Thread: Shoo roo

The insurance industry has done the studies; there is no reduced risk.

All the anecdotal success stories of such devices (this, hyclone, polariser, etc) is a well documented human behavioural trait where small explainable things are attributed as significant, in this case, normal animal behaviour is noticed and attributed to the new device. It is called pareidolia; seeing and attributing things that aren't connected or aren't really there.

If you're willing to gamble a fiver I don't see how it can do any harm....but I think perhaps the sound of the vehicle makes a difference too.
All of my roo strikes and nearly all close shaves have been in passenger cars.
Driving my truck or work bus, never seem to have a problem.

Originally Posted by Carnut1100

If you're willing to gamble a fiver I don't see how it can do any harm....but I think perhaps the sound of the vehicle makes a difference too.
All of my roo strikes and nearly all close shaves have been in passenger cars.
Driving my truck or work bus, never seem to have a problem.

Perhaps more to do with the visual stimulus, assuming similar velocities. I can't seem to locate any studies relating vehicle size to animal strike incidents. There's a research grant and doctoral theses in there for somebody.

Now for an unsupported personal observation: Now I have retired and in no hurry (can't hurry, have a 300tdi), I plod along at 80-90kmh max (stop cursing me, if I see someone coming up behind and there is one lane, no overtaking opportunity I pull over. Some people even bother a thank you wave). I noticed I don't have any roo or even bird close calls. At that speed all animals seem to be able to spot me and get out of the way. As soon as I get up around 100kmh I get problems again; but maybe it's just pareidolia.

I was just about to write about that. The studies done prove they don't work on trucks. Truck characteristics don't necessarily translate to normal passenger vehicles.

Might be rambling, but another shu roo point, we didn't have roo strike problems at my work until shu roo was fitted and two fitted cars were soon damaged hitting kangaroos. Talking to the drivers and it was a case that before shu roo they would take note, back off and prepare for evasive action which they didn't with the shu roo fitted because they thought the shu roo would scare off the kangaroos.

Well last year I made an awful mess of a roo with a plane. If they aren't phased by a screaming turbine engine spinning another roaring propellor, i don't need a study to tell me the likelihood of their success.

Obviously cars emit different noises and possibly different noise frequencies which may have some bearing on roadkill. Think back to the late sixties and the whistle that a HK Holden made as it cruised along the road. Was the HK more likely or less likely to hit a roo or emu?
Just a thought!
Maybe there is an opportunity of a huge study grant and Doctorate for a Thesis on "Noises of the Modern Motor Vehicle and it's effects on Australian Wildlife"
Then one day someone on this site can use it as quote when the subject is raised again!

Cheers, Mick.

This study, which has been quoted before in this thread might help people understand why they don't work.

http://web.archive.org/web/201008211...huroofinal.pdf

Their conclusion seem fairly clear and involve cars as well as trucks and buses.
The results of the signal characteristics and behavioural responses generate four clear conclusions:

• The Shu Roo is not purely ultrasonic.
• The Shu Roo does not produce sound that is detectable at 400 m.
• The Shu Roo does not alter the behaviour of either eastern grey kangaroos or red kangaroos.
• The Shu Roo does not reduce the number of collisions between vehicles and kangaroos

.

One problem that I don't believe has been mentioned yet is that the sound of the device is not detectable above the sound of the vehicle at a distance that would provide enough warning to be effective.

The manufacturer’s claim, exemplified by the diagram showing the Shu Roo signal projecting 400 m in front of a moving vehicle with a signal epicentre 50 m in front of the vehicle (see Fig. 1), was also not supported by the test data. The Shu Roo, in static conditions, could be detected only to a maximum of 50 m on grass and 100 m on bitumen, which was less than a quarter that claimed by the manufacturer. In dynamic drive-by tests on bitumen, there was no detectable coverage provided by the Shu Roo, because the sound pressure level recorded was totally attributable to road and engine noise produced by the car. Scheifele et al. (1998) found that the same was true for passive sonic deterrence devices.

One suggestion was offered the explain the apparent usefulness of the device. The instructions for the device suggest driving more slowly where there is a danger of animals on the road. If users follow that instruction they should have fewer collisions because slowing down has been proven to be effective.