Striking a Balance: The Debate over the Banning of Roadside Memorials - Essay Example

?Striking a Balance: The Debate over the Banning of Roadside Memorials of Introduction Roadside memorials have recently been quite teeming and hazardous, according to public road officers, which force several national governments to regulate them. Aside from the hazard they pose, people who erect them are in effect making these public places private through ‘adverse possession’, defined as “a principle of real estate law whereby somebody who possesses the land of another for an extended period of time may be able to claim legal title to that land” (Lindeman & Freidman 2008, 53). This is unlawful. Leaving it unregulated would sooner or later clutter highways. In Australia, differing opinions about this issue run rampant. This paper argues against complete prohibition of roadside memorials; it argues for compromise between the state, church, and bereaved families or relatives. In the conclusions and recommendations section, the author presents several alternatives to complete banning of and freedom to erect roadside memorials. Overview of the Problem An Australian research, according to Smith (1999), currently conducted in Newcastle N.S.W. presents a great deal of helpful information about the importance of roadside memorials. K.V. Hartig and K.M. Dunn (1998) evaluated certified documents of all vehicular accidents over a five-year period against existing commemorative places, then carried out interviews with the local people, the grief-stricken, and motorists. Their primary result was a significant gender connection (Smith 1999, 103): [Roadside memorials] function as conservative memorials of youth machismo; of heroic aggression, disregard for safety and egocentrism. The intensified public presence of these roadside memorials is attracting more and more critical and public interest. Roadside memorials have been analyzed thoroughly at academic discussions, in large numbers of peer-reviewed journals, and on a mushrooming number of websites. Their profusion, and several claim, ‘authority’, in that a number of people perceive roadside memorials as “expressions of alternative authority drawn from the intensity of grief [and] from a belief in the spiritual presence of the deceased” (Doss 2008, 23)—is more and more scrutinized by state and legal institutions. For instance, according to U.S. Department of Justice (2011), several American states have implemented policies prohibiting or regulating impermanent roadside memorials stating public road safety and church-state separation as primary grounds. Other states have decided to permit only legally permitted roadside memorials, such as signs and tablets, typically mounted for a agreed durations, that function as advisory markers about drunk driving, or as cautions about bicyclists, hikers, and pedestrians (Wagner 2008). For instance, RTA Corporate Policy (see Appendix A) states that it will allow acceptable amount of floral tributes and white crosses within roadsides, as long as they function as warnings to drivers and pedestrians and do not pose any road hazard. Numerous local committees have followed related prohibitions in England. Roadside memorials can function as a notice to motorists and pedestrians yet the placing of these commemorative markers is not globally acceptable. According to Churchill (2007), there are protests against the physical and material shape of these memorials (i.e. RTA stipulates that the ‘size of the cross or other symbolic tribute should be no larger than 50cm high/40cm wide and be constructed of a frangible material’) and numerous legal officers oppose the exploitation of thoroughfares for personal reasons and attempts are initiated to prohibit or regulate the installing of memorials. A large number of roadside memorials are in the form of the conventional Christian cross. Death has been ever more symbolized by crosses. The past custom of roadside memorials, as sites of death, also meant that these places were sites to commemorate and pray for the deceased (Wagner 2008). In the United States, groups like the American Atheists and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State campaigned against the use of religious emblems on commemorative markers. The first cross commemoratives placed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have been changed demonstrating the magnitude of the separation of church and state in the United States (Doss 2008). This could encourage several states to allow some commemoratives, such as crosses, or to permit secular commemoratives only. There are divergent opinions on roadside memorials all over the United States. In several states roadside memorials are totally prohibited, in other states like West Virginia and Alaska, roadside memorials are allowed if they conform to specific guidelines, such as policies about location position, arrangement, and size. In other states, non-religious general symbols are given by the state (Wagner 2008). Sometimes these symbols may have a notice about drunk driving. In states where memorials are regarded unlawful, they are confiscated or taken away by law enforcers. As recounted by Everett (2002), a Colorado judiciary, in 2001, declared that the confiscation of roadside memorials by a citizen was not unconstitutional as the roadside commemoratives, being illegal, were ‘waste’ and not recognized items. In the United Kingdom, there seems to be a heightening legal dispute against the placing of commemorative markers. These constraints are for reasons of safety and wellbeing and officials are saying that they are responding to the instructions from law enforcers who fear the memorials, numerous near treacherous highways, could divert the attention of drivers (Doss 2008). These limits have been