Camel-Vehicle Accidents Mitigation System: Design and Survey

  • Khaled Ragab
  • Mohammed Zahrani
  • Asrar Ul Haque
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 185)

Abstract

Animal-vehicle collisions (AVC) affect human safety, property and wildlife. Furthermore, the number of collisions with large animals worldwide and especially in the Saudi Arabia Kingdom has increased substantially over the last decades. The negative effects of AVC and the increase in collisions prompted the initiation for designing a deployable and intelligent Camel-Vehicle Accident Avoidance System (CVAAS) using global positioning system (GPS) technology. CVAAS can be classified as an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). The use of GPS technology in this kind of application is a novel idea. This article provides a detailed discussion in there related literature review. Moreover, it discusses the high-level design of the CVAAS.

Keywords

GPS Animal vehicle-collision avoidance technologies 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Ghamdi, A.S., AlGadhi, S.A.: Warning signs as countermeasures to camel-vehicle collisions in Saudi Arabia. Accident Analysis and Prevention 36(5), 749–760 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bender, H.: Deterrence of kangaroos from roadways using ultrasonic frequencies: efficacy of the Shu Roo, University of Melbourne, Dept. of Zoology, Road Traffic Authority of South Wales and Transport South Australia, Australia (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, Bendix Xvision system service data (2002), http://www.bendix.com/downloads/195160.pdf
  4. 4.
    Bruinderink, G.W.T.A., Hazebroek, E.: Ungulate traffic collisions in Europe. Conservation Biology 10, 1059–1067 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carey, M.: Addressing wildlife mortality on highways in Washington. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Ecology and Transportation, pp. 605–610 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clevenger, A.P., Chruszcz, B., Gunson, K.: Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Molenaar, et. al.: Effectiviteit van wildspiegels: een literatuurevaluatie, IBN rapport 362. Instituut voor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek, Wageningen, The Netherlands (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dodd, et. al.: Evaluations of measures to minimize wildlife-vehicle collisions and maintain permeability across highways: Arizona Route 260, Final Report to Arizona Dept. of Transportation, JPA 01-152 JPA 04-024T (2007c)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Foster, et al.: Use of underpasses by Florida panthers and other wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23, 95–100 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gagnon, et al.: Traffic volume alters elk distribution and highway crossings in Arizona. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7), 2318–2323 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gagnon, et al.: Using Global Positioning System Technology to Determine Wildlife Crossing structure placement and evaluating their success in Arizona. In: Int. Conf. on Ecology and Transportation, USA (September 2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gordon, K.M., Anderson, S.H.: Motorist response to a deer-sensing warning system in western Wyoming. In: 2001 Proc. Int. Conf. on Ecology and Transportation, pp. 549–558 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gordon, et al.: Evaluation of the FLASH (Flashing Light Animal Sensing Host) system in Nugget Canyon. Univ. of Wyoming, Wyoming (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haikonen, H., Summala, H.: Deer-vehicle crashes: Extensive peak at 1 hour after sunset. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 21(3), 209–213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirota, et al.: Low-cost infrared imaging sensors for automotive applications. In: Valldorf, J., Gessner, W. (eds.) Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications, pp. 63–84 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Intelligent night vision system able to detect pedestrians and provide driver cautions (2004), http://www.all4engineers.de/preview.php?cms=andlng=enandalloc
  18. 18.
    Huijser, M.P., McGowen, P.T.: Overview of animal detection and animal warning systems in North America and Europe. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Ecology and Transp., pp. 368–382 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huijser, et al.: Animal Vehicle crash mitigation using advanced Technology, Phase I: Review, Design and Implementation, Report SPR(076), Western Transportation Inst. Montana State UnivGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wildlife-vehicle collision reduction study. Report to congress, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., USA (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    IRD. Wildlife warning system. IRD (International Road Dynamics), Saskatoon, SK, Canada (2002),http://www.irdinc.com/english/pdf/sys/safety/Wildlife_0202.pdf
  22. 22.
    Sullivan, J.M.: Relationships between Lighting and Animal-Vehicle Collisions, Technical report UMTRI-2009-35, The University of Michigan Transportation Research Inst (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kistler, R.: Wissenschaftliche Begleitung der Wildwarnanlagen Calstrom, WWA-12-S. Schlussbericht. Infodienst Wildbiologie & Oekologie, Zürich, Switzerland (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Knapp, K.K., et al.: Deer-vehicle crash countermeasure toolbox: a decision and choice resource, F Report DVCIC-02. Midwest Regional Univ. Transp. Center, Wisconsin, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Langley, R.L., Higgins, S.A., Herrin, K.B.: Risk factors associated with fatal animal-vehicle collisions in the United States. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 17(4) (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McKinney, T., Smith, T.: US93 Bighorn Sheep study: Distribution and trans-highway movements of Desert Bighorn Sheep in northwestern Arizona, Final report to Arizona Department of Transportation. JPA04-032T / KR04-0104TRN (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pojar, T.M., Prosence, R.A., Reed, D.F., Woodward, R.H.: Effectiveness of alighted, animated deer crossing sign. Journal of Wildlife Management 39, 87–91 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Putman, R.J.: Deer and road traffic accidents: options for management. Journal of Environmental Management 51, 43–57 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ujvari, M., Baagoe, H.J., Madsen, A.B.: Effectiveness of acoustic road markings in reducing deer-vehicle collisions: a behavioral study. Wildlife Biology 10, 155–159 (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dalef, F.: Reed, Effectiveness of highway lighting in reducing deer-vehicle collisions. Journal of wildlife management 45(3), 721–726 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Romin, L.A., Bissonette, J.A.: Deer-vehicle collisions: status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 276–283 (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scheifele, et al.: Analysis and effectiveness of "deer whistles" for motor vehicles: frequencies, levels, and animals threshold responses. Acoustics Research Letters Online 4, 71–76 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rutter, S.M., Bras, R.: Zootec. The integration of GPS, vegetation mapping and GIS in ecological and behavioural studies, vol. 36 (2007), doi:10.1590/S1516-35982007001000007Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    STS. Roadway animal detection system. Operator’s manual and installation guide, RADS-00-007-OM, Revision 4. Scottsdale, Arizona, USA (October 16, 2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Turner, L.W., et al.: Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Grazing Behavior in Cattle Livestock Environment VI. In: Proc. of the 6th Int. Symp., Louisville, Kentucky, USA, pp. 640–650 (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ward, A.L.: Mule deer behavior in relation to fencing and underpasses on Interstate 80 in Wyoming, Transport, Research Record 859:8-13, National Research Council, Washington (1982)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    What we are doing to reduce vehicle/Wildlife collisions, Washington State Department of Transportation (2010), http://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-were-doing-to-reduce.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khaled Ragab
    • 1
  • Mohammed Zahrani
    • 1
  • Asrar Ul Haque
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Computer Sciences and Information TechnologyKing Faisal UniversityHofufKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations