The perpetual graveyard

Professor Peter Read of the Australian National University was kinder than Hartig and Dunn when he made a general observation about roadside memorials on the ABC’s Encounter program in 2003:

The artefact, the flowers, the pieces of car, the sign on the tree, that’s a way of connecting us, almost as if the accident hasn’t happened, with the person we’ve lost.

Proving that the articulation of private pain in public spaces is not always respected, a t-shirt that was fastened to the pole was taken by someone who must have known why it was there.

Leaving aside heartless thieves and the alleged celebration of irresponsibility, roadside memorials are problematic for other reasons, even if anyone who has experienced an unexpected death must understand them.

The dead flower mentioned earlier has long since served its purpose as an item of remembrance, while ageing crosses and fading photographs can give thoroughfares the appearance of mini-cemeteries without the remains.

In Ali McLennan’s article Roadside Memorials - Devotion or Distracton?, a councillor uses the term “perpetual graveyard” when referring to the visual impact of roadside memorials in the Tweed Shire. Unsurprisingly, her opinions echo those of some of her constituents.

As cold as these comments are they should be respected.

Ultimately, the location of a death is surely less important than the recollections loved ones have of the person who has gone.