America’s Roads of Carnage
Millions of animals die on U.S. roads every year. Automotive innovations, reductions in night-time driving and a $350 million pilot program for wildlife corridors offer promise to stem future senseless loss.
This article first ran in Noozhawk, Santa Barbara, Calif.
As a city dweller for 30 years in the second largest city in the United States, roadkill — the animals killed by drivers of motorized vehicles on roads each year — was not something much seen. The urban L.A. landscape, the paved-over paradise of songstress and storyteller Joni Mitchell, had long ago driven out most wild things, excepting rats, squirrels, the occasional opossum, raccoon and cougar, and the ever-dispersing coyote. But the carnage was just beyond the cityscape on California’s freeways.
Reports have been consistent in recent years of mountain lions killed on roads throughout California. While humans have evolved with other species for a couple of million years, the big cats and many other animals haven’t evolved to recognize the danger of 3,000 pounds of passenger vehicle and 25,000 pounds of semi-truck moving at 55 mph, or more. Their mums couldn’t teach them to look both ways before crossing the road. About 100 cougars are killed each year on California’s roadways alone.
While data is difficult to come by for the number of animals killed on the 4 million miles of roads (2005) in the U.S., author and nature photographer Mark Mathew Braunstein wrote that an estimated 1 million animals are killed on U.S. roads each day. Several years ago, I started pondering the high number of fatalities after a trip to my hometown of Ponca City, Oklahoma, where armadillo death on the surrounding roads was pronounced. And after a recent road trip in the Midwest, I wondered if the estimate of 1 million daily deaths isn’t too small a number.
Round-trip (700 miles) between Oklahoma City and Kansas City in late October I counted 178 animal victims of vehicular hits, with the body count higher as I got nearer to KC. The landscape of pumping units, hay bales, windmills and fall foliage was diminished by so much death. As the miles ticked by, emotions were up and down, sadness seeing what looked like more remains of yet another dead animal, but then relief to see just more shredded tires from blowouts, an abandoned child’s stuffed animal bunny toy or other detritus. Sometimes there were lone victims; sometimes pairs or threesomes — a calico cat, maybe a dog, skunks, raccoons, armadillos, eight deer, unknown species in pieces spread across multiple car lengths and animals no longer identifiable.
With miles and miles of unbreaking cement divider separating the lanes for drivers heading north on I-35 from those heading south, there’s been no thought of how the chicken will get across the road, let alone “Why did the chicken cross the road?” But even if that solid concrete impediment weren’t there with four lanes of traffic — more in other parts of the country — and with vehicles traveling 75 mph (or 85 or 90 mph), the likelihood of successful animal crossings no doubt would probably still be low.
This carnage on the roads contributes not just to reductions in wildlife because of our actions, it impacts humans. The hundreds of thousands of animal fatalities without end on the roads also result in 26,000 human injuries and 200 deaths and vehicular damage. Crashes with animals translate to annual costs of $8 billion. With an estimated U.S. population of more than 30 million deer (an example perhaps not so much of diminishing wildlife, but of human mismanagement by killing off top predators, such as the cougar), there are ample opportunities for the unfortunate intersection of particularly lethal incidents between deer and moving vehicles. Just in Pennsylvania, the state synonymous with deer — think the 1978 film, “The Deer Hunter” — nearly 142,000 deer were struck by vehicles in reported claims to insurers. So the number could be higher. This is in addition to the 435,000 deer killed by hunters in Pennsylvania in 2020–2021.
Solutions
Senseless death coupled with practical costs are ample reasons to look at how to significantly reduce losses. One way to reduce loss would be to stop driving at night. Nearly half of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities happen at night (6pm to 6am), a rate that is three times higher than daytime fatalities, according to a 2007 report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. About 25 percent of driving is during darkness, and speeding was a factor in 37 percent of night crashes. Driving at night is just more dangerous, the National Safety Council tells us.
In addition to reducing or eliminating night driving, because it’s safer for humans, with many nocturnal animals, it’s good for them too. Give them back the night!
That might not be a difficult choice for many, and it would be opting to choose wisely. For the trucking industry, however, likely that would send shockwaves, certainly if there were any movement towards nonvoluntary participation. Nearly 4 million drivers — owner-operator truckers — hold commercial driver’s licenses, and they are the ones responsible for delivering 70 percent of all freight in the country. Delivery schedules, driving preferences and traffic are factors of when they drive. Cities with high traffic are just easier to navigate when there are fewer vehicles on the roads, which generally will be early morning hours. Current backlog issues at U.S. ports have only exacerbated driving schedules for truckers.
