Should Roadside Memorials Be Removed Or Left? (interstates, highway, Missouri)

[KevK]

There has been some controversy over people who place roadside memorials for dead people- usually at or near where a wreck happened. The state sometimes removes them because they interfere with grass cutting and/or distract drives along the interstates but often the cities and counties leave them and, if they are built well, they can stay there for years. Some of them are simple crosses and others are a bit more fancy- we have one here that actually has a solar light on it and lights up at night!
Do you think the state should make an effort to mow around these things or should they just remove them?

[Wicked Felina]

I think they should be left alone, standing as a memorial to a life lost and as warning to drivers to be cautious. It's not a bad thing to be reminded of life's fragility.

Here in Oregon, any kind of cross, flowers, etc. are taken down rapidly by the highway department, or some other government entity. When I was in Missouri, I saw a lot of crosses on the highway.

I don't think they distract drivers at all. That's just an excuse the gov't uses. I sincerely doubt any gov't has any kind of data to back that up.

As far as grass cutting goes, how the heck many memorials are there, as to where workers couldn't just drive around the memorial or get off their rear and move the memorial then replace it when they're finished cutting grass?

IMO, it's extremely disrespectul to remove them. They memorialize someone's child, friend and loved ones. Billboards are a lot more distracting than a small little cross or some flowers. But then, there's some revenue involved in leasing land for billboards...

[Politico]

I say whomever/whatever owns the land on which said memorials are placed, should have the final say as to whether or not they are left standing, regardless of their reasoning behind their decision. If an accident happened in front of my house and family members wanted to put a permanent cross on my lawn to commemorate their loved one's life being lost there, I wouldn't allow them to do so...for many reasons. So, if the government owns land alongside a highway, and doesn't want permanent memorials placed there for whatever reason, I say it's their land- they get the final say.

If people want so badly to place memorials to commemorate their loved ones, they are free to do so at the deceased's gravesite, home, etc. There's a time and a place, and not everyone agrees that the road alongside a highway is the proper place.

Just my two cents...

[Swampmonster]

Originally Posted by SeeBee

I think they should be left alone, standing as a memorial to a life lost and as warning to drivers to be cautious. It's not a bad thing to be reminded of life's fragility.

Here in Oregon, any kind of cross, flowers, etc. are taken down rapidly by the highway department, or some other government entity. When I was in Missouri, I saw a lot of crosses on the highway.

I don't think they distract drivers at all. That's just an excuse the gov't uses. I sincerely doubt any gov't has any kind of data to back that up.

As far as grass cutting goes, how the heck many memorials are there, as to where workers couldn't just drive around the memorial or get off their rear and move the memorial then replace it when they're finished cutting grass?

IMO, it's extremely disrespectul to remove them. They memorialize someone's child, friend and loved ones. Billboards are a lot more distracting than a small little cross or some flowers. But then, there's some revenue involved in leasing land for billboards...

I agree with you.

[car54]

Virginia, as usual, if you're willing to pay, will put up a memorial for you!

Roadside Memorial Signs

[plannine]

Originally Posted by KevK

There has been some controversy over people who place roadside memorials for dead people- usually at or near where a wreck happened. The state sometimes removes them because they interfere with grass cutting and/or distract drives along the interstates but often the cities and counties leave them and, if they are built well, they can stay there for years. Some of them are simple crosses and others are a bit more fancy- we have one here that actually has a solar light on it and lights up at night!
Do you think the state should make an effort to mow around these things or should they just remove them?

Remove them.

Like the departed, they belong in a cemetery.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by SeeBee

I think they should be left alone, standing as a memorial to a life lost and as warning to drivers to be cautious. It's not a bad thing to be reminded of life's fragility.

Here in Oregon, any kind of cross, flowers, etc. are taken down rapidly by the highway department, or some other government entity. When I was in Missouri, I saw a lot of crosses on the highway.

I don't think they distract drivers at all. That's just an excuse the gov't uses. I sincerely doubt any gov't has any kind of data to back that up.

As far as grass cutting goes, how the heck many memorials are there, as to where workers couldn't just drive around the memorial or get off their rear and move the memorial then replace it when they're finished cutting grass?

IMO, it's extremely disrespectul to remove them. They memorialize someone's child, friend and loved ones. Billboards are a lot more distracting than a small little cross or some flowers. But then, there's some revenue involved in leasing land for billboards...

I agree with you, with the exception of private lands (unless the land owner agrees to have a cross there). Federal and State public lands should be fine, since the survivors placing the monuments there are also tax payers and own the land as much as governments do.