Conflicted about this - food insecurity is a real thing. However it may offend some people's sensibilities, there are many people that have a significant reliance on roadkill to fulfill their dietary needs. It can make the difference between going to bed well-fed, or going to bed with a deep hunger in the pit of one's stomach.
going to bed with a deep hunger in the pit of one's stomach.
I'm fine with that, as their dinner shouldn't depend on me suffering an horrible car crash and being hurt or killed.
The people will save a lot of money if they don't need to replace 500 cars each year, therefore more money to feed themselves. They will not be forced to eat dog corpses.
there are many people that have a significant reliance on roadkill to fulfill their dietary needs.
I doubt that many people are collecting roadkill on a 75mph 6-lane divided freeway though, since I can't really think of any safe way to collect it.
But even if you could collect it, hitting anything small at that speed will completely pulverize it, and hitting anything larger will seriously hurt the vehicle's occupants, so it's probably best to stick to smaller roads.
Always has to be at least one commenter, "but what about my highly specific scenario? All the other people benefiting are an aberration to my specific need or wild singular example"
Fund SNAP, not discount game meat through the deaths of others.
Nailed it. Adding the fact that the majority of HN comments are negative or at least at odds with the post, HN is a bean soup fallacy/theory/dilemma generation system.
SNAP is funded. Food pantries are abundant. Nobody is eating roadkill to survive as a matter of necessity. If you’re eating carrion that’s probably a lifestyle choice and indicative of some mental illness.
A wildlife overpass is certainly not going to be cheap, but I could see the road user safety benefit penciling out over the life of the asset. I wonder why you would send the animals over (and span the whole roadway) rather than under (cut and cover a box culvert). Either way, it would be nice to see this better funded for rural America.
Ignoring my incredulity at this response, the risk to the lives of the drivers seems to me to be of greater importance than the potential that some people might benefit from the carcasses lying on the side of road.
Instead of doing that boring thing the unthinking do - I challenge you to ask why 15M seems like a lot.
Is it a lot in comparrison to the costs to the taxpayers for all the emergency crews responding to animal caused accidents over the lifetime of the crossing, not to mention dealing with carcasses of animals, etc?
How much of any single person's tax money went into it? How long until those few cents get paid off in terms of saved time and gas by not dealing with the traffic backup from those accidents? How much do those few cents amortize to your savings in reduced insurance since thats less potential accident you have to bet against... how much savings does that reduction confer on your expected direct costs in cas you had been in a the accident?
Does 15M still seem like a lot?
Maybe you think it could be built cheaper - how? Show your work.
All these things sure are an interesting conversation to have. Much more interesting than "hur dur, 15M is a big number" anyway.
I'm curious about the POV you're coming from. I don't think the number of deer who don't get hit is relevant to the math on injury prevention, traffic prevention, and ongoing operational and property damage costs.
Conflicted about this - food insecurity is a real thing. However it may offend some people's sensibilities, there are many people that have a significant reliance on roadkill to fulfill their dietary needs. It can make the difference between going to bed well-fed, or going to bed with a deep hunger in the pit of one's stomach.
I'm fine with that, as their dinner shouldn't depend on me suffering an horrible car crash and being hurt or killed.
The people will save a lot of money if they don't need to replace 500 cars each year, therefore more money to feed themselves. They will not be forced to eat dog corpses.
I doubt that many people are collecting roadkill on a 75mph 6-lane divided freeway though, since I can't really think of any safe way to collect it.
But even if you could collect it, hitting anything small at that speed will completely pulverize it, and hitting anything larger will seriously hurt the vehicle's occupants, so it's probably best to stick to smaller roads.
This is peak bean soup theory on HN.
Always has to be at least one commenter, "but what about my highly specific scenario? All the other people benefiting are an aberration to my specific need or wild singular example"
Fund SNAP, not discount game meat through the deaths of others.
Nailed it. Adding the fact that the majority of HN comments are negative or at least at odds with the post, HN is a bean soup fallacy/theory/dilemma generation system.
Agree 100%. Also, hitting a deer at highway speeds can lead to the death of the occupants of the vehicle.
This is not some country road!
This is an actual win-win scenario, for humans and wildlife.
SNAP is funded. Food pantries are abundant. Nobody is eating roadkill to survive as a matter of necessity. If you’re eating carrion that’s probably a lifestyle choice and indicative of some mental illness.
A wildlife overpass is certainly not going to be cheap, but I could see the road user safety benefit penciling out over the life of the asset. I wonder why you would send the animals over (and span the whole roadway) rather than under (cut and cover a box culvert). Either way, it would be nice to see this better funded for rural America.
The lives of the animals also matter.
On a related note, they don’t send them under because most wild animals do not like enclosed tunnels and would not use them.
Disregarding the weird roadkill thing: That's a facile measure, 100% of $5 that nobody is eligible to receive is "funded".
In 2025 Republicans slashed its budget by the biggest cut in history, and today participation is the lowest in 17 years.
I doubt any of us honestly believe the drop is because everybody's financial situation has gotten way better.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-tracker-p...
Ignoring my incredulity at this response, the risk to the lives of the drivers seems to me to be of greater importance than the potential that some people might benefit from the carcasses lying on the side of road.
My brother almost died in a car wreck with a deer.
Last thought before the deer goes through my windshield and kills me is: "At least someone can eat this roadkill."
Reducing car/animal collisions is a good thing for cars(drivers) and animals.
As expected from the press release at open about 9 months ago. (they estimated 90% reduction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46321557)
The $15M price tag still seems like a lot. Happy for the critters and motorists tho
Instead of doing that boring thing the unthinking do - I challenge you to ask why 15M seems like a lot.
Is it a lot in comparrison to the costs to the taxpayers for all the emergency crews responding to animal caused accidents over the lifetime of the crossing, not to mention dealing with carcasses of animals, etc?
How much of any single person's tax money went into it? How long until those few cents get paid off in terms of saved time and gas by not dealing with the traffic backup from those accidents? How much do those few cents amortize to your savings in reduced insurance since thats less potential accident you have to bet against... how much savings does that reduction confer on your expected direct costs in cas you had been in a the accident?
Does 15M still seem like a lot?
Maybe you think it could be built cheaper - how? Show your work.
All these things sure are an interesting conversation to have. Much more interesting than "hur dur, 15M is a big number" anyway.
Story instead of reddit: https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/largest-wildlife-overp...
"This area was getting about one deer hit a day"
Relative to how many didn't get hit, what's the percentage there?
I'm curious about the POV you're coming from. I don't think the number of deer who don't get hit is relevant to the math on injury prevention, traffic prevention, and ongoing operational and property damage costs.