A first-hand look at how our goods move — and how many products move — was evident relocating last December from Los Angeles to Oklahoma City. The I-10, I-40 drive route was semi-truck saturated until reaching Eastern New Mexico. A two-semi crash that immolated the vehicles left us stopped for several hours just after passing the major desert cities in Southern California on 1–10, and a freak weather incident later on the route had again stopped traffic. Completed in 1964, I-40 now seems woefully undersized to accommodate the high trucking volume. But more lanes to cross could hardly bode well for already put-upon wildlife.
The days of lives driven by when the sun rose and set are long gone, thanks to electricity. Good for humans in many ways, and bad for wildlife without a doubt. Along with the development of the automobile came the development of headlights in the 1880s, the beginning of yet another assault on wildlife (the successor to the purge of wild things by bullet by settlers to America). The first modern electric lights on cars came with Cadillac, and then Ford began mass production of the Model T, for a new world of night-time car travel. The industry grew to where we are today, with total passenger vehicle industry volume of 17 million in the U.S. in 2020, and expected to reach 71 million vehicles globally this year.
That’s just passenger cars and trucks — not the semi-trucks and other commercial vehicles that keep us supplied with toilet paper, food, furniture and home goods, and other products coming largely from the manufacturer to the world, China. Just in the U.S., the chances of keeping a portion of the 290 million cars off the roads at night to save lives would seem remote, seen as overreach to our freedom. It would take a mighty re-education campaign, which likely would still result in refusal by probably half of the population based on past and current polarization on other issues. Yet, it is a real option should enough Americans deem it more important to save millions of lives than to have unfettered access to roads at night.
But there are other potential solutions to add to the mix to correct a manmade situation that is killing millions of sentient beings. The automotive industry has a role to play.
Automakers
Automakers are spending hundreds of billions of dollars to develop autonomous drive, new mobility options and electric vehicles, much driven by the target of achieving carbon neutrality. GM plans to invest $35 billion on autonomous drive and EVs by 2025, and Ford, $29 billion. Nissan has put forth the lofty “double zero” target of zero emissions and zero fatalities.
Automotive innovation and new technologies have moved swiftly. Back-up cameras provide a better view of what’s around the vehicle. Drivers are now more connected than ever with enhanced data connectivity, and they have the “magic” that automates parallel parking. Sensing/perception systems determine distance to objects to aid in crash avoidance. And there’s much more as the industry continues the march to the holy grail of self-driving vehicles. Innovative camera, sensing and radar technologies can provide data to the driver and vehicle to respond to traffic, hazards, routes and road conditions, and to provide other feedback, including about pedestrians and animals. It’s the latter where more focus needs to be directed by corporate automotive leaders, vehicle engineers and designers.
Do vehicle sensors to survey the environment need to “see” further and assume vehicle control to “Stop the Car!” if a moving element is headed towards the vehicle? Can the types of movements made by a variety of species be identified, so the vehicle can recognize what’s potentially in its path? Can research lead to identifying sounds that can emanate from the vehicle only audible to animal(s) that will discourage them from approaching the road when a vehicle is on it? If automakers can develop self-driving cars, surely they can innovate and develop the technologies to avert wildlife collisions. Without addressing the wildlife-roads-vehicle connection, neither Nissan nor any other automaker will ever be able to reach a zero-fatalities goal.
Development of these technologies should be part of automakers’ commitment to corporate social responsibility. Consumers who care about biodiversity, as well as wildlife advocates and environmentalists, need to let vehicle manufacturers know this should be a priority. As the automotive industry is a global industry, whatever technology developed of course could be applied to products globally. As well, the technology could potentially apply to other transportation modes (trains, buses) or have other applications. Wildlife everywhere would benefit from these product developments. With 1.4 billion vehicles on the road globally — and an estimated 2 billion by 2035 — vehicle innovations could keep a lot of wildlife worldwide from being roadkill.
Wildlife Crossings
Our push to build out America from coast to coast and from the Mexican border to Canada didn’t exactly prioritize the needs of wildlife. Our roads, cities, homes, farmlands and all of our infrastructure have carved up the natural environment and impacted animals’ ability to thrive and migrate — animals gotta move — so it’s hardly a surprise that habitat loss is the top threat to wildlife. While we’ve carved out preserves and parklands, the missing element has been connecting spaces for wildlife to move safely.