regarded insensitive and rude by road safety advocates and grief-stricken families, and according to Johnson (2005), several of whom believe these tributes are being taken away so as to divert attention from the numbers of death on particular highways. In Australia, just like in West Virginia and Alaska, roadside memorials will be taken away if they do not conform to rigid new policies. Rockhampton Regional Council ratified a new rule to control tributes to loved ones (Backhaus & Murungi 2010). Their pronouncement might witness the confiscation of several garlands, plaques, flowers, or crosses and more permanent memorials. However, several memorials will be permitted to exist for an indefinite period if they do not create distractions or hazards to drivers and are adequately tended by families, councilors declared (Backhaus & Murungi 2010). The RTA Corporate Policy laid out specific guidelines about the erection and removal of roadside memorials. In particular, Section 138 of the Road Acts discusses how to legally place roadside memorials. Consent should be acquired first before a bereaved family is permitted to erect a roadside memorial, and consideration of road works and safety should be included in the decision to grant consent. But these attempts toward prohibition of roadside memorials met some fierce protests, especially from religious organizations. Arguments against Banning of Roadside Memorials In Ireland there seems to be a negation of the circumstances found anywhere else. Permanent monuments have been constructed to commemorate victims of road traffic accidents, murder, suicide, and particularly in South West Ireland, people who have sacrificed their life in the Civil War and War of Independence (Wagner 2008). Roadside memorials are constitutional and in numerous instances the creation of memorials is assisted by local law enforcers. According to Doss (2008), Ireland has a well-established tradition of funeral practices and commemoration of the dead that seems to be acknowledged and supported by legal officials. The existing practice of placing roadside memorials defies traditional views of the roadside as public and secular space (The Gympie Times 2008). The placing of memorials can embody the blatant breaking of policies and can also be viewed as an unspoken defiance of traditional roadside function. In several instances, disobedience can spiral into a conflict. For instance, the father of a fourteen-year-old girl, who was murdered while running by the roadside in California, was instructed to get rid of a big and mounting memorial spot or otherwise endure a penalty of $1,000 and imprisonment (Doss 2008). Even though conscious of the sensitive nature of the issue, the County Deputy Direct of Public Works stated: “We’re not in the memorial business, we’re in the road business. I’m not insensitive, but I have got to enforce whatever the rules and regulations are” (Doss 2008, 23). The father used the powerful moral basis of bereavement to support his side: “I’m still grieving, but I’m still grieving for the next child to be killed” (Doss 2008, 23). He resorted to road safety promotion. When the father of Brandon Blount was ordered by local authorities to remove the memorials of his son, he declined, stating publicly that he would tie himself to the shrine if needed to stop its confiscation. He afterward started amassing signatures to urge the state government to officially authorize roadside memorials (Suter 2010). As argued by Mrs. Blount, “This memorial is so important to us, it’s just not right to remove it” (Suter 2010, 53). The repercussion of this and comparable experiences is that the bereaved relatives or family members has the moral right to show their sadness and that this should be a priority in government policies and considerations. Memorials may seem to be a mainstream expression contrary to the premises of established right, but this does not imply they have absolute collective support. Roadsides and other public spaces may be controlled by the government but it is for the service of the larger society. The non-bereaved can view commemorative markers as an invasion of their public space. A nineteen-year-old boy in Queensland, Australia was murdered in a vehicular accident. His memorial site was wrecked several times, flowers were taken away and the boy’s plastic-coated picture was removed (Gibson 2011). The person responsible for the desecration left a letter at the site: “The community of Ormeau has endured this memorial site for one year and two months and we feel that is by far long enough” (Gibson 2011, 148). The parents of the boy fought for their authority to mourn indefinitely. They claimed, “It’s not always going to be there, but it should be up to take it down when we’re ready” (Gibson 2011, 148). The obvious similarity in all stories of struggle toward the right to erect roadside memorials is grief. Grief is usually defined as an “ordered process where emotions are encountered and worked through leading ultimately to restoration of some degree of normality achieved by accepting, managing, and accommodating life after loss” (Doss 2008, 19-22). An overpowering grief for a person badly murdered seems to motivate loved ones to act unusually or oddly, sufficient to conquer the common meekness of individuals in the face of religious and public officials (Delgado 2003). In the memorial sites, the presence of the dead is literally attached to the place where they died. The actual site becomes revered and is instilled with sacred relevance by the erection of a memorial sign as a center for communication and bereavement. Creators of commemorative markers feel empowered to occupy that space for the dead irrespective of the authorized function of that space (Radford 2001). Lots of memorials openly