Or at least the law that allows them to go through red lights if the light was green for the first car (usually the hearse). I don’t know if this is the law everywhere, but it is in Illinois, which is where I am right now.
I ask this because today I saw an accident with a funeral procession. A black car waiting to make a left turn had crept into the intersection waiting for a gap. The light then turned red, whereupon the black car began to make the turn even though a blue car was approaching the intersection from the oncoming direction. The blue car wasn’t stopping because it was part of a funeral procession, and as a result, the black car hit the blue car. Luckily, the damage seemed minimal, although the blue car did skid a bit.
While I was aware that this was a funeral procession, having seen the hearse and all the little flags on the cars, it seems to me that the driver of the black car wasn’t, and thus fell victim to what is essentially a variation of the yellow trap.
So, is it a good idea to allow the tail ends of funeral processions to go through red lights? Or not? I’m currently leaning toward no because of the emotional effect of what I saw today and because I don’t see a huge advantage to allowing everyone to caravan from the church to the cemetery, but I would be interested in any relevant facts or data about the accidents they cause (or perhaps avoid).
Oh boy. There were very heated, emotional discussions of this on m.t.r. I'm hoping the same doesn't happen here.
I don't personally have a problem with funeral processions. They are an ancient custom that is very important to people as part of accepted mourning ritual, and in most cases, most of us are able to construe what's going on sufficiently to behave accordingly.
In past years it was a problem that processions relied upon daytime headlights–a practice once largely unknown outside funeral processions–at a time when this was becoming a widespread practice. However, the introduction of very apparent marking devices, such as the magnetic rooftop flag, should make defensive drivers well aware when a funeral is passing by.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
Oh boy. There were very heated, emotional discussions of this on m.t.r. I'm hoping the same doesn't happen here.
Oh, I didn't know. Sorry.
Processions should be banned from all interstates. Period.
I dunno. I concede that obviously I wasn't there to witness the accident, but someone so oblivious to a funeral procession probably shouldn't be on the road. (Was the driver of said black car on his smartphone or otherwise looking like he was in la-la land?) For that matter, the funeral procession seems irrelevant to me -- I don't care if the light turns red; I'm not turning in front of an oncoming car until I see at least that he's slowing down to stop.
But to the OP: I've unfortunately been in many a procession, and what bothers (and sometimes downright scares) me is the varying speeds. I understand the column isn't in constant motion because the hearse stops for red lights, but still it amazes that so many drivers can't hold a steady speed when in motion. I've been in processions where the cars in front of me suddenly slammed on the brakes (no red light anywhere nearby, mind you), and at least one procession where suddenly the cars in front of me took off and I had to do 40+ mph to keep up, which was frightening. If I were to debate banning processions, it would be on this point.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2015, 08:35:13 PM
I ask this because today I saw an accident with a funeral procession. A black car waiting to make a left turn had crept into the intersection waiting for a gap. The light then turned red, whereupon the black car began to make the turn even though a blue car was approaching the intersection from the oncoming direction. The blue car wasn’t stopping because it was part of a funeral procession, and as a result, the black car hit the blue car. Luckily, the damage seemed minimal, although the blue car did skid a bit.
And this is why you don't pull into the intersection to turn left if the way isn't clear. Not only will it potentially get you a gridlock ticket around here (don't enter the intersection if the way out isn't clear), it causes so many accidents when people heading straight race the yellow or early red.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2015, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
Oh boy. There were very heated, emotional discussions of this on m.t.r. I'm hoping the same doesn't happen here.
Oh, I didn't know. Sorry.
Yes look at the Denali thread. It turned into a great political debate that got it locked. Although, it lasted longer than I thought would have as whenever you bring up the name Obama, some heated argument will occur.
Unfortunately, this could go that way being that processions are believed by some to be protocol from previous US customs that were believed to be as American as apple pie and hot dogs.
I am not saying I am against processions, nor saying I am for them, but it maybe should be something we should stay clear of here.
Quote from: cjk374 on September 08, 2015, 09:22:45 PM
Processions should be banned from all interstates. Period.
IIRC, that is the rule in some states (CA?), and a sound one.
One funeral director staffer nearly caused an accident in D.C., by suddenly swerving to block all lanes of eastbound freeway traffic, so a procession could more easily enter the freeway at the next on-ramp. I've heard of long processions hogging the right lane, and not leaving gaps for other traffic to cross the procession and exit the freeway.
I'm not wild about processions traveling short distances on non-Interstates, but they're less disruptive. I would prefer all such processions to be supervised by police, which can safely block traffic to avoid conflict, much like what happens for presidential motorcades through downtown D.C. Unfortunately, many of the longest processions (by number of cars) are for police funerals, though at least they tend to be well-organized with advance public notice (and mentions on radio traffic reports) not typical for smaller funerals.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2015, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
Oh boy. There were very heated, emotional discussions of this on m.t.r. I'm hoping the same doesn't happen here.
Oh, I didn't know. Sorry.
It's less likely here, I should admit. There was a greater tendency there toward all-out flameout, and more people with a greater respect for their own ability to say just about anything than for others' opinions.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I was at a couple of funerals in the Midwest this year. I was astounded by the deference shown to the procession. People not only in the procession's lane, but in all lanes of the road–oncoming included–pulled to the side. One participant told me he felt insult at the few oncoming cars that didn't pull aside.
Here this is not the case. The deference to the procession is shown primarily by cross traffic at intersections signalized and not. I don't see anyone pulling over to let the funeral pass. People here seem to express no feeling of slight at this.
I say it would probably be a good idea to ban them. Nobody, other than emergency vehicles, should have special privileges to break traffic laws or obstruct traffic.
I don't like law enforcing or fire departments doing them for their dead, either. It's not that I am a cop hater or anything, it's just that it is unfair to everyone else that needs to use the roads. It gives the impression that they feels like they are more important than everyone else and have the right to take over the roads for their own personal benefit whenever they please, which bothers me.
Just because it is an old tradition does not mean we need to keep doing it. Smoking and chewing tobacco are traditions, too, but we are trying to eliminate those.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 08, 2015, 10:09:00 PMJust because it is an old tradition does not mean we need to keep doing it. Smoking and chewing tobacco are traditions, too, but we are trying to eliminate those.
Smoking and chewing tobacco, as you know, are conclusively detrimental to one's health. Funeral processions are primarily detrimental to one's convenience. Despite this being the United States, where "convenience or death" sometimes seems to be our national philosophy, I don't think they're equal.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 10:00:15 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2015, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
Oh boy. There were very heated, emotional discussions of this on m.t.r. I'm hoping the same doesn't happen here.
Oh, I didn't know. Sorry.
It's less likely here, I should admit. There was a greater tendency there toward all-out flameout, and more people with a greater respect for their own ability to say just about anything than for others' opinions.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I was at a couple of funerals in the Midwest this year. I was astounded by the deference shown to the procession. People not only in the procession's lane, but in all lanes of the road–oncoming included–pulled to the side. One participant told me he felt insult at the few oncoming cars that didn't pull aside.
Here this is not the case. The deference to the procession is shown primarily by cross traffic at intersections signalized and not. I don't see anyone pulling over to let the funeral pass. People here seem to express no feeling of slight at this.
Not if NE 2 gets involved. All you need is one of his Ronald Reagan rants and it could deter the OP.
Anyway, yes certain parts of the country drivers are more courteous than others. Like out in Kansas you will have truckers flash their headlights after you pass them to let you know you are clear and that they won't speed up on you. In fact most of the west excluding California, is more courteous than us on the east coast.
Personally, the OP's reasoning why they should be banned (a single accident) isn't a good reason why they should be banned. Based on his description, the vehicle turning left turned into another car when the light was turning red. That accident can easily occur during normal traffic conditions, when a vehicle enters an intersection late and a left turning vehicle simply decides to turn left.
If I would propose any reason why they should be banned, it would be due to the traffic congestion that can occur when motorists can't get thru a traffic light cycle, or when they otherwise congest a roadway needlessly.
NJ law requires a break in a funeral procession of longer than 5 minutes, although it's tough to tell who's actually going to be able to enforce that.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2015, 10:16:02 PM
Personally, the OP's reasoning why they should be banned (a single accident) isn't a good reason why they should be banned. Based on his description, the vehicle turning left turned into another car when the light was turning red. That accident can easily occur during normal traffic conditions, when a vehicle enters an intersection late and a left turning vehicle simply decides to turn left.
If I would propose any reason why they should be banned, it would be due to the traffic congestion that can occur when motorists can't get thru a traffic light cycle, or when they otherwise congest a roadway needlessly.
NJ law requires a break in a funeral procession of longer than 5 minutes, although it's tough to tell who's actually going to be able to enforce that.
Also we got to consider those red light cameras which can get a ticket for those who run the red light. Remember the camera cannot make a judgement call which is why I think they should be banned, but that is for another thread. Anyway, most funeral directors tell me that they have gotten tickets for running the lights even thought they are legally and morally right, but the camera does not know the difference and those viewing the photo before they mail it to the driver cannot see in the photo the actual procession either.
What I hated was that when I lived in North Carolina for three years, there were people who would stop for funeral processions even if they were on the other side of a divided highway with a wide grassy median. For those who know the area, one place where I recall this happening was on US-64 near the Leith car dealerships in Cary a short distance west of US-1. Some idiots ahead of me abruptly stopped their cars, without pulling into the shoulder, in the left eastbound lane to get out and stand there while a funeral procession went by westbound, and it wasn't any special thing like a cop or a celebrity or the like (I mean, OK, if I'd been on the M1 the day of Princess Diana's funeral, I'd have expected people to stop, but I don't expect that for just any old funeral!). I later learned once upon a time apparently this sort of thing was "traditional" in parts of the South as a way to show "respect."
There was a controversy here in Northern Virginia a few months ago about a guy in a funeral procession who got pulled over and given a ticket for running a red light. It was a City of Alexandria cop and he said because the procession didn't have a police escort, the members of the procession were not allowed to go through red lights even if the hearse did go through. The driver missed the burial as a result. I know he said he would fight the ticket, but I don't know what came of it.
I remember when my grandmother was buried in Brooklyn (the most recent time I was in a funeral procession, though in standard New York fashion we were in a limo) people constantly broke into the procession. Of course you don't have a police escort up there and the segment from the Prospect Expressway onto Ocean Parkway and then a left turn somewhere wound up being a hassle because it simply wasn't practical for all the following vehicles to try to go through the red light to turn, and eventually the hearse driver just had to pull over and wait.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 10:00:15 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2015, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 08, 2015, 09:07:29 PM
Oh boy. There were very heated, emotional discussions of this on m.t.r. I'm hoping the same doesn't happen here.
Oh, I didn't know. Sorry.
It's less likely here, I should admit. There was a greater tendency there toward all-out flameout, and more people with a greater respect for their own ability to say just about anything than for others' opinions.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I was at a couple of funerals in the Midwest this year. I was astounded by the deference shown to the procession. People not only in the procession's lane, but in all lanes of the road–oncoming included–pulled to the side. One participant told me he felt insult at the few oncoming cars that didn't pull aside.
Here this is not the case. The deference to the procession is shown primarily by cross traffic at intersections signalized and not. I don't see anyone pulling over to let the funeral pass. People here seem to express no feeling of slight at this.
Pulling over to pay respect for the procession is what we do here. I feel disrespectful if I don't pull over. On the interstates, you have 2 lanes (or more depending where you are) full of people who don't want to be disrespectful and then plug up the lanes and surround the procession...trying to create more business for the undertaker. That is why processions should be restricted to non-freeways.
(IANMTU)
One of my uncles had a funeral procession exceed 70 MPH for over 20 miles on a paved county road. I wouldn't go over 70 and arrived at cemetery mid ceremony.
No one ever explained WTF happened.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2015, 10:16:02 PM
Personally, the OP's reasoning why they should be banned (a single accident) isn't a good reason why they should be banned.
I know, that's why I'm looking for data and statistics on the phenomenon.
This is a very touchy subject, but personally I think they should only be held during low-traffic ours, usually from 10pm-5am, but hey I'm a unique person, that's just me.
After hearing all of this I finally concluded why we have processions. It is a way to honor the dead as they go by, but our society has changed so much that you would never know it.
However a single incident should not change the laws on it, however with more cars on the road the procession seems to be only a means for all members of the grieving party to arrive at the cemetery together instead of protocol like it might of once been.
Quote from: Jardine on September 08, 2015, 10:48:16 PM
(IANMTU)
One of my uncles had a funeral procession exceed 70 MPH for over 20 miles on a paved county road. I wouldn't go over 70 and arrived at cemetery mid ceremony.
No one ever explained WTF happened.
Was he a NASCAR driver? Sheesh.
Most cultures have something stupid they do related to death. The convoy of mourners is one of ours.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2015, 10:41:21 PM
I remember when my grandmother was buried in Brooklyn (the most recent time I was in a funeral procession, though in standard New York fashion we were in a limo) people constantly broke into the procession. Of course you don't have a police escort up there and the segment from the Prospect Expressway onto Ocean Parkway and then a left turn somewhere wound up being a hassle because it simply wasn't practical for all the following vehicles to try to go through the red light to turn, and eventually the hearse driver just had to pull over and wait.
Even if you have a police escort, what are they going to do? If the procession is long enough, a cop may not see the offending car break in. And if the cop does see the car and pull over the car, now you don't have a police procession because the cop is dealing with the other vehicle.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 09, 2015, 06:24:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2015, 10:41:21 PM
I remember when my grandmother was buried in Brooklyn (the most recent time I was in a funeral procession, though in standard New York fashion we were in a limo) people constantly broke into the procession. Of course you don't have a police escort up there and the segment from the Prospect Expressway onto Ocean Parkway and then a left turn somewhere wound up being a hassle because it simply wasn't practical for all the following vehicles to try to go through the red light to turn, and eventually the hearse driver just had to pull over and wait.
Even if you have a police escort, what are they going to do? If the procession is long enough, a cop may not see the offending car break in. And if the cop does see the car and pull over the car, now you don't have a police procession because the cop is dealing with the other vehicle.
Heh. Reminds me of the time when NY was considering putting a trooper in a cruiser at every interstate construction site. There are just so many ideas out there that "sound good" but are impractical when it comes to practice.
Quote from: Rothman on September 09, 2015, 08:34:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 09, 2015, 06:24:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2015, 10:41:21 PM
I remember when my grandmother was buried in Brooklyn (the most recent time I was in a funeral procession, though in standard New York fashion we were in a limo) people constantly broke into the procession. Of course you don't have a police escort up there and the segment from the Prospect Expressway onto Ocean Parkway and then a left turn somewhere wound up being a hassle because it simply wasn't practical for all the following vehicles to try to go through the red light to turn, and eventually the hearse driver just had to pull over and wait.
Even if you have a police escort, what are they going to do? If the procession is long enough, a cop may not see the offending car break in. And if the cop does see the car and pull over the car, now you don't have a police procession because the cop is dealing with the other vehicle.
Heh. Reminds me of the time when NY was considering putting a trooper in a cruiser at every interstate construction site. There are just so many ideas out there that "sound good" but are impractical when it comes to practice.
Not only is this (formerly de jure, now de facto) required in Massachusetts, but the police pretty much intimidate and bully anyone that's not going to support it. In one North Shore town, police in civilian cars blocked and drove against the flow of traffic in a construction zone, loudly boasting that they couldn't follow the civilian flagger's instructions.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 09, 2015, 08:44:30 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 09, 2015, 08:34:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 09, 2015, 06:24:00 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 08, 2015, 10:41:21 PM
I remember when my grandmother was buried in Brooklyn (the most recent time I was in a funeral procession, though in standard New York fashion we were in a limo) people constantly broke into the procession. Of course you don't have a police escort up there and the segment from the Prospect Expressway onto Ocean Parkway and then a left turn somewhere wound up being a hassle because it simply wasn't practical for all the following vehicles to try to go through the red light to turn, and eventually the hearse driver just had to pull over and wait.
Even if you have a police escort, what are they going to do? If the procession is long enough, a cop may not see the offending car break in. And if the cop does see the car and pull over the car, now you don't have a police procession because the cop is dealing with the other vehicle.
Heh. Reminds me of the time when NY was considering putting a trooper in a cruiser at every interstate construction site. There are just so many ideas out there that "sound good" but are impractical when it comes to practice.
Not only is this (formerly de jure, now de facto) required in Massachusetts, but the police pretty much intimidate and bully anyone that's not going to support it. In one North Shore town, police in civilian cars blocked and drove against the flow of traffic in a construction zone, loudly boasting that they couldn't follow the civilian flagger's instructions.
Weird. The troopers here hated the idea and thought it was a waste of resources.
In my opinion. I think that funeral processions should be limited to a reasonable number of cars (close family, friends, not to exceed some number), and all those permitted should have those flags mounted on their cars, and drive with their 4-ways on. There should also be an official car at the end of the procession. That procession should be able to proceed through red lights and on interstates. I do a lot of traveling, and at best I see 2 a year, so I'd say for most people, the inconvenience caused by one is a minor one.
For those close who are mourning, I think it would be particularly painful to miss the burial because they couldn't legally keep up with the procession. At the same time, it would be just as painful to be sitting at the grave site, waiting 45 minutes for the rest of the procession to catch up because they were caught up at red lights. A lot of the responses here seem to be forgetting the point of view of those in the funeral procession.
Again, I say, the official procession does need to be limited somehow. And I don't think those driving on the same road, either in front of or in opposite direction to the procession, need to pull over. Just don't cut through.
Quote from: Brian556 on September 08, 2015, 10:09:00 PM
I say it would probably be a good idea to ban them. Nobody, other than emergency vehicles, should have special privileges to break traffic laws or obstruct traffic.
This. I'm all for showing sensitivity around something as difficult as a funeral, but the top priority needs to be to prevent the need to have additional funerals, and the reality is that having vehicles going through red lights without lights and siren like emergency vehicles is a safety hazard that places people's lives in danger.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on September 09, 2015, 09:10:31 AMFor those close who are mourning, I think it would be particularly painful to miss the burial because they couldn't legally keep up with the procession. At the same time, it would be just as painful to be sitting at the grave site, waiting 45 minutes for the rest of the procession to catch up because they were caught up at red lights. A lot of the responses here seem to be forgetting the point of view of those in the funeral procession.
I'm curious how many folks here who have, say, lost a parent objected when their funeral ran a red light.
The way it was taught to me is that this is a courtesy we all show one another, because we all end up in mourning periodically, and it's the right thing to do to make life a little easier for mourners, who likely have it worse than us at that moment.
Quote from: dgolub on September 09, 2015, 09:39:03 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 08, 2015, 10:09:00 PM
I say it would probably be a good idea to ban them. Nobody, other than emergency vehicles, should have special privileges to break traffic laws or obstruct traffic.
This. I'm all for showing sensitivity around something as difficult as a funeral, but the top priority needs to be to prevent the need to have additional funerals, and the reality is that having vehicles going through red lights without lights and siren like emergency vehicles is a safety hazard that places people's lives in danger.
I'd be interested in seeing accident rates for emergency vehicles passing through red lights versus those of funeral processions doing the same.
The nearest I ever came to a truly high speed accident was at the JCT of I-79 and I-68. I was going from 68 to 79 SOUTH and was at an appropriate speed for an interstate. Some genius deputy thought it appropriate to have a funeral procession going 30 MPH in the slow lane on 79 and that he should drive similarly in the fast lane to prevent people from passing. I stopped, barely, and the Freightliner behind me even more so. Simply stupid.
As there are surface alternatives for 95% + of all interstates, there simply is no reason for a slow moving funeral to be on an interstate.
As to surface streets, if the funeral is going to blow traffic lights, then somebody needs to be there, or they need to use the modern technology available to simply change the cycles.
When I was studying to take my driver's license test (in Massachusetts circa 1982); the very last question in the manual (a small, pale blue book that contained over 80 questions) dealt with what one is directed to do when approaching a funeral procession. In a nutshell, the answer stated that such was
not to be interrupted for
any reason.
I'm assuming that the rule hasn't changed since then.
Several years ago, I was
in two funeral processions (one in PA, the other in NJ) only to encounter vehicles
cutting into the procession;
despite the procession vehicles having flags/signs, headlights & emergency flashers on. That ticked me off a bit because such caused a gap/delay in the procession. Prior to people's cell phones going off in theaters, church services, etc.; disrupting a funeral procession was one of my bigger personal pet peeves.
Quote from: traffic light guy on September 08, 2015, 11:06:46 PM
This is a very touchy subject, but personally I think they should only be held during low-traffic ours, usually from 10pm-5am, but hey I'm a unique person, that's just me.
Aka the
Graveyard Shift. :)
With regards to funeral processions using highways/expressways: one needs to understand that usage of such is dependent upon origin (funeral home/place of worship) and destination (cemetery) locations. The only processions that I've been (be it driver or passenger) on that involved using highways were because of either:
1. There was no non-highway alternative road/route within
reasonable proximity.
and/or
2. Distance between origin & destination. My great-aunt's funeral of 38 years ago this month was an example of such. She resided in Kemnore Square in Boston for decades but desired to be buried in Lowell where she grew up. Using I-93 to I-495 (IIRC, we exited off at MA 133) was the only
time-practical option despite traveling at lower speeds. One could only imagine how long such would've taken if one only used MA 28 and 38 as a means to get to Lowell from Boston.
In short, it boils down to time and money. Funeral procession-related travel time can be a sizable chunk of the overall cost of a funeral.
One (rhetorical) question towards those against funeral processions: have you actually been
in a funeral procession (either as a passenger or driver)?
Quote from: cjk374 on September 08, 2015, 09:22:45 PM
Processions should be banned from all interstates. Period.
Question - How frequently do funeral processions actually need to use Interstates or freeways instead of surface streets to get from the church to the cemetery? In the case of both of my parents (died in 1987 and 1989), who had their wakes and funeral masses in Lynn MA, but were buried in the family plot in Bedford NH, using the interstate was the logical choice for both time and other considerations (for one thing, less disruption to other traffic than if the procession used MA/NH 28 instead of I-93). However, I suspect our circumstance was the exception rather than the rule.
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2014/07/03/251323.htm
I found the above article from July 2014 which summarizes the funeral procession laws in every state. Surprisingly, there are a number of states which have no rules at all.
The last funeral that I went to (in Wisconsin) we were told to put on our bright lights and our hazard lights, although the law apparently just requires the regular headlights. There were a couple of extra escort cars with flashing orange lights on top that started out behind the hearse and then dropped off to block traffic at a couple of major intersections. I'm guessing this funeral home already knew which intersections were potential problems.
Get rid of them. I'm more in favor of cremation myself. There is no logical need to place a body in a casket in the ground with a headstone in this modern world. I'm with Rodney Dangerfield's character in Caddyshack on this.
Quote from: roadman on September 09, 2015, 11:31:53 AM
Question - How frequently do funeral processions actually need to use Interstates or freeways instead of surface streets to get from the church to the cemetery? In the case of both of my parents (died in 1987 and 1989), who had their wakes and funeral masses in Lynn MA, but were buried in the family plot in Bedford NH, using the interstate was the logical choice for both time and other considerations (for one thing, less disruption to other traffic than if the procession used MA/NH 28 instead of I-93). However, I suspect our circumstance was the exception rather than the rule.
How much trouble did you have keeping the procession together for such a long trek? I'd expect problems with other traffic at the many exits along the way, or vehicles needing to peel away mid-procession for bathroom breaks or refueling.
It would be safer, and I suspect logistically easier, to provide really clear directions to the cemetery, and either have no procession or at least break up the procession before entering the freeway and reassemble it at the other end. Working out such arrangements seems to me part of what funeral directors are paid for.
IIRC, the flame wars on MTR came about because some objected to the practice of oncoming traffic stopping to pay respects to the deceased/show sympathy for the survivors. That is a tradition in this part of Kentucky and I will most certainly stop and wait for the procession to pass if I meet one.
As for having unbroken processions, part of the reasoning may be to allow people unfamiliar with the area to be able to find the cemetery. The most recent funeral I attended was a few years ago for my great-aunt, whose son also worked in my office at the time. A number of our co-workers from other counties attended. They probably didn't know where the cemetery was -- heck, I didn't even know where it was or that my great uncle, who had died in an electrocution accident when I was very young, was buried there, because it was in my great-uncle's home county and not my great-aunt's.
Those of you who have attended road meets, especially in the days before printed directions were common, where some in the caravan got lost can probably understand the reasoning behind an unbroken procession so everyone can make it to the cemetery for the graveside services that usually conclude a funeral.
And has our society gotten so MFFY that we can't even take a few short moments to show some civility and human kindness?
Quote from: realjd on September 08, 2015, 09:41:04 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2015, 08:35:13 PM
I ask this because today I saw an accident with a funeral procession. A black car waiting to make a left turn had crept into the intersection waiting for a gap. The light then turned red, whereupon the black car began to make the turn even though a blue car was approaching the intersection from the oncoming direction. The blue car wasn't stopping because it was part of a funeral procession, and as a result, the black car hit the blue car. Luckily, the damage seemed minimal, although the blue car did skid a bit.
And this is why you don't pull into the intersection to turn left if the way isn't clear. Not only will it potentially get you a gridlock ticket around here (don't enter the intersection if the way out isn't clear), it causes so many accidents when people heading straight race the yellow or early red.
I mean, without violating any laws or creating any such danger, you could wait in the intersection for the procession to be completed and past you, and then proceed to make your left. Just like always.
For those of you who say ban them or reserve willful disobedience of traffic laws to emergency vehicles, what about processions of nothing but emergency vehicles? Ban them too? This one seems far longer than the processions I've seen or been a part of.
The last couple processions I've seen had a squad car providing some traffic control. The last one I was a part of had a funeral home car with mini lightbars leading and bringing up the tail end.
I cannot remember which specific highway it was on, but I seem to recall a sign being posted on one of the Milwaukee area freeways stating something to the effect of "No funeral processions beyond the next exit".
Personally, I'd like to see them retained. It's one of the few things that forces people to stop and reflect in our fast-paced, needed it yesterday society.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 09, 2015, 01:29:51 PM
I cannot remember which specific highway it was on, but I seem to recall a sign being posted on one of the Milwaukee area freeways stating something to the effect of "No funeral processions beyond the next exit".
I think it is on I-94 EB in Brookfield at the Moorland Rd exit.
I think this is the sign but is very hard to read off Google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0257092,-88.1180183,3a,75y,160.64h,96.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snrWGKoWUvEB4m4U7Zxyxcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: DaBigE on September 09, 2015, 01:29:51 PM
For those of you who say ban them or reserve willful disobedience of traffic laws to emergency vehicles, what about processions of nothing but emergency vehicles? Ban them too? This one seems far longer than the processions I've seen or been a part of.
The last couple processions I've seen had a squad car providing some traffic control. The last one I was a part of had a funeral home car with mini lightbars leading and bringing up the tail end.
I cannot remember which specific highway it was on, but I seem to recall a sign being posted on one of the Milwaukee area freeways stating something to the effect of "No funeral processions beyond the next exit".
Personally, I'd like to see them retained. It's one of the few things that forces people to stop and reflect in our fast-paced, needed it yesterday society.
The important thing to note: You saw how long that procession was. Look at the length of the video...just 2 1/2 minutes.
Processions seem a lot longer in people's minds than what they really are.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 09, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
IIRC, the flame wars on MTR came about because some objected to the practice of oncoming traffic stopping to pay respects to the deceased/show sympathy for the survivors. That is a tradition in this part of Kentucky and I will most certainly stop and wait for the procession to pass if I meet one.
As 1995hoo pointed out, that can be a dangerous tradition, if out-of-area travelers are unfamiliar with local custom, and come upon a procession and traffic stopped for it before they can figure out what's going on. But if oncoming traffic can pull over out of the travel lane(s) to pay respects, that reduces the risk that one funeral will beget rear-enders (and perhaps more funerals).
The m.t.r. flame war I remember was triggered by complaints from those who ran a procession a very long distance over a turnpike (where they were unlikely to pass people who knew the deceased or the family),
and wanted to blow through toll booths without paying so the procession could stay unbroken. I was, and still am, generally OK with shorter processions from the funeral service to the turnpike, and from the turnpike to the cemetery, but not on the turnpike itself.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 09, 2015, 01:19:55 PMThose of you who have attended road meets, especially in the days before printed directions were common, where some in the caravan got lost can probably understand the reasoning behind an unbroken procession so everyone can make it to the cemetery for the graveside services that usually conclude a funeral.
I can remember a road meet where a convoy got broken up by red lights (in a rural area, but with enough traffic to require stoplights). Printed directions, and exchanges of cellphone numbers, became more popular after that experience. That was a learning experience for us, but hopefully funeral directors will have figured it out by now.
If a funeral director can get police to block intersections (and hopefully temporarily cover any red-light cameras) so a procession need not stop for red lights, and otherwise keep other traffic from interfering with the procession, great. But not always possible.
My father's funeral, we chose to have no escort: we chose to drive ourselves, but there were only 3 cars.
Quote from: Brandon on September 09, 2015, 12:07:58 PMI'm more in favor of cremation myself.
0:09-0:50 might be of interest to you... particularly 0:36-0:43. :sombrero:
I'm not much for ceremony, so I'm of the opinion that the problems processions cause (i.e. traffic behaving unpredictably and the delays) are not worth whatever benefits the participants get. Put simply, yes, the mourners are in a lot of grief, but who's to say that the other traffic isn't out on the road because they have something equally important to them that they're involved in? It's not fair to abrogate the rules of the road under a circumstance where time is not really of the essence. (It would be different if they're rushing to get somewhere to prevent a funeral.)
As for the "respect" argument–that may be fine in smaller towns but in larger ones the deceased is some anonymous person, most drivers will not only not know them, but probably never even encountered them in life. It's sad that some guy died, but it happens to 100% of the population eventually, and if you're not familiar with the person involved it's kind of hard to get worked up about. (That presumes the deceased is worth respecting anyway.)
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 09, 2015, 07:40:26 PM
I'm not much for ceremony, so I'm of the opinion that the problems processions cause (i.e. traffic behaving unpredictably and the delays) are not worth whatever benefits the participants get. Put simply, yes, the mourners are in a lot of grief, but who's to say that the other traffic isn't out on the road because they have something equally important to them that they're involved in? It's not fair to abrogate the rules of the road under a circumstance where time is not really of the essence. (It would be different if they're rushing to get somewhere to prevent a funeral.)
As for the "respect" argument–that may be fine in smaller towns but in larger ones the deceased is some anonymous person, most drivers will not only not know them, but probably never even encountered them in life. It's sad that some guy died, but it happens to 100% of the population eventually, and if you're not familiar with the person involved it's kind of hard to get worked up about. (That presumes the deceased is worth respecting anyway.)
