Wildlife road kills versus Vision Zero 2050: Recommendations for reducing wildlife vehicle collisions
Figure: The jurisdiction black hole for wildlife vehicle collision between Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024 – 2030 and the Safe System Model for Vision Zero 2050. Photos: Patrick Francis.
Freelance journalist Patrick Francis spent six months investigating the link between wildlife vehicle collisions and vehicle occupant casualties and wildlife road kills. Despite an enormous amount of money spent on Federal, State and Territory Action Plans and Strategies to lower the road toll towards a Vision Zero 2050 outcome vehicle collisions with people and wildlife on rural, regional and remote roads are increasing. Wildlife on and in the vicinity of these roads fall into a jurisdiction black hole.
To remove the road kill jurisdiction black hole Francis says his research suggests the Commonwealth government’s Senate Environment and Communications References Committee set up an inquiry into why the National Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 2030, the National Road Safety Action Plan 2023 – 2025, and Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024 – 2030 do not include any references to wildlife vehicle collisions as a contributor to vehicle occupants casualties and fatalities and to wildlife welfare and their natural behaviour distribution in their environments. The inquiry also investigate the connection between wildlife vehicle collisions and the advice to motorists to hit wildlife rather than swerve; the increasing numbers of vehicles being fitted with Standards Australia Vehicle Frontal Protection Systems; Speed Zoning Guidelines including a default 100km/h speed limits on rural, regional and remote roads; and lack of recognition of the Safe System Speeds as an alternative to default speeds on these roads.
Based on his research six new components should be included in revised versions of National, State and Territory Road Safety Strategies and Nature Strategies:
* The Safe System Model includes an additional principle that wildlife share roads and live adjacent to them as part of their right to exist and should not be penalised exhibiting natural behaviour by being killed and injured in vehicle collisions. Wildlife are not road hazards or an additional problem behind road safety, they are victims of the expanding road network and drivers and governments inequity around road use.
* A Wildlife Vehicle Crash Risk Rating methodology be developed by road ecologists, wildlife rescue agencies, and wildlife experienced land owners and become mandatory for assessing appropriate Safe System Speed limits for all rural, regional and remote roads alongside Crash Risk Ratings and Infrastructure Risk Ratings.
* The Road Effect Zone is included in the Wildlife Vehicle Crash Risk Rating to account for changing land use adjacent to roads such as reforestation for wildlife habitat restoration and greenhouse gas abatement and for loss of habitat due to housing developments.
* The published Safe System Speeds that determine the human bodies biomechanical impact tolerances and ensure a 90% survival rate be applied to wildlife as well as humans and these Speeds replace all 100km/h default speed limits on rural regional and remote roads.
* The universal advice to vehicle drivers to “slow down” associated with the yellow static and enhanced wildlife signs is replaced with specific advisory speeds and in wildlife hot spots legal speed limits all of which are based on the Safe System Speeds for an animal’s biomechanical tolerance to impact speeds.
* Wildlife protection, enhancement and welfare on public roads is the joint responsibility of Federal, State and Territory Environment Departments in conjunction with Transport departments and Shire councils with the latter making the final decision for the local roads under its management.
Follow-up: To read all six research articles in the Wildlife road kills versus Vision Zero series visit www.moffittsfarm.com.au