put emphasis on the absolute importance of the place of death. For instance, in Sydney, Australia, a big cross is embossed on the ground of the site where Rodney was killed in a car accident. Roadside memorials are unspoken reminder of the meaning and value of place. To think they merely mark the site of a deadly collission is quite too modern, practical, bureaucratic, and logical (Sotonoff 2004); instead, the connection with place should be viewed in a spiritual and personal way. Possibly, by expressing a spiritual and emotional link to that space and memorializing it by placing a white cross, reverence is gained. Hence, the roadside memorial can be characterized as an effort toward repossession. Conclusions and Recommendations The issue of roadside memorial prohibition is a very sensitive issue, so we should tread lightly. State governments have several alternatives with regard to what strategy they will use with roadside memorials. Primarily, it is important to bear the consequences and obligation of placing and caring for roadside memorials. If these tributes are sacred and the government does not implement the same rule to non-religious roadside memorials, then this rule is against the law. Because it is practically definite that no government will implement such a rule with non-religious memorials, no government will be capable of constitutionally justifying this alternative. Another alternative is to simply pay no attention to the commemorative markers, neither supporting nor opposing them. Total compliance is not likely since road maintenance operations should be modified to not bother or damage the tributes. However, this rule would not be legal unless comparable pattern is applied for wholly non-religious memorials. The ultimate alternative is the one commonly adopted by state governments: officially ban roadside memorials and get rid of them whenever they become unreasonably huge, plenty, or other operation is being carried out in the nearby area. However, out of courtesy to the relatives, small commemorative markers are not aggressively controlled and removed once they come into sight, at least as long as they are not causing any difficulties or problems. This is perhaps the most practical and evenhanded alternative, but inopportunely the bereaved is abusing this leeway by creating bigger and more memorials. Exceptions to the rule are important due to the sensitiveness of the issue of roadside memorials. In such instances, perceptive and sensitive techniques should be performed to those making the memorials to clarify the issue or dilemma. Permanent roadside memorials are needless objects on the thoroughfare and cause distraction, litter, confusion, and get in the way of pedestrian or bring about vehicular accidents. In some cases, a natural object, like a tree or a stone, with messages may be a viable option as a permanent commemorative plaque, if an appropriate site is on hand. Nevertheless, there should be an agreement between the authorities and memorial makers, and they should have no adverse impact on the safety of public roads nor hamper the capacity to perform road maintenance. The suggested guidelines are significantly in agreement with other rules implemented by other road officials in the Western hemisphere and Australia. References n.a. 2008, ‘Our view; roadside memorials deliver a message’, The Gympie Times, p.10. Backhaus, G. & Murungi, J. 2010, Symbolic Landscapes, 1st edn, Springer, Baltimore, MD, pp. 251–264. Churchill, A 2007, Roadside Memorials and Traffic Safety. University of Calgary, Canada. Delgado, M 2003, ‘Death at an early age and the urban scene’, The Case for Memorial Murals and Community Healing. Praeger, Westport, London. Doss, E 2008, The Emotional Life of Contemporary Public Memorials: Towards a Theory of Temporary Memorials. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. Everett, H 2002, Roadside Crosses in Contemporary Memorial Culture, University of North Texas Press, Denton, TX. Gibson, M 2011, ‘Death and grief in the landscape: private memorials in public space’, Cultural Studies Review, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 146. Hoekstra, N 2007. ‘Should State Regulate Roadside Memorials’, Daily Herald; Big Picture, Local Focus, Paddock Publications, Chicago, p. 25. Johnson, S 2005, ‘Row over dead boy memorial; council remove roadside tributes’, Birmingham Evening Mail, 30 December, p. 11. Lindeman, J. & Freidman, J. 2008. Barron’s Florida Real Estate Exams. New York: Barron’s Educational Series. Radford, B 2001, ‘Religion on the Roadside: Traffic Fatality Markers Generate Controversy’, Free Inquiry, vol. 22, no. 1, p.59. Smith, R, J 1999, ‘Roadside memorial some Australian examples’, Folklore, vol. 110, no. 1, p.103. Sotonoff, J 2004, ‘Public Display of grief despite the controversy, more roadside memorials are popping up on suburban roads’, Daily Herald, Big Picture, Local Focus, Paddock Publications, Chicago, p.1. Suter, K 2010, ‘Roadside memorials: sacred places in a secular era’, Contemporary Review, vol. 292, no. 1696, p.51. U.S Department of Justice FBI 2011, ‘Roadside visibility issues’, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 3, p. 9. Wagner, D, L, 2008, Death, Memory, and Space; A Rural Community Response to Roadside Memorials, UMI Research Press, San Antonio. Appendix A Policy Number: PN 148 RTA Corporate Policy Roadside Tributes Policy Purpose and intended outcomes This policy provides guidance for staff in advising on, or removing, roadside tributes such as flowers and memorials that have been erected in the road corridor. Policy statement New tributes The placement of roadside flowers and a small cross is a matter for individual families. The RTA respects their wishes and will provide sympathetic advice for those seeking it. Advice