March 23, 201214 yr Even when they are see through? If they were illegal how could the companies sell them.
March 23, 201214 yr Not a big fan of the roadside memorials. There is a big one near the Dixie Hwy. ramp off of 275. I think it's more of a distraction than anything. I have made it clear to my family, please don't ever put one of these up for me.
March 23, 201214 yr I got your back CWB. What is worse is in Florence we had a cross from a fatal accident that someone kept damaging/removing and that became a "police matter." I look at it is if it helps the loved ones in any way I am all for it. I always thought this practice was something law enforcement agencies frowned upon because of the possible distractions to drivers passing by the site daily. If I recall correctly, it's what led to the sign in Carroll Co. along I-71 commemorating the bus crash there, as the shrines that preceded the sign became just too much to deal with.
March 25, 201214 yr Removing it becomes a police matter? Seems like if it's on public property, it should be subject to removal. Frankly, the group of crosses I pass daily on 17 in Independence are an eyesore if you ask me. They have four crosses there. Two are about 5' tall and are for the two people died in the wreck, then there's about a 3 1/2 footer for the couples dog (kinda ridiculous if you ask me), and then there's a second 3 1/2 footer for who knows what purpose. They have solar landscaping lights attached to the tops of them in order to be like an "eternal flame" too. Right now they have big green and white cat-in-the-hat type St. Patricks day hats, beads, and shamrocks decorating them. I'm sure Easter will have just as gaudy decorations. It just makes me roll my eyes and shake my head every time I pass them. I can't help but think that the constant process of returning to the site of the wreck and "caretaking" for the crosses doesn't, in a way, keep the loved ones who maintain the things from moving on... I guess I can kind of see your "whatever helps" perspective, but man, it's sure more along the lines of obnoxious to me. I remember vividly when that accident happened. After they accident someone was at the crash site for 48 hours, just sitting there praying.
March 25, 201214 yr I think they distract drivers. I am surprised they don't cause more accidents. I wouldn't want to be remembered like that. However, every time I drive past Carrolton and see that sign about the bus crash, it makes me remember and think of those poor people. It is a constant reminder of the dangers of drinking and driving.
March 25, 201214 yr Which statute? Unless this has changed recently it is in the traffic code and the only thing you are allowed to have on your window is a small American flag.
March 26, 201214 yr Unless this has changed recently it is in the traffic code and the only thing you are allowed to have on your window is a small American flag. After a little research I found this. "A person shall not operate a motor vehicle required to be registered in the Commonwealth, upon a public highway, road, or street, on which vehicle the rear window is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material which has the effect of making the window nontransparent, unless the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides." From KRS 189.110 I might be reading it wrong but it looks like you can't have anything on the rear window making it nontransparent unless you have mirrors on both sides.
March 26, 201214 yr After a little research I found this. "A person shall not operate a motor vehicle required to be registered in the Commonwealth, upon a public highway, road, or street, on which vehicle the rear window is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material which has the effect of making the window nontransparent, unless the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides." From KRS 189.110 I might be reading it wrong but it looks like you can't have anything on the rear window making it nontransparent unless you have mirrors on both sides. Don't most vehicles have mirrors on each side?
March 26, 201214 yr After a little research I found this. "A person shall not operate a motor vehicle required to be registered in the Commonwealth, upon a public highway, road, or street, on which vehicle the rear window is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material which has the effect of making the window nontransparent, unless the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides." From KRS 189.110 I might be reading it wrong but it looks like you can't have anything on the rear window making it nontransparent unless you have mirrors on both sides. I have the same interpretation. You cannot have something which makes the window nontransparent unless you have mirrors on both sides. That means you can have a nontransparent window so long as you have a mirror on each side.
March 26, 201214 yr I have the same interpretation. You cannot have something which makes the window nontransparent unless you have mirrors on both sides. That means you can have a nontransparent window so long as you have a mirror on each side. This makes sense. I was just thinking about vehicles that have a window that you can't see out of at all, such as Penske moving vans.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.