There's a recurring tone based primarily in utility in many of the arguments against funeral processions. Utility as in, what benefits more people should always overrule what benefits fewer.
But giving people–families, friend groups, organizations, whatever–the opportunity to have their moment of very benign ceremony to help process their grief, show some minor salute to the departed, and honor their mutual bond through that person strengthens society as a whole.
This topic of roads tends to draw folks focused on system optimization, engineering, efficiency, and individual opportunity. I respect all of those things. But if someone was sobbing and needed to get out of a restaurant, for example, and get a moment to gather themselves, you wouldn't stand in the doorway and say "wait your turn." You'd step aside and hold the door like your mother should have taught you to.
Society, in other words, is not simply strengthened by practical function. It's made better by having the
class to defer to someone who is having a much rougher time of it than most today.
(Edit to bold the word that needs a little extra consideration in this issue.)
Regarding the tolls, when my father's mother died in 1995 (so prior to widespread E-ZPass), the hearse driver made sure the four or five cars in the procession were queued up behind him as we headed over the Cross Bay Bridge so he could pay the toll for everyone in the procession and the toll taker waved the other cars through. Worked pretty well, but might not be so practical for a long procession, especially if a ticket-system road were involved.
The thing about people stopping for processions going the other way is that some people apparently think they should stop in the lane of traffic. That's dangerous and rude. If you can pull off on the shoulder safely, then be my guest, but don't block the road.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 09, 2015, 07:55:30 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 09, 2015, 07:40:26 PM
I'm not much for ceremony, so I'm of the opinion that the problems processions cause (i.e. traffic behaving unpredictably and the delays) are not worth whatever benefits the participants get. Put simply, yes, the mourners are in a lot of grief, but who's to say that the other traffic isn't out on the road because they have something equally important to them that they're involved in? It's not fair to abrogate the rules of the road under a circumstance where time is not really of the essence. (It would be different if they're rushing to get somewhere to prevent a funeral.)
As for the "respect" argument–that may be fine in smaller towns but in larger ones the deceased is some anonymous person, most drivers will not only not know them, but probably never even encountered them in life. It's sad that some guy died, but it happens to 100% of the population eventually, and if you're not familiar with the person involved it's kind of hard to get worked up about. (That presumes the deceased is worth respecting anyway.)
There's a recurring tone based primarily in utility in many of the arguments against funeral processions. Utility as in, what benefits more people should always overrule what benefits fewer.
But giving people–families, friend groups, organizations, whatever–the opportunity to have their moment of very benign ceremony to help process their grief, show some minor salute to the departed, and honor their mutual bond through that person strengthens society as a whole.
This topic of roads tends to draw folks focused on system optimization, engineering, efficiency, and individual opportunity. I respect all of those things. But if someone was sobbing and needed to get out of a restaurant, for example, and get a moment to gather themselves, you wouldn't stand in the doorway and say "wait your turn." You'd step aside and hold the door like your mother should have taught you to.
Society, in other words, is not simply strengthened by practical function. It's made better by having the class to defer to someone who is having a much rougher time of it than most today.
(Edit to bold the word that needs a little extra consideration in this issue.)
This is understandable, but in the restaurant scenario you give, there is the ability to communicate with the distraught person, and if you screw up and bump into the person, it's not going to potentially lead to injury.
Roads have rules governing them because the stakes are so much higher, and if people don't behave predictably death can occur. Funeral processions are something that you don't see every day, and in some cases may not be obvious (especially since the traditional way of designating them, headlights on in the day, is difficult to distinguish now that DRLs are common) so it may take time for a driver to recognize the situation and adapt to it. Normally, when you have a green light you are not expecting a line of cars to pass through the intersection from another direction.
If the procession were a line of people in a hallway, then yes, I would say that the polite thing to do is stand aside and allow them to pass. But since it's a line of cars in a street, safety should be the paramount concern, so safety devices like traffic signals should be obeyed.
I've been known to use "funeral procession" (often accompanied by a couple of more colorful words) as an insult for any group of vehicles moving at an unnecessarily slow speed. So, yeah, you could say I'm not a fan of the practice.
Seems to me it would make much more sense for everyone to leave the church and head to the cemetery in the form of "here's the address, everyone meet there" rather than everyone following each other in a slow-moving caravan and creating a moving roadblock. This is, after all, typically how everyone gets from ceremony to reception at a wedding, a two-part two-location event of similar magnitude involving a similar group of people.
I would not want to ban funeral processions, however, having said that, I would require a multitude of changes as many of you point out. One out of such changes I think needs to be proposed is the limit of cars in this procession, say, not to exceed 15 vehicles, maybe? That may be a low number, but there has to be a set number and while I do understand that it's an inconvenience to some of the motoring public with these long processions, I do have to wonder though: how can we improve the flow of the procession? It's easy for some to offer 20/20 hindsight and draconian platitudes, but it's totally a different story when we actually put these thoughts into practice.
We can't necessarily ban processions as that would provide no means for the body of the deceased to be transported from the funeral home or morgue to the cemetery. Ok, yeah, I get it that some places are crowded and might not accommodate such a large group of vehicles at one time. Yeah, I get it that it's a burden to some of the motoring public, but out of emphasis, I don't think banning processions will help, but I do think that we need a better way to make these processions work more better so that it lessens the burden on the motoring public who are not directly involved with it. And this isn't just for funerals, mind you. We need to further discuss how we can better improve the conditions for every other kind of procession like weddings, athletic team parades, presidential tours, and so on.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 09, 2015, 10:49:11 PMSeems to me it would make much more sense for everyone to leave the church and head to the cemetery in the form of "here's the address, everyone meet there" rather than everyone following each other in a slow-moving caravan and creating a moving roadblock. This is, after all, typically how everyone gets from ceremony to reception at a wedding, a two-part two-location event of similar magnitude involving a similar group of people.
One big difference with everyone going to the wedding reception vs. a funeral procession to the cemetery is (and I've attended both several times over the years so I know from personal experience)
there is a lot more lag-time for a wedding reception. Guests tend to arrive at a more leisurely fashion while the wedding party themselves doesn't arrive until later because they are involved in various photo shoots. I remember one reception where there was
at least an hour wait from the time the guests arrived and when the wedding party finally entered.
In contrast, since the final portion of the funeral at the cemetery doesn't start until everyone (in the procession) arrives; keeping everyone together (again, one must remember that many in attendance
may not be familiar with the area and/or
are not roadgeeks/enthusiasts) via a proceesion reduces the overall lag-time.
I asked this question (in general) earlier in this thread, but this time I will ask you personally; have you yourself been in a funeral procession (either as a driver or
cognizant passenger) for the death of a family member or friend? If your answer to that question is,
No; then I think your opinions/attitude on this subject
might change once you've participated in such.
Maybe one option for funeral homes/parlors can offer to alleviate procession-related issues would be to have a fleet of either vans or busses to transport friends & relatives en lieu of using their own individual vehicles. One downside for such, would be that those in attendance would be forced to head back to the funeral home or house of worship to pick up their own vehicles when the cemetery ceremony has concluded rather than drive straight from the cemetery to home or wherever the post-funeral gathering is (if any). The latter is, obviously, not part of funeral procession ceremonies.
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on September 10, 2015, 01:26:56 AM
We need to further discuss how we can better improve the conditions for every other kind of procession like weddings, athletic team parades, presidential tours, and so on.
A wedding procession?!?? Someone does that? Parades, presidential visits, etc. are a whole different story, since streets are shut down vs. occurring under live traffic like a funeral procession does.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 10, 2015, 08:38:54 AM
One big difference with everyone going to the wedding reception vs. a funeral procession to the cemetery is (and I've attended both several times over the years so I know from personal experience) there is a lot more lag-time for a wedding recpetion. Guests tend to arrive at a more leisurely fashion while the wedding party themselves doesn't arrive until later because they are involved in various photo shoots. I remember one reception where there was at least an hour wait from the time the guests arrived and when the wedding party finally entered.
In contrast, since the final portion of the funeral at the cemetery doesn't start until everyone (in the procession) arrives; keeping everyone together (again, one must remember that many in attendance may not be familiar with the area and/or are not roadgeeks/enthusiasts) via a proceesion reduces the overall lag-time.
I asked this question (in general) earlier in this thread, but this time I will ask you personally; have you yourself been in a funeral procession (either as a driver or cognizant passenger) for the death of a family member or friend? If your answer to that question is, No; then I think your opinions/attitude on this subject might change once you've participated in such.
Maybe one option for funeral homes/parlors can offer to alleviate procession-related issues would be to have a fleet of either vans or busses to transport friends & relatives en lieu of using their own individual vehicles. One downside for such, would be that those in attendance would be forced to head back to the funeral home or house of worship to pick up their own vehicles when the cemetery ceremony has concluded rather than drive straight from the cemetery to home or wherever the post-funeral gathering is (if any). The latter is, obviously, not part of funeral procession ceremonies.
Well said. In the wedding festivities we're currently planning, there will be at close to 2 hours between the ceremony and the reception. Even if the time was closer, most wedding parties travel by bus or limo.
Here's a listing of how different states handle it: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0303.htm
I notice that the three states of the NYC metro area, NY/NJ/CT, all provide no exception to stopping for red lights. I'd guess that this is because the area is so densely populated and the safety issues are greater than in more rural areas. My mother's family is buried in New Jersey, my father's family is buried in New York, and we were perfectly fine without going through any red lights at my relatives' funerals.
Both times I've been in a funeral procession, we didn't stop for any red lights. That said, the funeral home got police escort. I didn't even know headlights was a way to identify them; it seems that in the Rochester, NY area, at least, the flashers is the main feature. I don't recall even having flags.
Quote from: vdeane on September 10, 2015, 05:23:16 PM
Both times I've been in a funeral procession, we didn't stop for any red lights. That said, the funeral home got police escort. I didn't even know headlights was a way to identify them; it seems that in the Rochester, NY area, at least, the flashers is the main feature. I don't recall even having flags.
It was primarily headlights in the time when daytime headlight use was uncommon, about twenty years ago and before.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 10, 2015, 08:38:54 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 09, 2015, 10:49:11 PMSeems to me it would make much more sense for everyone to leave the church and head to the cemetery in the form of "here's the address, everyone meet there" rather than everyone following each other in a slow-moving caravan and creating a moving roadblock. This is, after all, typically how everyone gets from ceremony to reception at a wedding, a two-part two-location event of similar magnitude involving a similar group of people.
