Life on the Road – Trucking News Blog

all roadside crosses, pictures, signs, flowers, stuffed animals and other “memorials” erected by the friends and families of those who have had relatives sadly killed in motor vehicle accidents. Dr. Michael Brooks on his blog “historymike” writes that “some states and municipalities have enacted bans on roadside memorials, citing public safety as the overriding concern.”

“The states of Colorado, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts ban roadside memorials, while states such as California not only place onerous restrictions on roadside memorials, but – in California’s case – charge fees up to $1,000 for a small metal sign commemorating accident victims on state highways. If an office worker suddenly died of a cerebral aneurysm while standing at the copier machine, we would be saddened, but I suspect that a copier-side cross would not appear.”

There is a time and a place for everything. And yes, we already have too many laws restricting and/or banning this and that. However, these roadside “annoyances” on our interstate roads have gotten out of hand. They’re everywhere. They border on litter and are a distraction and a safety hazard. Robert Tiernan – an attorney in Colorado who represented a client accused and later acquitted of illegally removing a roadside memorial – says that “they constitute the taking of public property for private purposes. They invariably include Christian crosses and other religious symbols. This violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state because public facilities are being used to promote religion.

They are a distraction and, therefore, dangerous to the motoring public. Many of these memorials are on median strips along the highway or are just off the shoulder. They are often elaborate and include symbols that are anchored into the ground. If a motorist happens to lose control of his car and hits one of these displays, it could result in serious injury or death.  Furthermore, the fact that grieving family and friends frequently visit these memorials to leave flowers and to pray presents an additional danger. In the case I handled, the memorial was in the “V” of an interstate off-ramp. When mourners slowed down to pull off and visit the site, it created a serious traffic hazard.”

A manager for the Connecticut DOT, remembers when a mother and her two children were killed at a dangerous intersection. ”We brought in a nine-ton dump truck and hauled away a truckload of flowers,” he said. ”After about 10 days, we asked the friends and family to stop, but for two or three weeks after that we were still cleaning up.” The situation was one of many in the state that caused the Connecticut DOT to recently re-issue a press release, sent to all police stations, asking for the public’s cooperation in refraining from such memorials and the local police’s assistance in notifying the DOT of hazards. ‘You get gawkers, people stopping in the middle of the road and getting out of their cars to deliver flowers. If families want to do this kind of thing then we’d like to pick a safe area for them.”

MADD – Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Colorado Department of Transportation have enacted a Memorial Sign Program. They say it raises the awareness of others on the road by having a sign asking people not to drink and drive. And the name of the victim can be established at the sight of the crash. Is this a better approach? Are there other solutions or is an outright ban nationwide preferable? What say you readers about this issue?

Post resources were: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/should-roadside-memorials-be-banned/?scp=1-b&sq=roadside+accident+memorials&st=nyt and http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=roadside+accident+memorials&d=&o=&v=&c=&n=10&dp=0&daterange=full&sort=newest