Makeshift roadside memorials – often consisting of flowers, teddy bears, candles and crosses – have become increasingly common sights on public property over the last decade.
And while a recent University of Calgary study suggested these memorials don’t distract drivers, and may even convince some of them to drive more safely, public opinion appears divided on whether they should be permitted at all.
Municipalities across the country have been grappling with the issue, in the attempt to balance the grief of families with public concerns over safety, community standards and intrusiveness.
City staff in Winnipeg is currently working on a policy for dealing with memorials on public property, as a result of concerns around a contentious public memorial that stood for over a year before being dismantled by a citizen, re-erected and dismantled again.
"I can't believe, at the end of the day, anyone who is grieving a loved one would have an honest expectation that a memorial in these types of circumstances should exist forever," said Winnipeg Councillor Gord Steeves, who initiated the request for city staff to study the issue. "I just can't imagine that."
The discussion led a number of Winnipeg citizens to express their mixed emotions about public shrines on blogs and in letters to the editor. Many argue that the memorials are distracting, inappropriate and intrusive. 
“It is sad to grieve a difficult loss, but we do have cemeteries were grieving family and friends can go safely and as long as they need to reflect on their loved ones. The highways and streets are to drive on, not highways or streets for cemeteries,” noted one Winnipeg man.
Another writer added, “I believe people should be allowed to grieve in their own way but within the provisions of the law and community standards. I also drive by a road-side memorial everyday near my house. I’m not going to lie. I hate it. Like others in the community, I’ve stopped short of demanding removal. I keep hoping the family takes it down voluntarily. That would be the least confrontational option and would prevent escalation.”
However, some writers have suggested the memorials are no more distracting than billboards or other roadside displays, and do encourage them to drive more safely.
That opinion appears to be supported by a study undertaken by the Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary.
Authored by Richard Tay, Schulich’s Alberta Motor Association Research Chair in Road Safety, the study showed a 17 per cent reduction in drivers running red lights at selected intersections with mock-up memorials. The study also collected data along busy highways, where it found that memorials had no significant effect on traffic speed or following distance.
An online survey conducted by Tay found that about 60 per cent of respondents were in favour of allowing roadside memorials to some extent, but about half of those would like to see a time limit imposed on the displays.
For at least several decades, the city of Edmonton has marked the site of traffic fatalities by erecting a black, coffin-shaped sign with the word marked with the word “fatality” in white letters.
The signs stay up at the accident site for six months to help raise safety awareness among drivers, says Edmonton traffic engineer Dennis Mark, but don’t appear to have stopped the trend toward public memorials.
Like many municipalities, Edmonton officially prohibits roadside memorials, but doesn’t enforce the ban. Mark says the traffic department ignores the memorials until a complaint is received, then sends out a crew to dismantle it. Items from the site are retained for six months so families can claim them if they have sentimental value.
