Thread: Shoo roo

We had an electronic ShuRoo on our car for many years. We never hit anything, not that that proves anything conclusively....

My understanding of them is that a car emits a low frequency sound which a roo cannot hear coming, so is spooked when the car is suddenly upon them. The ShuRoo emits a high frequency sound that the roo can hear from some distance away. My observation was that the roo would hear the car coming from some distance away, and would normally just sit there and watch it go past, rather than being startled by a car upon them and the roo panicing and hopping towards the bright light that they associate with safety.

Just my 2c....

Cheers,

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

We had an electronic ShuRoo on our car for many years. We never hit anything, not that that proves anything conclusively....

My understanding of them is that a car emits a low frequency sound which a roo cannot hear coming, so is spooked when the car is suddenly upon them. The ShuRoo emits a high frequency sound that the roo can hear from some distance away. My observation was that the roo would hear the car coming from some distance away, and would normally just sit there and watch it go past, rather than being startled by a car upon them and the roo panicing and hopping towards the bright light that they associate with safety.

Just my 2c....

Cheers,

I'll second that. I have had an electronic one for years on my county and it definitely makes them sit and look instead of running blind.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Ean, save your money. A study by the UoM proved they did not work. In fact, I thought they had been prohibited from advertising that they did work???



PDS SSO

Another quote from the 3 year research study, since everyone seems to have missed it...

We contacted private transport companies and government departments that operated
fleets of similar vehicles travelling consistent routes over long distances in rural areas,
some fitted with Shu Roos and others not. A total of 31 fleet operators agreed to
participate in the study, which ran from 1997 to 2000. We asked drivers to keep a log of
the number of collisions with kangaroos and wallabies over the total distance they
travelled, and whether or not they had a Shu Roo operating on the vehicle. The vehicles
involved in the survey travelled an average of 49,612 km. and there was no significant
difference in distance travelled by vehicles with a Shu Roo and the controls (no Shu
Roo). Only 16% of vehicles hit a macropod (n = 26) over the survey period, and there
was no significant difference in the proportion of vehicles with and without a Shu Roo
that hit macropods. The overall mean (± SE) rate of collisions with macropods was 10.86
± 3.52 hits km-6, and again there was no significant difference between vehicles with and
without a Shu Roo. Our study is the first systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the
Shu Roo, covering long distances over a range of seasonal conditions, moon phases and
times of day. We conclude that the Shu Roo is not effective in reducing collisions with
macropods.

FFS - how much proof is needed that the don't work...

When we bought the Patrol in '01 the FIL insisted we fit a Shu-Roo, (the farm was buying it) he had one on his Citroen "and they work"

BS.

That car's had more hits than Elvis, about equal to the 130, which doesn't have anything silly like that fitted, just a good old steel bull bar.

I experimented with the stupid thing, stopping and pointing it at various wallabies and roos, no response to minor, and I think those that looked were just looking at the car standing there rather than the stupid squeak it put out.
Tried it with cattle, horses, etc, all the same, turning it on and off, looking for a response.

My conclusion ?
Keep your money in your wallet.


BTW, the speakers had become mangled years ago from one of the numerous roo strikes so it's in land fill now.

And before anyone suggests speed was a factor, some of the hits were at speeds as low as 50km/h, ie. we were travelling at 50km/h and they ran in front.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Another quote from the 3 year research study, since everyone seems to have missed it...



FFS - how much proof is needed that the don't work...

No doubt some people who are convinced of their effectiveness also swear by the Hiclone they have fitted.

However, there is clear evidence that they work on elephants. There hasn't been a single documented case of anyone with one fitted having an elephant run in front of their vehicle.

Originally Posted by vnx205

No doubt some people who are convinced of their effectiveness also swear by the Hiclone they have fitted.

However, there is clear evidence that they work on elephants*. There hasn't been a single documented case of anyone with one fitted having an elephant run in front of their vehicle.

*in Australia

They also work on tigers*, bears*, lions*

It always amazes me the number of people who will believe (often biased) anecdotes, testimonials and subjective comments, yet ignore comprehensive, properly conducted (impartial) scientific studies.

All the snake oil salespeople must be laughing all the way to the bank.

They have been found to be 100% effective when they tested them in Germany on the autobahns.

They only work when used in conjunction with Hiclones