One big difference with everyone going to the wedding reception vs. a funeral procession to the cemetery is (and I've attended both several times over the years so I know from personal experience) there is a lot more lag-time for a wedding reception. Guests tend to arrive at a more leisurely fashion while the wedding party themselves doesn't arrive until later because they are involved in various photo shoots. I remember one reception where there was at least an hour wait from the time the guests arrived and when the wedding party finally entered.
In contrast, since the final portion of the funeral at the cemetery doesn't start until everyone (in the procession) arrives; keeping everyone together (again, one must remember that many in attendance may not be familiar with the area and/or are not roadgeeks/enthusiasts) via a proceesion reduces the overall lag-time.
I asked this question (in general) earlier in this thread, but this time I will ask you personally; have you yourself been in a funeral procession (either as a driver or cognizant passenger) for the death of a family member or friend? If your answer to that question is, No; then I think your opinions/attitude on this subject might change once you've participated in such.
Maybe one option for funeral homes/parlors can offer to alleviate procession-related issues would be to have a fleet of either vans or busses to transport friends & relatives en lieu of using their own individual vehicles. One downside for such, would be that those in attendance would be forced to head back to the funeral home or house of worship to pick up their own vehicles when the cemetery ceremony has concluded rather than drive straight from the cemetery to home or wherever the post-funeral gathering is (if any). The latter is, obviously, not part of funeral procession ceremonies.
Then design the funeral ceremony to accommodate the travel time. We don't allow "people may be unfamiliar with the area/in a compromised emotional state" to let people weasel out of traffic laws under any other circumstance, why should it suddenly be a concern when some guy kicked the bucket?
When my great-grandmother died I was around ten or eleven, and part of the funeral procession for her, which used I-635 and I-70 in Kansas City, KS. I was uncomfortable with the whole thing then; our escort was not a police officer but some guy from the funeral home, and even then I felt like there was just too much that could go wrong from someone misunderstanding our actions.
I don't think the practice of having a funeral procession should be banned, just that it shouldn't be exempt from traffic laws designed to keep everyone safe.
I think in most parts of the country, it is now less practical to have a funeral procession than it was several decades ago, simply as a result of multiple factors such as increased traffic volumes, increased speed limits, and changed expectations for behavior in traffic.
My grandmother and her mother both spent their last years in Wichita but are buried near their ancestors in a small cemetery in Gypsum, Kansas, about 90 miles away. The most convenient route to the town is via I-135 and K-4, although there is a paved county road that is more direct (Ridge Road in Wichita is actually paved all the way from northern Sumner County to the north city limits of Gypsum, across Sedgwick, Harvey, McPherson, and parts of Sumner and Saline Counties).
My great-grandmother died on October 31, 1982. Her funeral procession had headlights on, a police escort, and flags on the hearse. It moved slowly on city streets and K-4 but at normal speeds on I-135, which then had a 55 limit. To the extent that other traffic was noticeably inconvenienced, it was in urban Wichita only.
My grandmother died almost thirty years later, on August 15, 2011. She did not have a funeral procession at all. Instead, a viewing for the family and a funeral service were held at the funeral home's chapel in west Wichita, and those attending the burial were instructed to be at the cemetery three hours later, leaving enough time for lunch in town followed by a drive north on I-135, which by then had a 75 limit.
Kansas does not have any laws governing funeral processions (per an online rundown of state laws governing them (http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2014/07/03/251323.htm)). The ones I see have escorts that consist of motorcycle outriders and Crown Victorias with "Funeral Escort" instead of typical police markings, but they do not attempt to perform traffic control. Many drivers still slow down, stop, refrain from proceeding through green signals, avoid overtaking the mourners, etc. as a sign of respect.
The last procession I encountered in person corked me in my subdivision by going past just as I rolled up to the stop sign at my usual exit point. Before I gave up and reversed into the nearest driveway to find another way out, I spent close to ten minutes idling as not just the procession, but also all the other vehicles it had bottled up, passed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PMThen design the funeral ceremony to accommodate the travel time.
Time = money. Especially with today's funeral costs. Distances between funeral homes/places of worship and cemetaries vary a lot. A long-distance procession (like the one for my great-aunt circa 1977) would've actually taken much longer and been more problematic (for both procession vehicles and surrounding traffic) if we used
only local roads (w/more traffic lights) instead of I-93.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PMWe don't allow "people may be unfamiliar with the area/in a compromised emotional state" to let people weasel out of traffic laws under any other circumstance, why should it suddenly be a concern when some guy kicked the bucket?
In terms of operations (& theory); Funeral Procession = Train
One certainly wouldn't dare interrupt a multi-car train going through a railroad crossing (all the cars are connected); similar logic
should (IMHO) apply with when encountering funeral procession (such
was the case when I was studying for my driver's test questions). Vehicles in the procession need to stay
close together (small gaps); which is one reason for the usually
slower than posted speeds travel. Wide and varying gaps between procession vehicles can definitely cause more problems for them as well as confuse surrounding non-procession vehicles.
To be clear, the
lead vehicle still needs to obey all traffic laws and signs (nobody here, I believe, is disputing such); but the procession vehicles that follow
should (IMHO) continue through any encountered red lights (that weren't red for the lead vehicle) and
STOP signs (that the lead vehicle already stopped for); and, hence, keep the
train together.
It is my understanding (& based on personal experience); that most funeral processions that take place (at least for the Greater Boston & Greater Philly areas) on weekdays are done
after 9 AM, as to avoid encounters with rush-hour traffic.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PMI felt like there was just too much that could go wrong from someone misunderstanding our actions.
Again, vehicles in a funeral procession (beyond the usual hearse & limo)
will have some type of identifier(s) on them (be it flags, windshield banners, emergency flashers on, etc.). If an encountering motorist can't differentiate the above; then (IMHO) they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PM
I don't think the practice of having a funeral procession should be banned, just that it shouldn't be exempt from traffic laws designed to keep everyone safe.
A better idea would be for states to
standardize (i.e. make more uniform/be consistent with) their rules & laws regarding funeral processions and what to do when encountering such. IIRC, similar's been done for school bus situations (examples: stopping for school busses when their signals are on, school busses stopping at railroad crossings even when the signals/gates aren't on (
EXEMPT crossings being the sole exception)).
In most of Upstate New York, funeral processions are quite common and almost always have at least one police escort to block intersections and at least one funeral home escort vehicle along with the hearse. Funeral home vehicles often have orange lights. Processions are typically done between the rush hours. People don't stop, but the vast majority don't attempt to interrupt the procession and the procession is given the right of way.
Quote from: cl94 on September 11, 2015, 01:15:46 PM
...Processions are typically done between the rush hours....
I've never heard of funerals at 7am or 4pm, when they would impact rush hours.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2015, 11:52:00 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PMThen design the funeral ceremony to accommodate the travel time.
Time = money.
This is true for those delayed by the funeral procession too. Then again if we're going to make traffic decisions on saving people money, then we should also allow people with non-refundable tickets they're running late to and CEOs to blow through lights.
Quote
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PMWe don't allow "people may be unfamiliar with the area/in a compromised emotional state" to let people weasel out of traffic laws under any other circumstance, why should it suddenly be a concern when some guy kicked the bucket?
In terms of operations (& theory); Funeral Procession = Train
One certainly wouldn't dare interrupt a multi-car train going through a railroad crossing (all the cars are connected); similar logic should (IMHO) apply with when encountering funeral procession (such was the case when I was studying for my driver's test questions). Vehicles in the procession need to stay close together (small gaps); which is one reason for the usually slower than posted speeds travel.
I don't agree that there's any need for them to stay together. It's convention, but it would work just as well for them to travel separately.
Quote
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PMI felt like there was just too much that could go wrong from someone misunderstanding our actions.
Again, vehicles in a funeral procession (beyond the usual hearse & limo) will have some type of identifier(s) on them (be it flags, windshield banners, emergency flashers on, etc.). If an encountering motorist can't differentiate the above; then (IMHO) they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
But sometimes they
won't. The Oklahoma driver's manual does not specify what the identifiers of a funeral procession will be, so they could be anything. As I mentioned above, the only designation I was aware of was headlights on in the day. Apparently since then it's migrated to flashers, but I only would have known that from reading this thread. I've never seen flags (other than sports-team and sometimes American flags on individual vehicles, a practice that could make the funeral flags ambiguous). Depending on the situation it absolutely could be difficult to determine whether this is a funeral procession or not, particularly if you don't see the hearse.
Quote
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 10, 2015, 07:31:08 PM
I don't think the practice of having a funeral procession should be banned, just that it shouldn't be exempt from traffic laws designed to keep everyone safe.
A better idea would be for states to standardize (i.e. make more uniform/be consistent with) their rules & laws regarding funeral processions and what to do when encountering such. IIRC, similar's been done for school bus situations (examples: stopping for school busses when their signals are on, school busses stopping at railroad crossings even when the signals/gates aren't on (EXEMPT crossings being the sole exception)).
Why would that be better than eliminating the practice?
n.b. using bold, italic and underline doesn't actually give your arguments any more weight.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 01:27:07 PMWhy would that be better than eliminating the practice?
Short answer: continuation of a long-standing tradition (and not just in this country).
Funeral processions existed well before the proliferation of motor vehicles and traffic laws. Originally, such was done with horse-drawn vehicles and the mourners followed mostly on foot (some might have used stagecoaches later on). It was traditionally accepted that interruption of procession marches even by foot traffic was discouraged and considered disrepectful. A similar mindset carried over when motor vehicles came on the scene.
Depending on the area, a procession broken up by other traffic (especially in a situation where a procession is entering a major road from a minor road) can cause unnecessary delays for all parties involved and possibly contribute to mourners possibly getting lost (and risk driving to endanger as a means to rejoin the procession/convoy). Since mourners are already going through a rough time; the above disruption scenerios could cause more problems than it solves.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 01:27:07 PMn.b. using bold, italic and underline doesn't actually give your arguments any more weight.
Such does point out key words that tend to get missed (by others, not necessarily you).
There have been several times (on this site and on others) where one will reply to a post and miss a key word that would've determined whether or not such a reply is applicable or even needed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 01:27:07 PMWhy would that be better than eliminating the practice?
Short answer: continuation of a long-standing tradition (and not just in this country).
