Traffic Talk: Are roadside memorials the proper way to honor accident victims?

Troy Reimink | By Troy Reimink |
Follow on Twitter
on January 02, 2012 at 7:00 AM, updated January 03, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Here is a guaranteed argument-starter from a reader who didn't provide a name, possibly for good reason. He or she emailed last week about roadside memorials:

Why does the highway department allow these? I have seen the occasional crosses, but some have gone overboard , for example.... There is one on the north grassy area on southbound I-196 west of Hudsonville that looks like a cemetery plot with numerous floral pieces and memorabilia?

The reader refers to displays along roads and highways that mark where a person died in an accident. They generally consist of crucifixes and/or flowers and are erected and maintained by grieving family members as tributes.

These unofficial displays are part of the landscape. But are they appropriate, and do they belong in places where they could distract other motorists?

The roadside-memorial phenomenon is typically traced to a Spanish custom in which pallbearers would place markers along the path between a church and cemetery where they would rest while carrying a coffin. The tradition was observed among mourners in the American Southwest – where the displays are called “descansos,” Spanish for “place of rest” – and spread throughout the U.S.

Numbers are hard to come by, since the displays are not officially tracked or registered, but anecdotal evidence suggests the use of these memorials has been on the rise in the past decade. It's a tough issue that officials often are reluctant to tackle directly because it's so emotionally fraught, pitting respect for grieving families against concerns over public safety.

The most obvious argument against allowing memorials is they are a distraction. Again, absent hard data, it's difficult to say how many crashes may have directly resulted from motorists being distracted specifically by the memorials, although there would be a painful irony to such an accident. Proponents argue the memorials actually benefit the public by reminding motorists to drive safely.

In 2007, the Muskegon Chronicle reported on a spat between a family mourning the car-accident death of a grandfather and the owner of the land on which they had placed a small memorial without permission. The family wanted a public remembrance that they thought might also serve as “a reminder to slow down.” The owner thought road memorials to the dead were “terrible” and wanted theirs off his property.

Some raise constitutional objections to these displays. When the tributes appear on public land, as is generally the case, it adds a church-state component to the issue. (So get those comments-section tomatoes ready.) Allowing crosses on state-owned land strikes some opponents as a violation of the First Amendment's establishment-of-religion clause.

Arguing against memorials, the organization American Atheists points to section 257.615 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, which bans the placement of objects, lights and signs in the right-of-way that might obstruct the view of official signs or lights or otherwise create a hazard. The code empowers local authorities to remove such items if they are deemed hazardous.

A spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Transportation told the Chronicle there was no specific policy for roadside memorials and that they exist in a legal gray area in which they are neither illegal nor officially recognized by authorities. Michigan officials tend to discourage people from putting them up, urging grieving families to instead plant trees or participate in the Adopt-a-Highway program in their loved one's memory.

State Rep. Neal Nitz (R-Baroda) of Berrien County in 2005 introduced a bill that would have banned homemade memorials but allow uniform MDOT signs marking places where fatal accidents had occurred, containing the name of the deceased and a message encouraging others to drive safely. But the legislation did not get very far.

Last year, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment attracted some criticism when it urged residents to find different ways to express grief over the loss of a loved one. The organization issued a statement offering suggestions for public grieving that included volunteering with land conservancies or donating in the name of the deceased to state park or forest programs:

Lynne Boyd, chief of the DNRE's Forest Management Division (FMD), said that when people place memorials on state forest land, including state-owned land adjacent to county roads, they're actually taking that portion of land away from truly public use. Additionally, such memorials can pose a safety concern to travelers on the roads and visitors to the public land.

"When people create their own memorial places on public land, these locations can become spots where donated objects continue to accumulate," said Boyd. "As friends and relatives gather to visit and leave mementos at the memorial sites, these locations often become distractions for drivers and put others in potential danger."

States deal with roadside memorials in different ways. Alaska offers free, official signs that stay in place for 10 years. Florida, one year. California offers $1,000 signs that stay in place for seven years but are available only to families of drunk-driving victims. This year Georgia banned homemade memorials in favor of small signs.

Delaware handles the issue in a way that often is cited as a model for other states – in 2007 it opened a memorial garden at a rest area that is lined with bricks containing the names of people killed on the state's roads.

Meanwhile, the debate persists. In 2009, the New York Times' website hosted a forum on whether the memorials should receive a federal ban. One of the participants was Melissa Villanueva, a filmmaker who directed “Resting Places,” a documentary that explores the issue:

And, as if this conversation is not sufficiently foddered, I cannot resist mentioning PETA activists in Illinois are trying to get the state to erect a roadside memorial in tribute to 16 cows killed in an accident earlier this year.

So, yeah, converse away.

Got a Traffic Talk question? Post it in the comments or email with "Traffic Talk" in the subject line.