What do you think of this? Road side memorials?

[PuppyFluffer]

http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/523586.html

[jpappy789]

Not exactly a fan of the idea but on the business side of it, if families are willing to pay, why not?

[PuppyFluffer]

It just seems trashy to me. It's just so "West Virginian". It just seems really lousy to memorialize someone at the crash site of their death and then give the government money to do it.

[PuppyFluffer]

And before anyone gets upset about the West Virginia comment, there are some forward thinking progressive people here. There are also so many that are not. They didn't create all those West Virginia jokes for no good reason. I'm not trying too hard to perpetuate a stereotype....but the stereotype does exist.

[jpappy789]

I personally wouldn't do it...just not going to blame the government for trying to make money when the public is willing to pay...

[serissime]

I think the personal memorials are trashier. I think it would be less dangerous for everyone if the state put up standardized signs. I can look at the sign as I pass but it's not gonna be one of those crazy things with stuff everywhere; it will be something like a green sign with white letters. I also think it's safer for the grieving families... state workers have the ability to put up traffic cones, close off the shoulder, etc.. regular citizens do not.

However, I wouldn't buy one. But you know.. I wouldn't erect my own memorial either. I'd actually rather not look at them. Standardized green signs... I will see them and know what they are, so they are noticed, but I don't have to be bothered (distracted) by them. Maybe I'm being a jerk, but you know, it's a road, not your front yard.

I think the renewal fee is a good idea too, because three years is kind of long enough. If you really care that much about the person's name appearing on the side of a road, please, cough up the money. I think most people will not be offended about the sign being taken down after three years, so it's a good time window.

[kyryah]

In a way I have never understood the roadside signs. It is tragic when someone loses their life in a motor vehicle accident, but there are a lot of people that suffer tragedy in different ways. There is not a plaque or memorial placed in every single place everywhere where someone has passed. Memorials are generally placed in the cemetary, and in the case of someone who is cremated, in the family's home, etc.

It makes more sense with victims of drunk drivers, and personally I think the signs in that case would be adequate. Not only that, but it would be a reminder to those that see them of the consequences of drinking and driving. I do not, however, think that it should be something the government is allowed to charge for.

Kristina

[coach_z]

i think this crosses over that fine line that we see as appropriate and inappropriate.

a memorial is erected to remember a loved one, but where is it appropriate to place? Placing one on the side of a highway requires a vehicle to be stopped on the shoulder (which is meant for breakdowns and emergencies only, and a few other motor vehicle exceptions). A driver by could possibly hit that stopped car and be killed, or could hit the person erecting the sign and then they might be killed. Is it a good place fo the memorial, now that i have thought about it for the first time ever. No. Does it give us a good reminder of safe driving and responsibility and other things related to driving? Yes, Or if you answered no it probably should.

How about other places that our loved ones die or are killed. My grandmother passed away in her bedroom. we now rent out the house out to tenants. i dont go there every September and place flowers in the room, or on the doorstep, or anyplace near the house i go to the place that she rests.

so leaving a bunch of stuff (which is goign to turn into litter & trash in a few days) might be more appropriate to leave on teh side of a highway and convey a lot more meaning to the people who made it. making signs that are paid for and maintained seems like a much better, safer and environmentally friendly thing to do.

[Zaffy]

I don't think private memorials have a place on public roads. People will still make their own distracting memorials anyway, especially when a proper one costs $200.

[serissime]

I'm going to assume that creating your own memorial on the side of the road will probably no longer be allowed if there is a different, state-sanctioned way to do it now. Personally, seeing a memorial makes me think "Oh, someone died I guess," not "wow there was an accident, maybe I should be a safer driver." So they are not "helpful" to me, only slightly distracting. I would not oppose the state charging a fee for signs. If you feel like it's wrong... hey, don't buy one. But don't litter the side of the road either.

[jm1212]

In a way I have never understood the roadside signs. It is tragic when someone loses their life in a motor vehicle accident, but there are a lot of people that suffer tragedy in different ways. There is not a plaque or memorial placed in every single place everywhere where someone has passed. Memorials are generally placed in the cemetary, and in the case of someone who is cremated, in the family's home, etc.

It makes more sense with victims of drunk drivers, and personally I think the signs in that case would be adequate. Not only that, but it would be a reminder to those that see them of the consequences of drinking and driving. I do not, however, think that it should be something the government is allowed to charge for.

Kristinathis i agree with.

[noodles62]

In Montana there are simple white metal crosses at fatal crash sites. They are placed on the edge of the road as mile markers are (About the size of mile markers too). I am not sure who pays for them. They are more permanent and "attractive" than the makeshift crosses with silk flowers. A friend of mine was appalled when he came out West and saw them due to his religious beliefs, but I always looked at them as a way to remind myself (& other drivers) to slow down and drive safely. Nothing wrong with something that makes you think about "what could happen" and be more careful.

*Edit: Just looked up the Montana crosses - here is the link.

http://itd.idaho.gov/transporter/2004/051404_Trans/051404_MTcrosses.html

[captaincaveman9]

I am against them, they provide a distraction to drivers already over distracted from driving their cars. A memorial should be someplace private and where visiting and maintaining would mot provide a danger. Now, if a particular stretch of road has a large number of deaths and injuries, a warning sign of the danger possibly listing the numbers of deaths or injuries, but that's it

[Star_Rider]

are they distracting?

not for me. I see them all the time.
I look at is as a way for someone to deal with grief.

I wouldn't place a memorial where my brother died in a crash..but that's me. I choose to deal with grief differently.
I completely understand what the family is dealing with.

I passed thru montana and I like thier way of dealing with it. and to be honest, never noticed a single cross all the way thru. it was I-90 so I am sure someone died somewhere on that road.

[jpappy789]

What's more distracting?

http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/pleaseslowdown.thumbnail.jpg

LOL

If people cannot keep their eye on the road and ignore the outside world, they have no right to drive.

[BreezeRuehls]

I saw a cross on the side of the street, looking closer at it I saw it was for a 10 year old girl. It filled me with sadness, I looked up the street, and accidents in my news paper website. It turned out the little girl was hit by a guy on his cell phone, she was walking home from school. To me I think they wake up our consciences, it made me think. I dont bother with my phone when I drive, or anything else. I dont want to be the reason for one of those signs.

My uncle Jason was hit by a jeep on 10 freeway on ramp in Beaumont Ca, He died. We did not put a road side memorial because we felt that out grief was our own.