Funeral processions existed well before the proliferation of motor vehicles and traffic laws. Originally, such was done with horse-drawn vehicles and the mourners followed mostly on foot (some might have used stagecoaches later on). It was traditionally accepted that interruption of procession marches even by foot traffic was discouraged and considered disrepectful. A similar mindset carried over when motor vehicles came on the scene.
Depending on the area, a procession broken up by other traffic (especially in a situation where a procession is entering a major road from a minor road) can cause unnecessary delays for all parties involved and possibly contribute to mourners possibly getting lost (and risk driving to endanger as a means to rejoin the procession/convoy). Since mourners are already going through a rough time; the above disruption scenerios could cause more problems than it solves.
"We've always done it that way" has never been an argument that appeals to me.
Keeping people from getting lost is what road signs are for.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 03:37:33 PMKeeping people from getting lost is what road signs are for.
Agreed, but you know as well as I do that people will still get lost despite such. Plus, not every intersection has decent signage. I cordially invite you to parts of eastern MA or southeastern PA where signage is limited, sparce and/or substandard.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2015, 04:33:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 03:37:33 PMKeeping people from getting lost is what road signs are for.
Agreed, but you know as well as I do that people will still get lost despite such. Plus, not every intersection has decent signage. I cordially invite you to parts of eastern MA or southeastern PA where signage is limited, sparce and/or substandard.
Heck, that's the entire northeast, which is probably one of the reasons why funeral processions continue to be used extensively. If you don't know where something is, you're out of luck and a GPS isn't always helpful.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 03:37:33 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 01:27:07 PMWhy would that be better than eliminating the practice?
Short answer: continuation of a long-standing tradition (and not just in this country).
Funeral processions existed well before the proliferation of motor vehicles and traffic laws. Originally, such was done with horse-drawn vehicles and the mourners followed mostly on foot (some might have used stagecoaches later on). It was traditionally accepted that interruption of procession marches even by foot traffic was discouraged and considered disrepectful. A similar mindset carried over when motor vehicles came on the scene.
Depending on the area, a procession broken up by other traffic (especially in a situation where a procession is entering a major road from a minor road) can cause unnecessary delays for all parties involved and possibly contribute to mourners possibly getting lost (and risk driving to endanger as a means to rejoin the procession/convoy). Since mourners are already going through a rough time; the above disruption scenerios could cause more problems than it solves.
"We've always done it that way" has never been an argument that appeals to me.
I can appreciate both sides of this, but I also tend to think, "if it isn't broke, don't mess with it".
Maybe I am out of the loop, but how many crashes are caused by funeral processions (other than the one mentioned by the OP)? Frankly, I cannot recall any others in recent memory, which is why I would tend to side more with PHLBOS idea of standardizing the practice/laws across the country rather than outright abandonment. Maybe I am completely wrong, and the rest of the country has a crash epidemic caused by funeral processions.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 11, 2015, 05:13:50 PMI can appreciate both sides of this, but I also tend to think, "if it isn't broke, don't mess with it".
Maybe I am out of the loop, but how many crashes are caused by funeral processions (other than the one mentioned by the OP)? Frankly, I cannot recall any others in recent memory, which is why I would tend to side more with PHLBOS idea of standardizing the practice/laws across the country rather than outright abandonment. Maybe I am completely wrong, and the rest of the country has a crash epidemic caused by funeral processions.
This question remains unaddressed since the first post of the thread, which relied on the anecdotal evidence of one incident.
Further discussion of safety seems to be based on conjecture.
Some funeral homes do have little magnetic flags that they place on cars in the procession. The local funeral home, however, doesn't.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 11, 2015, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2015, 01:27:07 PMWhy would that be better than eliminating the practice?
Short answer: continuation of a long-standing tradition (and not just in this country).
Funeral processions existed well before the proliferation of motor vehicles and traffic laws. Originally, such was done with horse-drawn vehicles and the mourners followed mostly on foot (some might have used stagecoaches later on).
A stage coach was public transportation, a pre-industrial version of a bus, "stage" being an old word for "station". While people might have taken a horse and carriage, it is unlikely they would have taken a stage coach.
In any event, this brings up some things mentioned about. About 3 or 4 hour drives as funeral processions.
In the pre-automobile world a funeral procession was limited to what a horse could do pulling a wagon. Not to mention the state of embalming and such. People were mostly buried near where they fell. If someone was going to go elsewhere from the place of their funeral for burial, they would go as freight and the burial would be a separate service.
Driving, at low speed particularly, many hours from the funeral location for a burial is certainly a new idea related to a car. And it is dangerous and foolish. If the funeral procession is more than 30 minutes or so, then just tell everyone to show up at the grave yard at 5 PM.
Quote from: SP Cook on September 12, 2015, 07:31:11 AM
Driving, at low speed particularly, many hours from the funeral location for a burial is certainly a new idea related to a car. And it is dangerous and foolish. If the funeral procession is more than 30 minutes or so, then just tell everyone to show up at the grave yard at 5 PM.
30 minutes?
In order to have a funeral procession lasting greater than 30 minutes, you would probably need 500 - 750 vehicles in that procession. Figuring 2 mourners per car, that would translate to a service of 1,000 - 1,500 people.
As much as we all love each other, you are not going to get 1,000 people at a funeral. All but the largest churches even have a capacity in the low hundreds, at best. And most funeral homes can fit, at most, a few hundred people as well. In both cases, a 500 spot parking lot is not going to be found at either place. For comparisons sake: A large grocery or department store of 100,000 square feet needs 500 spots for parking.
So I don't know who the people here are grieving over, but most funeral processions are going to take a minute or two to go past any particular point. Not over a half hour.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 09, 2015, 01:29:51 PM
For those of you who say ban them or reserve willful disobedience of traffic laws to emergency vehicles, what about processions of nothing but emergency vehicles? Ban them too? This one seems far longer than the processions I've seen or been a part of.
That's for an actual funeral so I could understand some leeway for slow speed of the vehicles. But what about outside of the procession? At the time of the funeral for the NYC cops who were shot a while back, someone posted to Reddit a picture of a long line of Barnegat police cars on the GS Parkway (at the Driscoll Bridge) all in the right lane with lights flashing. I made a comment about whether or not the lights needed to be on (don't know if they were traveling faster or slower than the speed limit there) and was downvoted to oblivion. If laws were passed banning such long processions, the police would bend it anyway.
Now off-topic, but just a funny coincidence, on a election archival website I used to be a part of, the author of the video "had his political career destroyed" by another member of that website. Small world innit?
Yes. It is completely unreasonable to inconvenience everyone just so that the hearse and everyone can get to a cemetery quicker. There's enough hazards on roads as it is.
It seems odd that people so obsess over the burial of a body when so many religions tend to have a fundamental concept of the body as being merely a temporary vessel for the soul (or other equivalent term) that is vacated upon death. Whether you're off to be reincarnated or heaven/hell/purgatory or just dead, the body is of no use to you. I'm all for remembering and celebrating the life that was lived and the impact on the people around, but why do flesh and bones have such importance?
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 12, 2015, 11:58:38 PM
It seems odd that people so obsess over the burial of a body when so many religions tend to have a fundamental concept of the body as being merely a temporary vessel for the soul (or other equivalent term) that is vacated upon death. Whether you're off to be reincarnated or heaven/hell/purgatory or just dead, the body is of no use to you. I'm all for remembering and celebrating the life that was lived and the impact on the people around, but why do flesh and bones have such importance?
Not having done a survey, it seems that many religions think it's more complicated than that. For example, the Catholic Church has in recent years lightened up on its former insistence on burial, but even when cremation is allowed, it still insists on keeping the remains in one appropriate container as much as possible and interred ceremonially, rather than more informal dispositions such as scattering the ashes.
I don't know how much of the customary two-part funeral service with a procession is religion-driven. My mother's memorial service (she was a Catholic who chose cremation) was held at the historic California mission that was her parish church, with her ashes immediately interred at the on-site church cemetery, so there was no need for a procession.
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 12, 2015, 11:58:38 PMIt seems odd that people so obsess over the burial of a body when so many religions tend to have a fundamental concept of the body as being merely a temporary vessel for the soul (or other equivalent term) that is vacated upon death. Whether you're off to be reincarnated or heaven/hell/purgatory or just dead, the body is of no use to you.
Catholicism may have grabbed too much Aristotle, IMO, but purgatory (a term that is exclusively its) shouldn't be on the list, as the Catholics kept enough Judeo-Christian thought to never doubt the importance of the physical body. Protestants likewise (even the
Left Behind crowd with their eschatology from pulp thriller novels, rather than the Bible, believe in the 'Rapture' being with physical bodies). I don't think there's many Buddhists, Hindus, etc (or those who don't value the dead body, or believe in some sort of soul, like atheists and 'humanists') in the areas where these big long processions are common.
Burials, in my UK experience, need less driving about as, if the churchyard isn't open, then there's still going to be a nearby graveyard still accepting bodies and so house-church-graveyard won't be that far. Crematoriums, on the other hand, are relatively rarer, and so the journey is longer regardless.
There's no need for processions to be so long. When my great uncle Bill passed, we went to the house to see auntie Phil, we watched the procession of three or four cars (he had a lot of kids, grandkids and great-grandkids) move at walking pace through the street where he lived. They then did something to let us pass, and so my grandma, his sister-in-law, could (and, driving at the speed limit/traffic speed, we only arrived 5 minutes before, so they must have not been holding people up) be at the Crematorium (which now tend to be marked in every UK road atlas*) to see the procession arrive at walking pace through the grounds (the person walking in front of it, however, just did the street and the grounds). The priest or vicar held the service in the chapel there (if you hold one in the church, then the cremation would be private, as would a burial outside the churchyard).
Burials, in the UK, seem to me to be easier on traffic flow as the church will be closer to the street and there would be an open graveyard nearby, if not the churchyard itself. Unless you live in a big city, though the same issue applies to crematoriums, that is.
*partially as they are rather rare - each one tends to serve several hundred thousand people, or a good 50+ mile radius if the population is less dense.
I've never seen a problem caused by them. In my area, a motorcycle cop rides in front and and circles each intersection along which the route has a stop sign or traffic signal so that the intersection is cleared and everyone knows what's happening. A second motorcycle cop will block the intersection until the procession is moving through, then he'll pass the procession and block the next one. The hearse driver knows to stay far enough back and keep the pace.
