There Are Opponents to Highway Crash Memorials?


The California State Assembly recently passed legislation that will allow the family of victims of highway crashes to pay Caltrans to erect signs memorializing the fallen and reminding drivers to drive safely.  However, thanks to opposition from a group of what the Times terms "environmentalists," the legislation is actually watered down so that our state’s highways aren’t littered with signs ruining the view.

No, really.

"Our highways are not intended to be repositories for memorials," said
Mary Tracy, president of Scenic America, a group that advocates against
unnecessary signage. "A clutter of signs is the last thing we need
along our roadways."

Critics of the bill also note that
California already has dozens of signs that name freeway interchanges
and bridges in honor of CHP officers and state engineers who have died.
The state also has posted hundreds of "Adopt-A-Freeway" signs
advertising that an individual or company is sponsoring cleanup of a
stretch of freeway.

I’m not actually sure where to go with this story.  Should I point out the traffic calming value of crash memorials, or just wonder how many of these signs Scenic America thinks are going to be on the highways?  I know California’s highways aren’t exactly "safe" but "a clutter of signs?"

Here’s the real kicker.  The state already allows for the "official" placement of DUI memorials, as though an alcohol-related deadly accident is somehow more tragic than one caused by an "accident."

The first draft of this legislation allowed families or friends of any any victim of a traffic fatality to pay $1,000 to have Caltrans officials place a sign at the sight of the deadly crash to both pay tribute to their loved ones and warn others to drive safely.  The families hoped that having professionals place the memorial would remove danger to the mourners and that the more professional signage would last the test of time.

In response to the opposition to this nefarious legislation that would allow families to safely memorialize loved ones killed on our highways, the legislature changed the text so that it now limits the number of new non-DUI memorial signs statewide to twenty a
year and each sign can stay up for no longer than seven years.  I’d hate to be the official that has to tell a grieving
widow that her loss just wasn’t tragic enough to merit a memorial after
this year’s allocated number of signs has run out.

According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, there were 3,434 traffic fatalities in California in 2008.  While I’m sure that more of them occured on local streets than highways, I’m also sure that twenty signs a year is going to be much lower than the demand.

54 thoughts on There Are Opponents to Highway Crash Memorials?

  1. lol, browne, I don’t think anyone should ban you. You’re saying what you want and I’m saying what I want. If another blog banned you just for posting, they were flat out wrong in my opinion.

  2. Damien-

    I am so glad you asked that question! I think it might be the most constructive comment to come out of this post.

    I have seen these kinds of discussions come up on NYC and SF Streetsblog several times before. They are sometimes heated, often disrespectful. And as far as I can tell, have done nothing to further our analysis or bring more women/underrepresented communities into the livable streets fold.

    We’re dealing with a professional field that has been stockpiled with old white dudes for decades, so it makes perfect sense that these issues come up. The question is, how will the movement for sustainable transportation and livable streets choose to deal with social equity?

    As you pointed out, there’s some amazing female leadership in transportation. SB should interview them and find out their opinions on sexism in the industry. Talk to the BRU about race, class and the livable streets movement. I think that would be super interesting.

    And while SB doesn’t moderate comments, maybe its editors can decide what their position is, and stand by that when folks are getting feisty and negative.

    What do you think?

  3. I actually try not to forcefully push a position in the comments section because heck, I had the whole article to make my point. I sort of expected the comments section to be pretty short on this article, but then Spokker dropped the c-bomb and Browne took him to task for it and off we went. If people think it helps, I can take a more active role in the comments section, similar to the one at Blogdowntown where Eric and the rest of the writers are much more active in responding.

    If you include the two Streetfilms that were “interview based,” LA Streetsblog has done 18 interview pieces since our founding. Seven of them were of women, and 11 of males. Not included in that “seven” is that there were two women interviewed at the LACBC interview and three in the Midnight Ridazz interviews. I haven’t addressed the role of gender/race in the movement, but I think we’d need to do some brainstorming on the best way to do that.

  4. Egad. Talk about going on pointless tangents!

    To the point of the article, which I believe is the efficacy of roadside memorials … “Scenic America” might be interested in knowing that they’ve been erected in Montana for many years by the American Legion.

    Not exactly a “clutter of signs” … just poignant reminders just where they should be.

    “Scenic America” … get a clue … memorials are part of America.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Amended Hit-and-Run Alert System Bill Sails Through Committee

After last week’s warning that Assemblymember Mike Gatto’s legislation to create a “Yellow Alert” system was imperiled by Senate Transportation and Housing Committee staff and the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) objections, there was a feeling of a looming showdown before today’s committee hearing. Assembly Bill 8 would create a system to use electronic road signs and the emergency alert […]

Through the Cracks: Governor Signs Speed Limits Bill A.B. 529

Last Friday, Governor Jerry Brown signed A.B. 529, legislation authored by San Fernando Valley Assemblyman Mike Gatto that gives local government some discretion in setting speed limits on local roads. “I promised residents that I would do something about those who speed through our neighborhoods,” says Gatto, “I am proud to have delivered that promise today, […]

Undocumented Immigrants Can Get Drivers Licenses, New Regulations for “Buy Here Pay Here” and Other News out of Sacramento

In addition to the mixed news on legislation impacting bicyclists, Governor Brown acted on many other pieces of legislation that will have a direct impact on transportation planning and public safety. Governor Signs Law Allowing Undocumented Immigrants to Obtain Drivers Licenses Perhaps the most controversial action the Governor took last week will allow many undocumented […]

Homeowners Rail Against 405 Expansion

A bi-partisan collection of officials celebrate the destruction of air quality around Encino The Daily News printed a rare opinion piece yesterday that dared challenge the orthodoxy that adding lane capacity to the 405 is somehow going to improve quality of life for the people living near the widening area in Encino.  The I-405 widening […]

PIRG: Proposed 710 Freight Highway Tunnel Among Country’s Worst Projects

Yesterday, the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), a national non-profit with state chapters throughout the country, released a report detailing the “12 biggest highway boondoggles” under study in the country. Not surprisingly, a California highway project made the list, the I-710 Tunnel Project in Los Angeles County. PIRG explains the project. San Gabriel Valley Route […]