Posted on 08/05/2005 1:20:11 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Deaths from vehicle crashes leave surviving family members and friends of victims with a hole in their hearts and no safe place to grieve at the spot where the deaths occurred.
Whether in pursuit of closure, remembrance or hopeful prevention, creating a roadside memorial has been an increasingly common practice for those who've lost someone. Whether these memorials are helpful or harmful, though, has become a controversy across the country.
"It's a recent phenomena," said Middleton Police Chief Paul Armitage of the memorials. "I've been here 36 years and we used to have three to four to five fatals a year on Route 114 and you never saw anything like that."
Middleton has two such memorials on Route 114 and another on Route 62, also called Boston Road, Armitage said. Neither of the memorials has caused any safety problems of which he is aware.
"Except for those of us who know it's there, no one would know it's there," said Armitage of the memorial on Boston Road, created in memory of Middleton Police Officer Edward Couture. The officer was killed in 1997 after being hit by a car while he was working a road detail. The memorial has remained ever since.
Armitage did note that when the memorial was first put up, the amount of people accessing the sidewalk-free area could have been dangerous. Now, the site seems to go unnoticed by most passersby.
As long as memorials don't distract drivers or create a hazard, said Armitage, he has no problem with their presence.
He added, "I wonder if it reminds people of their own mortality and it makes them drive slower for the next 20 minutes?"
In states such as Alaska and West Virginia the memorials are actually encouraged, according to information on the AlaskaLegislature.com Web site and the West Virginia Department of Transportation Web site, www.vdot.com.
In Topsfield, Police Chief Dan O'Shea said he couldn't comment on the issue "because I haven't seen it myself," adding that there aren't any roadside memorials in the town.
Memorials in Boxford
Boxford, with its winding country roads, is also home to roadside memorials, said Chief Gordon Russell of the Boxford Police. Though no harm has come from the two such sites in town, Russell said he does see potential danger from such sites on interstate highways.
While some proponents say these memorials help make people aware of the dangers of the road, Russell disagrees.
"As far as enhancing safety, I don't believe that they do that. In my experience I've seen people take their eyes away from driving and look at the roadside memorial and maybe slow down, maybe not be cognizant that someone is passing," said Russell.
However, Russell added that he doesn't think the practice of setting up these memorials should be outlawed - as it has been in states such as North Carolina, according to information on the North Carolina Department of Transportation Web site, www.ncdot.org - but he does see the need for regulation.
He suggested regulating the sites in the same way some cemeteries regulate head stones, requiring that they must lie flush with the ground.
"There would be the comfort in knowing that it's there and people could place a certain amount of flowers there, but the average person driving by wouldn't know," said Russell.
Russell was adamant that having a distraction to look at while driving is simply a dangerous situation.
"One of the most dangerous places to be, speaking from 35 years of experience, is to be at the scene of a serious accident on the interstate, because people are all looking and gawking and driving carelessly," said Russell.
Though the state police have jurisdiction over interstate vehicle accidents, Lt. Sharon Costine, in charge of Public Affairs for the state police, would not comment on the issue, adding that Mass Highway controls what goes on on the side of the roads.
One state police sergeant, who did not want to be identified, suggested a reason why the state police may not take a stance on the issue. "I think the police in general try to avoid making a public comment on it [because] you walk the line [of] looking heartless," he said.
Asked whether Mass Highway has a policy on the memorials, John Carlisle, spokesmen for the Executive Office of Transportation, said there is no official policy.
"We ask our maintenance people to judge them on a case by case basis," he said. "If it [a roadside memorial] is deemed a hazard or a distraction, then we will remove it. Larger ones, particularly with things that wave, can distract people from their primary task, and that is driving," he said.
I tink they can be a good indicator to drivers thet this is a dangerous area for whatever reason . Also it is good to memorialize those lost as long as it is reasonable.
It worked. Barrier cables are in the process of being placed in these localities.
Either they are intended to be noticed, in which case they
are a distraction, or they are intended to be ignored, in
which case they are pointless.
But alas, I suppose we have to wait for the first instance
of a memorial on top of an earlier memorial, where the
latter resulted from some driver contemplating the earlier.
I ignore them, and advocate other drivers do likewise.
I appreciate being reminded that driving is dangerous. These memorials don't disturb or distract me.
Boating on the Chattahoochee River in Alabama, I noticed a floating memorial to two drowning victims which appeared to be made by the state of Alabama.
I personally would prefer to be memorialized at my favorite relaxation place, rather than at the site where I slammed into a tree at 80 mph while fumbling with my cell phone.
Around the corner.
Lickety split.
Nice car.
Wasn't it?
(Burma-Shave)
Yeah but the haters can't stand the fact that crosses are used.
Some are outright tacky, but demure white crosses get the message across. Highway 93 from Phoenix to Kingman was one of those dangerous, winding, two-lane highways with too few passing lane. The many, many white crosses along it were a good reminder to drive defensively, despite the many offensive drivers along the road.
I see it as Pagan, though largely harmless. If ANYONE ever decided to place one on property that I owned, I would tear it down immediately.
I hate false dichotomies.
I choose "other".
A sour brew of multiculturalism and "PC".
I do not ignore them.
I process them--someone lost someone close, it could happen to me or mine, we should be ever-careful....
If it's a "distraction," then so are all billboards, buildings, cows, misshapen trees, of course deer, people in stupid-looking clothes, stupid-looking people, etc.
This is not about "memorials"...it's about CROSSES. These symbols of Christianity really bother people.
What?
I remember seeing these things in the 50s when our family would travel.
Litter.
I hope my sons see every memorial erected along any street they drive.
There, but for the grace of God, go they.
Drive carefully.
Personally, the only memorial I want is an engraved stone placed six feet above my room temperature horizontal body.
Yes, modest memorials DO serve a useful purpose as a safety reminder...
but some of these shrines get waaaaaaaay too elaborate and are a distraction.
Such extravegent displays belong in a cemetary, not along the roadside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.