I've been in a procession on an Interstate (Itasca, Texas to Hillsboro). We had no special right-of-way (I think that's illegal), but on a freeway we didn't need it. I didn't know where we were going, but I just followed closely enough that I could see where the hearse and other processioners were going.
I view this as being like a parade or other special event that has a permit to block traffic and get special treatment, and don't have a problem with it. Maybe in some cases, such as roads near frequently-used cemeteries, it would cause too much trouble. But I have no objection in principle.
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 12, 2015, 11:58:38 PM
It seems odd that people so obsess over the burial of a body when so many religions tend to have a fundamental concept of the body as being merely a temporary vessel for the soul (or other equivalent term) that is vacated upon death. Whether you're off to be reincarnated or heaven/hell/purgatory or just dead, the body is of no use to you. I'm all for remembering and celebrating the life that was lived and the impact on the people around, but why do flesh and bones have such importance?
Religion aside, flesh and bones matter because they are the physical person we know, the loss of which is traumatic.
I have no problem with cremation. It is far cheaper, logistically easier, and provides more flexibility than a non-cremation funeral, in fact. But I understand people's difficulty with it. It's very hard to let go. The traditional burial is a step in between life and death for the grieving, a chance for a last glimpse, to say goodbye.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2015, 03:23:07 PM
30 minutes?
In order to have a funeral procession lasting greater than 30 minutes, you would probably need 500 - 750 vehicles in that procession. Figuring 2 mourners per car, that would translate to a service of 1,000 - 1,500 people.
I meant 30 minutes from the point the lead car leaves point A (church) to where it arrives at point B (grave yard), not 30 minutes from the lead car to the trail car. This was in response to several posters talking about long trips between A and B.
One of the things I've found a bit odd appears to me to be a regional practice: Every time I've been to a funeral in New York City, we go to Mass and then form the funeral procession to the cemetery, and the first thing the procession does is to go past the decedent's residence. (In the case of my father's mother, who lived in an apartment in Far Rockaway, it used Seagirt Boulevard to go past the complex where she lived, although since her window four floors up overlooked Seagirt, I guess that counts as going right past her residence.) It really jams up the traffic in some of the narrower streets in neighborhoods like Bay Ridge, where my father's mother lived.
In other states I've never seen that sort of thing, and I guess my two cousins who grew up in San Diego hadn't seen it either because when my mother's mother died and we were all in the limo together, they were baffled at why the procession was going through the residential streets in Bay Ridge and they were more baffled when we told them why ("baffled" as in "why bother doing that?"). As I type this it occurs to me that it's a less viable practice in suburban areas where a lot of people live on cul-de-sacs or in neighborhoods with one outlet. My father, who is even more cynical than I am, says it's the New York funeral directors milking the experience to wring out all the emotion they can.
Regarding comments about distance to cemeteries and whether they should be close by, don't forget people move over time. To use my father's mother as an example, she's buried in St. John's Cemetery in Queens. It's around 13 miles from her apartment complex and the drive takes around 45 minutes if you get stuck at a lot of red lights. The reason she isn't buried closer to where she lived? Family plot. My father's father died many years earlier, sometime around 1960 or so. At the time they lived closer to St. John's. My grandmother was a widow for around 35 years and moved several times, but for obvious reasons she was buried back in the same plot as my grandfather. The funeral Mass, of course, was at the parish she attended near her apartment in Far Rockaway (like many ladies of her generation, she did not drive and so walked to church). On my mother's side of the family, it's similar–a lot of them are buried in a family plot in Flatbush (Holy Cross Cemetery, if anyone knows the area) that's been in the family for at least 70 years, but neighborhoods change over time and none of them now live near that cemetery. (Then you have special situations: My father, and by extension therefore my mother as well, is eligible for inurnment in Arlington National Cemetery. It so happens that's local to them, but it still requires a drive. The bigger issue with Arlington is scheduling logistics because it's so busy.)
I recently wondered about the fact that no funeral I've been in for years had a passage by the decedent's home. Going back several decades this was common, but as people spread out, it has presumably faded due to complexity. My parents lived on a dead end, so it would have been a traffic nightmare exceeding that of a simple red light delay.
I get impatient about parades, small-town festivals that close through streets, and stuff like that, but not funeral processions.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 13, 2015, 08:57:57 PM
I get impatient about parades, small-town festivals that close through streets, and stuff like that, but not funeral processions.
We had a bike race here today and parts of streets were blocked off. Fortunately, I was able to negotiate around it.
Quote from: US71 on September 13, 2015, 09:00:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 13, 2015, 08:57:57 PM
I get impatient about parades, small-town festivals that close through streets, and stuff like that, but not funeral processions.
We had a bike race here today and parts of streets were blocked off. Fortunately, I was able to negotiate around it.
For several years I had to cross the Boston Marathon to get to work. The bus would stop well short of the route on one side, and pick up again a ways past it.
The first year I did this I called the MBTA and asked what the alternative provided was. "Get a six pack and enjoy the nice day," the agent told me. "Sometimes there's just an inconvenience that's bigger than you."
Quote from: Zeffy on September 14, 2015, 06:14:52 AM
Dead people have just as many fucking rights as living people do.
Yeah! Dead people should be allowed to bear arms and vote!
This is just by the by, but obstructing the mail (a violation of 18 USC § 1701 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1701)) requires mens rea, so funeral processions cannot be prosecuted for it.
We seem to be going off on a tangent here. Let's try to get back on topic
Is it me or does it appear that the majority of those who believe that funeral processions should be banned are under the age of 40?
Just an observation.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 14, 2015, 03:14:41 PMIs it me or does it appear that the majority of those who believe that funeral processions should be banned are under the age of 40?
Gray vision is one of the few things that improves with age.
I also see some signs that attempts to push the idea that funeral processions should be tolerated for humane reasons (as part of the normal grieving process, etc.) are generating their own resistance. With very few exceptions, I seriously doubt the people who loudly object to the principle of having funeral processions are actually doing anything to disrupt them when they encounter them in person.
Often the best way to win an argument is just to stop arguing.
As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition. I feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder), weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead), football homecomings (what are you coming home from again, exactly?) and so forth. So I am not going to disrupt funeral processions, and will tolerate them because I'm a civilized member of society, but if I had my way I'd dispense with them, especially since I feel they can be dangerous and disruptive themselves.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead)
I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could
easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what
you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic. :rolleyes: [/rant]
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 05:59:46 PM
I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic. :rolleyes: [/rant]
So no parties ever, then? I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.
For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share. I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't. I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that. I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition.
I'm with you for the most part. To expand on that, many firmly cemented traditions are not only unnecessary, they're counterproductive.
I lost my very dear grandmother in October 2013 and my wife lost her father a few months earlier. In both cases, I watched the closest family members do their damnedest to keep a stiff upper lip in public–when all they truly wanted was to cry in private. The next closest tier of family and friends felt some duty to provide comfort, but their efforts were neither wanted nor successful. And finally, distant family members and acquaintances showed up to lap up free food.
If I believed in any kind of an afterlife (I don't), I could not help but think that the dearly departed would be looking down, heartbroken that their funerals–ostensibly intended to comfort the most important people in their lives–had instead amplified the already incredible grief their closest loved ones had to endure.
Instead, only two groups benefited from the funeral:
1.) The disposable distant relatives, who got a free lunch and were thus spared the inconvenience of digging through the ValPak envelope for a valid Sizzler coupon that day, and
2.) The oily members of the funerary-industrial complex who profited handsomely by selling wares at many times their cost–and with odious selling propositions like "wouldn't your loved one want the best?"
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PMI feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder)
As someone who has had that, it was underclimatic. It was like 'oh, OK'. That's fine for finishing Middle School. That's not fine for finishing with compulsory education and the 13+ years put into it.
A bit better was all going in for results day to see how well we did (in the UK, final exams at high school are external, and the school only knows the results a day before the students), but (despite the national press being there on both occasions I got mine) the milling about and finding out how others did and excitedly sharing the good bits of your results lacked the pomp that such an event actually deserves.
I got a certificate ceremony, but it was hollow as it meant nothing - purely administrative (and a way to get us signed up for alumni stuff). The pride came with the results in August, rather than getting the certificates (that they hadn't had time to print in the summer) in December. It was billed as a chance to see everyone again, and while that wasn't bad, everyone (like me) had moved on to the next phase of life. I think most people went straight home afterwards, though I went out with a couple (literally) of friends to the pub as we felt that there had to be something more to the evening than the boring ceremony.
My BA graduation ceremony in Summer 2017 (at least that's when it's pencilled in!) is something that I'm looking forward too - it will be a chance to see everyone again (and with a cohort of 8 scattered across the country that I wouldn't have seen that year, rather than 180 who I saw a few months before and will mostly return to a fairly small geographical area come the holidays and aren't hard to see the ones I'd want to, that means more) and thank the staff, etc. All the things that I got to do on results day at school, but with the pomp and ceremony that such an achievement deserves.
Quoteweddings and receptions
Think of the reception as a party with some generally accepted features. A board game party is a party: all you need is a couple of short speeches and a dance, and you have a perfectly protocol-compliant wedding reception.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 14, 2015, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 05:59:46 PM
I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic. :rolleyes: [/rant]
So no parties ever, then? I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.
For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share. I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't. I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that. I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.
Wedding receptions are not the same as a party in my book. I don't spend $10k+ to throw a party.
Quote from: briantroutman on September 14, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition.
I'm with you for the most part. To expand on that, many firmly cemented traditions are not only unnecessary, they're counterproductive.
I lost my very dear grandmother in October 2013 and my wife lost her father a few months earlier. In both cases, I watched the closest family members do their damnedest to keep a stiff upper lip in public–when all they truly wanted was to cry in private. The next closest tier of family and friends felt some duty to provide comfort, but their efforts were neither wanted nor successful. And finally, distant family members and acquaintances showed up to lap up free food.
If I believed in any kind of an afterlife (I don't), I could not help but think that the dearly departed would be looking down, heartbroken that their funerals–ostensibly intended to comfort the most important people in their lives–had instead amplified the already incredible grief their closest loved ones had to endure.
Instead, only two groups benefited from the funeral:
1.) The disposable distant relatives, who got a free lunch and were thus spared the inconvenience of digging through the ValPak envelope for a valid Sizzler coupon that day, and
2.) The oily members of the funerary-industrial complex who profited handsomely by selling wares at many times their cost–and with odious selling propositions like "wouldn't your loved one want the best?"
