The following editorial was published in the Canberra Times today in response to the distress added to a family's grief when authorities removed a roadside shrine:

Roadside shrines or memorials to victims of fatal car accidents are an increasingly visible feature of Australia's roads indeed of roadsides around the world as the families and friends of victims become more comfortable with expressing their grief in public, and then transform public land into private sacred space. Generally speaking, traffic authorities and councils have turned a blind eye to the proliferation of spontaneous shrines in the belief that they are a deterrent to dangerous driving and that to ban them outright would be disrespectful of the wishes of the bereaved. Indeed, some councils have given their official imprimatur to roadside shrines, claiming that they have led to a reduction in accident rates, though of course such claims are difficult to substantiate.

Not all authorities are quite so relaxed: councils in NSW, concerned with keeping their roads free of unnecessary distractions and/or eyesores, have banned them outright, or stipulated that they be removed after a certain time. Remaining agnostic on the issue no longer looks like an option, given that the proliferation of shrines will inevitably give rise to disputes requiring authorities to adjudicate.

Few authorities bother themselves with memorials that are erected on deserted country roads probably because these are unlikely to be the subject of controversy. However, as this newspaper revealed yesterday, shrines built in suburban streets can be more contentious. In the event of a complaint, authorities have no choice but to act. With the need to balance the rights and wishes of the bereaved against those who, through happenstance, are also affected by a fatal accident, authorities should formulate a clear policy beforehand, rather than wait until disputes arise.

It is customary, indeed widely acceptable, to leave flowers at the scene of an accident, but what of the artificial flowers, stuffed toys, photographs, ceramic figurines, hand-written notes, religious objects, even car parts collected from the wreckage of an accident, that are often deposited at makeshift shrines? While the right of people to grieve as they see fit needs to be respected, the fact that such shrines tend to diminish in importance with the passage of time, and that the objects left there sometimes become tatty or ravaged by the elements, suggests they should have only a limited lifespan. Just what that limit might be is hard to judge, but it should probably be no more than a few months.

More permanent memorials, such as those that frequently involve concrete and stone, should also be carefully considered in any policy. Many will see the proper and customary place to memorialise an individual as the cemetery or crematorium. Others will be concerned about distraction to drivers and roadside clutter.

Against this, however, are the needs of families who will probably never completely recover from the loss of their loved one. Being able to mark the place where a life was lost almost certainly helps some families to better cope with the tragedy. The bereaved probably also draw some comfort from knowing that the displays may give passing motorists pause to reflect that death on our roads can come quickly and uinexpectedly.

Related stories on the web:

• Homeowners at memorial site plea for understanding

• 'Misunderstanding' over roadside memorial