should be given that, although there is no limit to the time a tribute can remain, or specific guidelines for its location, it is the responsibility of those placing it to ensure that the tribute does not become a hazard to other road users. RTA officers should provide informal advice, if required, to assist those wishing to place a tribute to be aware of any road safety impacts in the road environment. The erection of a tribute must factor in Section 138 of the Roads Act which states: (1) A person must not: (a) Erect a structure or carry out a work in, on or over a public road, or (b) Dig up or disturb the surface of a public road, or (c) Remove or interfere with a structure, work or tree on a public road, otherwise than with the consent of the appropriate road authority. (2) A consent may not be given with respect to a classified road except with the concurrence of the RTA. (3) If the applicant is a public authority, the roads authority and, in the case of a classified road, the RTA must consult with the applicant before deciding whether or not to grant consent or concurrence. (4) This section applies to a roads authority and to any employee of a roads authority in the same way as it applies to any other person. Advice to families should include, but not be limited to: • As a matter of principle it is not appropriate to allow construction of any structure within a road corridor for a private or personal purpose. • However, the RTA will not object to white crosses and small floral tributes within the road corridor, provided road safety is not compromised. The size of the cross or other symbolic tribute should be no larger than 50cm high/40cm wide and be constructed of a frangible material. • Consideration and concurrence should be given to the location of the tribute and adjoining residences, including but not limited to property accesses, visual impact and property owner wishes. It is the responsibility of the proponent to address these issues. • More substantial structures will not be permitted within the clear zone (nominally 9 metres in a 100km/hr zone). • Roadside areas, especially on busy roads, are generally not the most appropriate location to place tributes. There are safer places where tributes can be placed. • Road safety should be considered when determining the location of the tribute. • Adequate shoulder width and/or area for a vehicle to pull off to erect/visit the cross. • Safe re-entry to the roadway after placing or visiting the tribute. • The tribute location must be outside the table drain area and the clear zone. • No distraction to other drivers, e.g. not on a sharp bend, no lighting or fluorescent properties etc. • Appropriate size and materials for the tribute. • Roadside tributes should be removed after an appropriate period of mourning. The RTA will work co-operatively with the family to encourage them to move the tribute to a more appropriate location if necessary. Removal of tributes In the event that there are concerns regarding a tribute, approval for removal, relocation or modification can be given by Director, Regional Operations & Engineering Services, who will advise on whether and in what manner any action can be taken. This might be done to remove solid or larger tributes in the clear zone, or to re-instate line of sight for road users. Other grounds for RTA action should be agreed with the relevant Director, with advice from Director, Business Coordination, Road Safety and Policy if necessary. In all cases, the Manager, Media Unit must be advised before any action is taken. A full risk analysis is to be undertaken for each individual situation. The risk analysis is to consider: Removal of tribute • Family reaction to tribute removal. • Community attitudes. • Family cannot be contacted. • Family wants another location for the tribute. • Family want to know what is happening to improve this section of the road. Don’t remove the tribute • Potential and severity of event caused by distraction to motorists. • Erection of the tribute contravenes the Roads Act, Section 138. • Community perceive inconsistency of assessment of proposed tributes. A dispute resolution mechanism may be required to resolve sensitive issues. Tributes and new road work activities In the event that an existing tribute is located in an area where road works are planned the following activities should be undertaken: • The Project is to identify tributes within the road corridor that may be affected by new work. All relevant staff should be aware of the sensitivity of the tribute and its location. • The location and details are to be included in the project documentation. Also, the location of the tribute is to be photographed and recorded. If the family is known: Approval be sought to contact the family to advise of the proposed road works and reason for the removal of the tribute. The family’s views on re-installation or relocation of the tribute should be determined. If it is not to be re-installed or relocated, the tribute is to be returned to the family in a sympathetic manner as soon as it is removed from the site. If requested by the family, storage and re-instatement of the tribute is to be arranged. If the family is unknown or cannot be contacted: Record details of attempts to contact the family. Privacy legislation is to be considered. Remove the tribute and store in an identified secure location and record for future recovery if necessary. Responsibilities The Director, Regional Operations and Engineering Services is the owner of this policy. The Regional Operations and Engineering Services Directorate is responsible for the implementation, monitoring and review of this policy. Effective date: 12 December 2007. Review date: 12 December 2008. Policy replaces: Corporate Policy Statement No.p7 (CPS 37). Read More