I have been contemplating a Newsweek.com story for a few days. First, I arrived at the story with the impression that it would say how animals are dying more often now that people drive such giant vehicles. Not so. The opposite, in fact. The news is that more people are dying than in past years:

Fatalities from vehicle crashes with deer and other animals have more than doubled over the last 15 years, according to a new study by an auto insurance-funded highway safety group that cites urban sprawl overlapping into deer habitat.

The report by the Highway Loss Data Institute found that 223 people died in animal-vehicle crashes last year, up from 150 in 2000 and 101 in 1993.

The rate of accidents is increasing, so the fatalities rate is also increasing, but it does not highlight the ratio of fatalities to overall crashes. At the end of the story we are told that in 2008 there were 1.2 million claims for animal related crashes, and that number is up 15 percent over the past five years. Since the fatalities are up over 100%, the ratio of crashes to fatalities seems to have increased over time, no? To make things more confusing, the areas with the fatalities are known for giant SUVs and trucks:

Since 1993, Texas had the most deaths from such crashes, with 227, followed by Wisconsin with 123 and Pennsylvania with 112.

The reporter does point out that this is nothing compared with the 12,000 drunk driving deaths per year. However, the analysis goes into why breeding season and fences are important to consider when looking at the numbers.

I propose a couple additional issues be investigated. For example, large trucks and SUV, despite their bulk and appearance of safety, are difficult to handle and may cause erratic driving that lead to worse accidents. Thus, they could be the cause of more serious harm than earlier. I would look at the ratio of large to small vehicles in the number of fatalities. Another factor could be education and experience. I wonder if an insurance company tried giving evasive maneuvering lessons to people in a high-risk area (based on the numbers). Showing people how to drift on dirt roads, and brake/swerve at speed, could be an effective way to test this idea. My experience has been that the reaction of drivers to animals is a significant factor in the outcome of the accident.

Consider this You Witness News story for comparison:

A collision between two SUVs and a pickup truck sent nine people, including one pedestrian, to the hospital. […] None of the injuries was considered serious.

Incidentally (pun not intended) I see a minivan in that collision, not an SUV.

Clearly there is more security perspective that can be teased out of the insurance claim data. I do not think it comes down to such a simple equation of more animals on the road leads to more fatalities.