious injury collisions every year.

 

“We continue to be concerned that there are too many people driving whose eyesight has deteriorated to a dangerous level.

 

“This puts their own safety at risk, as well as the safety of others sharing the same road space.”

 

The eyesight test was introduced to the driving test in 1937 and has only been changed in minor ways over the years to reflect changing number plate sizes.

 

It is the only eyesight test drivers are required to take until they reach the age of 70.

 

Opticians should examine a driver’s field of view, as is done in America, to check whether motorists can see and react to what’s happening around them, according to GEM.

 

Worth added: “So this year we are encouraging drivers to ensure their eyesight goes beyond 20/20.

 

“After all, 20/20 is only an expression of normal visual acuity, but the requirements for safe driving go beyond clarity of central vision.

 

“A detailed professional eye examination will mean any problems can be identified and – in the vast majority of cases – corrected, meaning the risks are reduced considerably.

 

“So many people are staying behind the wheel into their eighties and beyond.

 

“This, coupled with the greater volume of traffic and an increase in distractions, both inside and outside the vehicle, points to the clear need for more regular and detailed eyesight testing.”

 

“Asking someone to read a number plate at 20.5 metres (67 feet) cannot on its own be a measure of their fitness to continue driving.

 

“A proper eye test will also measure peripheral awareness, eye coordination, depth perception, ability to focus and colour vision.”

 

GEM has called for drivers to have an eye test every two years, ensuring there are no safety concerns about their vision and to deal with any issues at an early stage.

 

The organisation is also calling for every new driver to produce evidence of a recent eye test when first applying for a licence, and to obtain a mandatory vision test every 10 years in line with licence renewal. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

More than half of all drivers have either hit or had a near miss with an animal on UK roads, new research from GoCompare Car Insurance suggests.

 

Two-thirds (68%) of respondents, meanwhile, said they would not know what to do if they hit a larger animal, such as a deer or a badger while driving.

 

The animals most likely to be involved in an incident with a car are:

 

• Bird e.g. pigeon (27%)
• Cat (23%)
• Large game bird e.g. pheasant (20%)
• Deer (18%)
• Dog (17%)
• Rabbit (17%)

 

 

When asked what kind of road the accident happened on, two-thirds (68%) of drivers said they had been on a country road, followed by one in four (24%) on a town or city road.

 

While the animal running out into the road was the biggest reason for the incident (66%), driving at night was blamed by 22% of drivers. Driving too fast or being distracted contributed to 8% of the incidents.

 

The research also showed that animal-related accidents can happen at any time of day with broad daylight (32%) being the most common of the driving conditions, followed by evening/dusk (29%).

 

When asked what action they took, 39% of drivers admitted to driving on after hitting an animal, with those living in Scotland (47%) being the least likely to stop.

 

What is clear from the research, however, is the impact that hitting an animal or having a near-miss can have on the driver and the car.

 

When asked how they felt after hitting or nearly hitting an animal, only 16% of the drivers involved said they weren’t affected by the incident at all.

 

Men were nearly three times more likely to feel unaffected (21%) than women (8%). More than half (55%) admitted they were shaken by the incident, while 28% said they have slowed their driving down as a result. Fewer than one in ten (8%) said the incident had affected their confidence when driving.

 

In terms of vehicle damage, 18% of drivers who hit an animal sustained damage to their vehicle, with 10% resulting in an insurance claim.

 

Comparing genders, men were twice as likely to badly damage their car after hitting an animal compared to women.

 

Animal involved with car incident	Percentage of drivers reporting
Bird	27.5%
Cat	22.7%
Gamebird	20.0%
Deer	17.8%
Rabbit	17.1%
Dog	16.9%
Squirrel	16.0%
Fox	15.7%
Hedgehog	11.9%
Sheep	10.3%
Badger	8.9%
Cattle	6.6%
Horse	6.6%
Other or unidentified	5.8%

 

 

Lee Griffin, founder and CEO of GoCompare said: “Sadly, as our research shows, accidents and near misses with animals on our roads are something most drivers have experienced.

 

“While some encounters may not be dangerous, a close call with an animal on the road can happen anywhere and at any time. They can leave drivers badly shaken or worse, lead to accidents and expensive repair bills.

 

“Animals are unpredictable and as a result, these incidents are unexpected but are increasingly common, as we all spend more time in our cars.

 

“Often the type of animal isn’t the issue. The action taken by a driver to avoid a bird can be just as dangerous as hitting a large mammal.

 

“Drivers on country roads need to take particular care, especially when driving at dusk or in the dark at this time of year when daylight time is shorter.

 

“But the reality is that we all need to be more aware of the likelihood of meeting an animal of some kind on the road.

 

“Being mindful of our speed and the distractions around us will help reduce the risk of a serious accident if the worst does happen.”

 

What is clear is that many drivers wouldn’t know what to do in the event of an accident involving an animal, but GoCompare has spoken to Adam Grogan, head of wildlife at the RSPCA.

 

He said: “Each year the RSPCA receives and attends several thousand calls regarding road traffic accidents involving deer. As a result of this, we always urge people to be cautious when driving in an area with known wildlife nearby and pay heed to warning signs indicating that wild animals may be around.

 

“If you do hit an animal while driving, we would advise people to stop and check (if it’s safe to do so), as the animal may be more seriously injured than they appear.

 

“If you find an injured wild animal, contact the RSPCA’s 24-hour emergency line on 0300 1234 999 for further advice on what to do.

 

“Always report any deer-vehicle collisions to the police and try to remember to record any deer-vehicle incidents at Deer Aware.

 

“Animals can scratch and bite when frightened, particularly if they are injured, so be cautious and apply common sense.

 

“Please do not try to handle or transport any injured deer, foxes, badgers, otters, swans, geese or birds of prey; keep a safe distance from them and call our emergency line for assistance.

 

“Always wear gloves when handling all other animals and please take them to a vet for treatment where possible.

 

“We also urge people to take care in dangerous locations, like a busy road, and ask people to always report any animal obstructing a highway to the police and call for help if you can’t reach the animal safely.”

 

Find out more about what to do if you find an injured wild animal on the RSPCA’s website.

 

Richard Leonard, head of road safety at Highways England, added: “We urge drivers to look out for animal warning signs which let you know that animals are known to be about in the area, or likely to be roaming across the road.

 

“You may be well-travelled and on a known route where you’ve never seen an animal before – but there may one in nearby foliage or woodlands.

 

“We want everyone to reach their destination safely – so my top tip is if you see an animal warning signs slow down, remain vigilant and keep your distance.”

 

Key points

 

• By law, you are required to tell the police if you’ve hit a dog, horse, cattle, sheep, pig or goat.
• If you hit any animal, it’s best to report it to the police, particularly if it could be a pet, so that the owner can be informed.
• If you see a dead animal by the roadside, you can contact the local council

 

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News and GoCompare