Dear friends;
I’m from the Lost Angeles area, originlly. I spent a year in Hawaii and am now in rural Brittish Columbia. While I lived in Hawaii I noticed that people would erect small crosses at
locations where roadside deaths of loved ones would occur. This
phenomina is also very popular here where we seem to have quite a few highway deaths in my little corner of the world.
Why do people do this? Do the relatives wan’t to be reminded that Aunt Maude (or whomever) expired there everytime they go by? I understand crosses ( or whatever) at a graveside, but why do people do the roadside thing? Same story with leaving flowers at the accident site. ( That happens as well). Help me understand
the thought process, please.
I don’t understand this phenomenon either.
Several years ago in my hometown, a cop was giving chase to some vehicular offender on a well-traveled but winding street. The cop took the worst curve way too fast, slammed into a tree and was killed instantly.
No sooner did the first wave of floral tributes placed at the scene die than the city came and cut down the tree. What sense did that make? (Even a city horticulturist stated the tree was not damaged.) A makeshift cross was erected soon after, and was there a long time. I haven’t checked lately.
To prevent other people from hitting the same tree?
Besides remembering the deceased, they are also, I believe, intended as a reminder to other drivers that you, too, could die here. Here in Fla, the state transportation dept. removes the crosses and flowers and whatnot - that are often right at the edge of the roadway, and installs a stick with a circle (kinda like a lollipop) with the, IIRC, name of the deceased and the date of the crash, and “MADD”* if alcohol related. This symbol is placed along the edge of the road right-of-way, so as not to be a hazard of its own. The circle is so the State is not endorsing any religion (as a cross or Star of David would).
- (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)
I live in BC also, and ten years ago you never saw those crosses here. It’s quite a recent phenomenon in this area.
I’ve always enjoyed finding these at the outside of some tricky curve on a winding road, or at the apex of a blind intersection.
As near as I could figure, the relatives placing the shrine were hoping to distract other drivers with their display so they too could crash at the same site.
This way the driving error which resulted in their bereavement would seem more reasonable, more inevitable. It would posthumously improve their own impression of their deceased relative. And the cost to the other, later, families whose lives will be disrupted by the accidents caused by the shrine? Well who cares about that?
It seems to me that the state should only permit those shrines if the family is willing to bury the deceased’s body at the site. If not, well then I guess it’s not that important, is it?
As you might have gathered by now, I’m not real enthused by the phenomenon.
Sometimes it serves as a reminder that you are driving on a dangerous road.
There are 4 crosses on a very dangerous stretch of the interstate near where I live. Four people were killed by some pothead who flew into the other lane, which is apparently easy to do because of some kind of design flaw or something in that part of the road. Part of the reason the crosses remain is to encourage uproar over this dangerous road in the hopes that enough people will complain to those who can fix the problem.
That’s something I’ve wondered about too, not only the why but the when. It seems to be quite a recent phenomenon, but it’s now almost become obligatory following a death. The first such shrine I remember seeing was about 9 or 10 years ago (I’m also in BC), on the site where a girl was murdered. At that time, the roadside assemblage of flowers, candles and stuffed animals was remarkable enough that it got almost as much media coverage as the murder itself.
I can kind of understand the motives behind doing this, to help people get through the initial part of the grieving process, but some of these shrines are just ridiculous. There’s one near my place that has been maintained with fresh flowers and photos of the victim for the entire three years I’ve lived in this neighbourhood. That just seems unhealthy, besides distracting motorists.
It’s the exact reason there were flowers and momentos left at the WTC site, PA farm field and the Pentagon. Ever been to the Viet Nam memorial in D.C.? the items left on Veteren’s and Memorial Days could outpace the GDP of some countries.
If these memorials serve to remind us to drive responsibly, great. If they cause you to crash, go Greyhound. Tomorrow, count the billboard ads, distance signs, exit signs, signs stating the organization that adopted then neglected litter patrol, flashing neon to get you to exit now, the number of cell phone calls made or received, roadside attractions, then note the number of “shrines” you see.
If the memorials outnumber these other distractions, among others, lemme know, that has to be a hell of a shrine
We, as humans, have been memorializing our dead throughout history. Roadside memorials are just like any other memorial; people seek to remember their dead.
As far as the question of the “fitness” or “suitability” of a roadside memorial, it’s not my place to judge.
And if a roadside memorial is distracting someone to the point that they lose control of their vehicle, they really shouldn’t be driving.