Regulating roadside memorials

January 19, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Everyone has seen them while driving – the roadside memorials marking the spot where someone died with a cross, pictures, flowers, or stuffed animals. One Indiana legislator wants to regulate the erection of these by having the Indiana Department of Transportation or local government establish and maintain a roadside memorial for just one year.

At first glance, I question getting INDOT involved. These are private memorials set up by grieving family members or friends to remember a loved one and let the general public know someone died in an accident at that location. As long as the memorial is on public property and isn’t a distraction to drivers, it should be left alone.

Plus, the estimated $92 a pop to create, maintain, and then remove them will come from the State Highway Fund. The fiscal impact statement for the bill suggests around 100 people would want a memorial, but I imagine the number would be much higher. I bet you could get 100 requests just from the more populous counties like Marion, Lake, or Allen.

But many times these memorials aren’t on public property. A woman was recently killed on a street I drive every day and now there are stuffed animals and other items fastened to the tree in the front yard of where she was killed. As I passed by, I wondered if the homeowners allowed the memorial or if they are just putting up with it for the time being. I can’t imagine I’d want stuffed animals permanently affixed in my front yard, but how do you tell a grieving family to remove them?

Rep. Vern Tincher, D-Riley, suggests in HB 1108 that INDOT or local government step in and create uniform roadside memorials to remember the victims. Any memorials that pop up that aren’t erected by the government would be removed and all memorials would be taken down after one year. This isn’t the first time Indiana has tried to regulate roadside memorials. In 2003, a similar bill was introduced by Rep. Duane Cheney, D-Portage.

A state or locally regulated process would cut down on the distractions of giant teddy bears and other objects on the side of the road or tethered to trees. Regulation would also help private property owners when family members want to mark the site of a death. However, is it really the government’s place to do so with state funds?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • They SO need to ban these roadside memorials. They are ugly and tacky. If they were to limit it to attractive vegetation or a state-approved marker, it would be nice. As it is, though, people are allowed to decorate the spot where their loved one died with all kinds of tacky crap that sits out in the weather and becomes moldy, wet, and deteriorated. There is one behind my apartment building that has sat there for FOUR MONTHS and the city is too cowardly to make them remove it. I\'m sick of looking at that disgusting trash. It\'s not a memorial if it\'s garbage. What would you call wet, moldy stuffed animals other than garbage? Families should grieve in private. I should not have to be subjected to a bunch of tacky, ghetto-looking junk on public thoroughfares.
  • I AGREE THEY SOULD NOT BE ALLOWED THATS WHY OUR SOCIETY HAS GRAVE YARDS BUT GRAVE YARDS HAVE RULES . THE ROADSIDE MEMORIAL ACROSS THE STEET FROM MY DRIVE WAY GLOWS IN THE DARK FAKE FLOWERS CONSTANT GARBAGE FROM VISTORS TEENAGERS DOING BURNOUTS EVEN HEAD LIGHTS ON MY BEDROOM WALL WHEN VISTORS COME CALLING AFTER CLOSING TIME AT THE BAR. EVEN IF I GRILL A PORK CHOP THEY ARE HERE!!!!!!!!! THEY GET TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY BUT WE PUT UP WITH CONSTANT STREAM OF PEOPLE. IT\'S NOW 15 MONTHS INTO THIS AND I CANNOT BELIEVE SOCIETY PUTS UP WITH THIS OR FORCES US TO LIVE LIKE THIS

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT