MEMORIALS AT CRASH SITES?
 

SHOULD MEMORIALS BE ALLOWED TO EXIST AT CRASH SITES WHERE ONE OR MORE PEOPLE DIED?

YES
or
NO

Not an easy question. The presence of those memorials may serve to slow down some people.
OTOH, they cannot be allowed where they become a distraction, or where they pose a safety hazard of their own.

I like to see the Memorials where it is possible to have them mark the spot. Seems in our big busy urban county that we loose so many kids to car and cycle accidents and I think it is good for all drivers to see the markers at these unfortunate locations. It is difficult to mark the place on the interstate and I would say they shouldn't mark those locations.

The first time I saw one of these it was in south Texas. I was told it was a Mexican sort of thing and very common there.

This was about 50 years ago so they have been in the US at least that long. I don't really see them as a problem.

The Highway department in Texas lets them stay up for a few months and then removes them. It is all handled in a very calm sort of way since the folks that place these seem to realize they cannot stay up forever.

HW 191 in MT between Bozeman and West Yellowstone can be a sheet of ice in the winter. There are so many deaths on that road that the memorials are standardized. All crosses, some bunched up in groups of up to five.

I had the honor to meet many members of the Lynard Skynard band in person as as young man. I think that the crash site should have a memorial. Does anyone disagree? http://www.tennesseeconcerts.com/planecrash.html

Personally, I find them pretty tacky but there is no reason not to "allow" them.

Ok man, I will change my screen name to The Tacky Man. :o

here in my town there was a little mexican kid that was backed over in the neighbors driveway.he was chasing a ball and the guy didn't have a clue he was there.anyway they wanted to erect a memorial in his memory and wanted to basically attach it to the front of the house(they try to mark as close as they can to the exact spot of death).but to do this they needed to alter city code that says no part of a structure may protrude beyond the basic set back of the houses on the street so the city said they could put one up in the back yard and the city would build it for them.well in the end they ended up letting them build it and attach it to the front of the house in direct violation of code.people in town were not happy.

As someone who has extricated dead children from vehicles at crash sites I say let them have their memorials. Unfortunately there are way too many of them on the road to my house. The one positive of it is that it reminds people that it is a dangerous road. I constantly point them out to my kids and remind them that each one has a common theme-THEY WERE GOING TOO FAST. The flowers tend to look shabby rather quickly, and I always hate to see a ragged flag unlit at night. One mother put a birdhouse on the oak tree that her son ran into and I thought that was a nice memorial.

I voted no....it seems very third world....

I say yes. If it makes the families and friends of those lost find comfort.

As far as making a point to other drivers.
I also think it would be interesting to see a sign posted by the local officials that states: Age, type of automobile and a very brief cause of the accident.
i.e. Male, 32, Pickup, Speed/Ice.

Around here most would read: Male, 17, Mustang, Speed/Drunk.

Last I heard, it did.

If it doesn't, it should.

And as a lesson.... Mount the fuel gauges on it somewhere.

You see them all the time on the side of the road around here. Most are memorials to stupidity, ie driving drunk, texting, etc.

They are in rougher areas too, they put them where gang bangers get shot. Usualy with flowers and pictures of them when they were cute little kids before they picked up the 9mm and started pushing dope.:rolleyes:

Now some would say that is a racist remark some of the pictures could be a 7 year old out at 3 am and was shot