Wildlife crossings offer potential, but by how much is to be seen with the willingness to fund them. In Utah, the state’s first wildlife bridge opened in 2018 — at a cost of $5 million — and was heralded as a success by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, with users including bears, coyotes, deer, elk, moose and small mammals. The planned wildlife crossing in Southern California over the 101 Freeway at Liberty Canyon has been years in the making, inspired by the big cat, P-22, who crossed several freeways, ending up in L.A.’s Griffith Park. He’s the poster cat for cougars in the Santa Monica Mountains who are cut off from the ability to move freely, as they’re hemmed in by some of the busiest freeways in the country. From early estimated costs of $33 million, the 200-foot x 165-foot bridge over eight lanes of traffic is now expected to come in at a staggering $87 million, with construction starting in 2022.
With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684) this month, there is now $350 million in dedicated funding for wildlife crossings, thanks to the work of the Wildlands Network and others. The Wildlands Network works “to reconnect, restore and rewild North America so that life — in all its diversity — can thrive.” This is a big step up from roadside signage that alerts drivers to locations where deer and other animals cross. H.R. 3684 will fund a “Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program” to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. According to the Network, wildlife crossings can reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions by more than 90 percent. The organization determines critical concern areas for wildlife and motorized traffic in the U.S. — locations where the natural movement of animals and moving vehicles intersect.
Roadkill. It’s What’s for Dinner.
Any discussion on the impact of millions of dead animals on our roadways has to at least have a passing mention of the idea, and reality, of eating roadkill.
My non-science-based conclusion would be that 99.9 percent of the population would be appalled by the idea of eating the remains on a road of any creature whose demise had come by a speeding vehicle. I’ve never caught and filleted a fish, shot and dressed a deer nor wrung a chicken’s neck in preparation for a fried chicken dinner, and picking up a carcass on the road to eat is a whole other thing. That said, there are those who believe that availing oneself of a roadkill meal is perfectly acceptable — making “the best of a bad situation,” per a Yahoo article. An online interview/documentary provides insight into the preparation of roadkill and the independence that it’s provided for years for a gentle taxidermist in Bodmin Moor, Cornwall, England.
In 2019, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill making it legal to retrieve and eat animals killed on roads by drivers — “road game,” including antelope, deer, elk and wild pig. Referencing the high number of deer killed in vehicular crashes, the legislation noted that “this potentially translates into hundreds of thousands of pounds of healthy meat that could be used to feed those in need.” Today 30 states allow the procurement of roadkill. “Grand View Outdoors” offers guidance on where you can legally pick up roadkill and how to know if roadkill is okay to eat, while animal activist organization PETA has an official stance that it’s okay to eat roadkill, but also is happy to provide a vegetarian starter kit for anyone who wants to stop eating meat.
It’s Still All About the Numbers
Ultimately, how this tremendous loss of life is mitigated will be determined by whether enough Americans care about the deaths of hundreds of millions of animals. Our history has not been good. Our settling of what became to be the United States was accompanied by a mass extermination of wild things, including grizzly bears, bison and cougars. It’s not 1800s’ frontiersman today, but the further assault continues to be by Man, machine and his overbuilt world. We know much more now, and we can do much better to protect life and provide a good quality of life for all living things.
But beyond a better educated populace, transportation innovations, and built structures and revised landscapes to meet the needs of wildlife, there is another key element. Whatever mitigating measures can be taken to reduce loss of life on our roads will still leave wildlife insecure if we don’t address our overall growth issue. In 1790, America’s population was 3.9 million. By 1900, U.S. population was 76 million, and today it’s 333 million. Chart the U.S. population growth since the 1600s on a graph, and it’s parabolic. And there is no sign of stabilizing U.S. population. Political idealogues are driving unfettered population growth, and a few talking heads have put out the idea of a U.S. with 1 billion people. The more people we add, the more built environment we need, which means less for all other biodiversity.
Looking at the 10,000-foot level, reducing the high number of wildlife deaths seems like a gargantuan task. But start looking more to scale, and there are good options we can embrace and advocate. Never underestimate the power of individuals to drive change.
Maria Fotopoulos writes about the connection between overpopulation and biodiversity loss, and from time to time other topics that confound her. Contact her on FB @BetheChangeforAnimals.
