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.

> 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.

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.

My brother almost died in a car wreck with a deer.

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.

> 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.