Roadside crosses are usually put up because somebody died there due to a drunk driver accident. Sometimes the crosses are decorated with all sorts of stuff like artificial flowers, teddy bears, etc. and mini-shrines. These are put up without permission on public road r-o-w's. They belong in a cemetary not on a roadside. They're morbid. They're distracting to drivers. They're ugly. I've removed quite a lot of them right along with all the other bandit signs. Truly, you can't say these should be let alone.
#17. "RE: Roadside Crosses" In response to Reply # 0
This custom was brought into the US by a certain ethnic group sometime around the late 70's or early 80's. Up until that time you hardly ever saw a "venerated" oject in the ROW's.
The custom expanded when MADD approached the various state legislatures. They requested that venerated objects be allowed to stand for "xx" number of days after someone was killed in an auto accident by a drunken driver.
In theory and in TX, the TxDOT supposedly allows for the venerated objects to stand for 30 days. This has caused the cities to basically turn their heads when one happens to be placed at a busy intersecton in town.
There is one not too far from my house that's been up over five years and a new set of artifical flowers are placed about every six months. CE indicated they were told to "leave it alone".
In all due respect to all of our memmber sharks, CAUSS can't be all things to all people. Regardless of which position one takes, Venerated objects are not in the Scope of CAUSS and we strongly recomomned you take this issue up with your local city council or town supervisors.
#18. "RE: Roadside Crosses" In response to Reply # 17
GreatWhite wrote:
>In all due respect to all of our memmber sharks, CAUSS can't >be all things to all people. Regardless of which position >one takes, Venerated objects are not in the Scope of CAUSS >and we strongly recomomned you take this issue up with your >local city council or town supervisors.
GW:
I respect your opinion. However, my understanding of the Colorado Supreme Court case is that these items are indeed not venerated objects.
Still, I understand that CAUSS may not want to take a position on these items.
#19. "RE: Roadside Crosses" In response to Reply # 18
>I respect your opinion. However, my understanding of the >Colorado Supreme Court case is that these items are indeed >not venerated objects.
>DenverShark
Yes, and that was my take on the ruling. May I clarify which should have been done in the first place.
In our local suburb of Dallas, numerous "wooden" type crosses have been replaced with actual concrete type venerated objects with the deceased person's name clealy inscribed in a professional manner.
There was one such temporary cross with flowers placed in a very busy railroad right of way crossing near a school. When a permanent type cross replaced the original, it suddenly dispappeared but reappeared sometime later as the original.
There are "NO Trespassing" signs all over the RR ROW property and it's my guess the ROW crews removed the permanent type cross due to it's very close proximity to the tracks.
The temporary type crosses have a tendency to weather and disappear with time. When they are replaced with more rigid and professionally made crosses, those tend to be there forever.
Most of us are aware of the difference between a legal definition and a Webster definition and this is where the rub comes with reluctant enforcement.
These are the specifics of which I referred. Sorry for the confusion.