Agreed about the funeral industry. For better or worse, though, they streamline a lot of hassle someone in the worst moments of their life knows nothing about. And again, for better or worse, there are laws controlling how human remains may be handled and licensing people in this regard. You have to have someone regulated take care of the dirty details. I'm sure this is like many industries–partly due to past abuses, partly due to business interests protecting their niche. Either way, you can't bring or keep a body home. You have to pay someone to handle it.
However, as for the funeral, I see there being more to it, and this is why I cannot stress enough
let somebody know what you want for yours!Most folks in older generations than mine in my family have died. I've been to a lot of funerals, including those of my parents. In their case it was incredibly difficult to summon the energy to do any of the work that needed to be done, the funeral being almost the easiest (the legal work we leave upon dying is considerable). The funeral gave an opportunity for friends and more distant family to take part in the farewell. They deserved that. Moreover, they came for us, to show some familiar beloved faces and say that we and the deceased were important to them. I was grateful for every person that decided it was important to be there.
Grieving comes in many forms, even in one instance of loss. Coping alone, having people come and share collective sadness, and even a somber little ritual can all fill needs. No one grieves the same, and none of it quite fills the void, but there is a place for many ways of doing these things.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 07:17:26 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 14, 2015, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 05:59:46 PM
I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic. :rolleyes: [/rant]
So no parties ever, then? I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.
For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share. I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't. I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that. I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.
Wedding receptions are not the same as a party in my book. I don't spend $10k+ to throw a party.
I've been to fun wedding receptions that didn't cost nearly that much, quite a few in people's yards. But whatever works for someone is what they should do.
Exactly why we're doing the board game café for our reception: it's something we will enjoy, and if the guests don't, they can bow out early and we won't mind. The café itself is a startup owned by a group of our friends that will have only been open for a few months, so besides having fun we hope to give them a shot in the arm by getting a bunch of people in there that otherwise wouldn't have ever checked it out.
In re high school graduation: don't know what it's like in the UK, but in the US it's a tedious affair where friends/relatives are crammed into a usually overwarm gymnasium and graduates are called one by one to a stage (with applause from the friends) to receive the empty diploma holder. It's incredibly dull.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 14, 2015, 07:30:50 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 07:17:26 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 14, 2015, 06:20:26 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 05:59:46 PM
I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic. :rolleyes: [/rant]
So no parties ever, then? I mean, your logic, as you put it, implies people shouldn't ever invite anyone for food, drink, dancing, etc.
For me, these are terriffic things for friends to share. I guess you either like having fun in a group, or you don't. I love a good party, and though I can do without the wedding trappings, a reception is at least a chance for folks to get together and have a good time, and I'll put up with the ceremony for that. I suspect I am not in a small minority in making this deal.
Wedding receptions are not the same as a party in my book. I don't spend $10k+ to throw a party.
I've been to fun wedding receptions that didn't cost nearly that much, quite a few in people's yards. But whatever works for someone is what they should do.
I know you can have a good time for a lot less. Ironically, it's her parents that want all the "traditional components" of the reception, despite bitching about the price of everything. My fiancée wants all the traditional stuff too, course my family, being old-fashioned is probably the same way. It's a lost cause asking "why". It doesn't help that she has a
big huge family and they all
have to be invited...don't want WWIII breaking out in the family. :rolleyes:
There was an old episode of
Home Improvement, where during Tool Time, they were talking about the high cost of a wedding. Tim said he could do it for something like $19.95 (+/-). That would be my kind of wedding. :) I got the look of :ded: when I even joked about that idea.
My sister got married in a simple backyard ceremony.
My parents had a full ceremony, but that was almost 60 years ago.
When my dad passed away 4 years ago, we had no vitiation, per his instructions. We drove to the cemetery, but opted not to "follow" the hearse. A few of my dad's former co-workers showed up at the funeral and he was given full military honors.
When mom passed away in April, we had a visitation that only 3 people showed up at besides family.We opted not not to go to the cemetery.
Funerals are for the family and friends of the departed. My dad really wanted us to just dig a hole and dump him in.
If you have a big family or are someone "important" people will want a big funeral. Otherwise, it seems like a lot of people don't give a flying crap.
I stop for funerals...it's how I was raised. If you choose not to, that's your prerogative.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition. I feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder), weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead), football homecomings (what are you coming home from again, exactly?) and so forth. So I am not going to disrupt funeral processions, and will tolerate them because I'm a civilized member of society, but if I had my way I'd dispense with them, especially since I feel they can be dangerous and disruptive themselves.
There's a board game cafe in Norman? Why the hell did I not know about this when I lived there?
edit -- And I didn't go to my graduation after I got my Ph.D. at OU, because I had already moved to a different city by then and didn't want to be bothered going back just for that.
As I've said before, funerals and the attendant ceremonies are for the survivors, not for the deceased.
My mother didn't want a funeral We had a visitation at the funeral home and then a short graveside service the next day at the cemetery.
When my dad died, I didn't want any kind of service or ceremony. I would have been content to just let the funeral home place him in the casket and bury him. But my brother insisted on doing some sort of service because my dad had four siblings who are of an age that they expect that kind of tradition. So we didn't do any public visitation at the funeral home -- for which I was glad, because my mom's visitation was pure torture for me -- and instead met at the cemetery for a short service conducted by his niece's husband.
I kinda feel sorry for future generations that won't have any traditions to hold on to.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 05:59:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead)
I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic. :rolleyes: [/rant]
So why are you having a reception? If it's because the significant other wants it, then, well, welcome to married life. If there's compromise - the SO wants a reception but you can keep the food to a cheaper option, cash bar or just beer & wine, etc, then that's fine. But if the SO demands everything, then, well, that's not going to bode well for the future.
If it's the parents or in-laws that want the reception, they can pay for it.
Just don't make a big mistake of going into debt over it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 15, 2015, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 14, 2015, 05:59:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead)
I feel your pain. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding for May and while I don't mind the ceremony part, I'd gladly ditch the reception. There's several thousand dollars right there we could easily save. Why should we pay to feed people that are just going to bitch about the food selection later? Want to eat? There's plenty of restaurants in the area that will serve you what you want to eat. You want to dance? Go to a club. Unfortunately, no one else sees the same logic. :rolleyes: [/rant]
So why are you having a reception? If it's because the significant other wants it, then, well, welcome to married life. If there's compromise - the SO wants a reception but you can keep the food to a cheaper option, cash bar or just beer & wine, etc, then that's fine. But if the SO demands everything, then, well, that's not going to bode well for the future.
If it's the parents or in-laws that want the reception, they can pay for it.
Just don't make a big mistake of going into debt over it.
As I eluded to in my last post, my fiancée wants a "traditional" wedding, as do her parents and my parents, hence why I'm the lone sheep in this line of thought. While I have not been married before, I am well aware of the pitfalls and necessary compromises. And there is no way in hell I would even consider going into debt to pay for it. We're already saving quite a bit of money using our connections with transportation, entertainment, and decorations. We both agreed to delay a "honeymoon" indefinitely, as a way to save money, also because we both feel it's basically a vacation just with a fancy title. Many other compromises have been made in the planning already. The reason why the cost is so high is all the invitees she wants. Yes, not all will show up, but we have to be prepared if they do.
When I graduated college they explicitly gave me the option of buying a cap and gown and attending the ceremony or just having them send me my diploma in the mail. I eagerly selected the latter. I hate being in the spotlight. The idea of getting up on stage in front of a huge crowd is something I absolutely dread.
I'd love to take the same approach to getting married but I've already cynically resigned myself to the fact that I will have zero control over what happens since it's her wedding, not mine. :P
As for funerals, I thus far have not attended any, although I did attend a wake once. So no, I have never been one of the people in the procession.
My complaint about them stems largely from the fact that I generally believe it is immoral to needlessly get in anyone's way. I hate it when people get in my way, and, since I practice what I preach, I try to avoid getting in the way of others.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2015, 01:08:05 PM
You guys are fighting off the upsurge in drone usage by telling how wonderful it is to find a package stuffed in a mailbox partially closed on a rainy day after it's sat in a truck for half a week.
Okay, I'll go out on a limb and venture an opinion that no funeral procession should be allowed to block an intersection for more than a couple of days, max. Half a week is right out.
Quote from: algorerhythms on September 15, 2015, 10:50:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition. I feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder), weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead), football homecomings (what are you coming home from again, exactly?) and so forth. So I am not going to disrupt funeral processions, and will tolerate them because I'm a civilized member of society, but if I had my way I'd dispense with them, especially since I feel they can be dangerous and disruptive themselves.
There's a board game cafe in Norman? Why the hell did I not know about this when I lived there?
Not quite yet, they signed the lease for it the other day and are planning on opening in October or November. It's called Loot & XP (https://www.facebook.com/TheGameOfHubOfNorman) and will be located at Main & 24th Avenue SW.
Quote from: kkt on September 16, 2015, 07:56:35 PMOkay, I'll go out on a limb and venture an opinion that no funeral procession should be allowed to block an intersection for more than a couple of days, max. Half a week is right out.
:confused: Am I missing something here?
Since when do funeral processions last/block intersections for a couple of days? Most of the processions I've seen or been typically run/last in
minutes and the longer-distance ones the procession travel time
might be an hour at the most. Even with such, the procession train only blocks each intersection for just a few minutes.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 17, 2015, 10:19:13 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 16, 2015, 07:56:35 PMOkay, I'll go out on a limb and venture an opinion that no funeral procession should be allowed to block an intersection for more than a couple of days, max. Half a week is right out.
:confused: Am I missing something here?
Since when do funeral processions last/block intersections for a couple of days? Most of the processions I've seen or been typically run/last in minutes and the longer-distance ones the procession travel time might be an hour at the most. Even with such, the procession train only blocks each intersection for just a few minutes.
I think someone's sarcasm detector is faulty, whether it's mine or PHLBOS'. :D
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on September 08, 2015, 08:35:13 PM
but it is in Illinois, which is where I am right now.
Since when??? I've seen a dozen processions of the last month
Quote from: Rothman on September 17, 2015, 10:50:31 AMI think someone's sarcasm detector is faulty
Such is a bit tough when only going by just text on a screen and when it's from someone that I've never personally met. Plus, some posters (not just here) aren't necessarily joking with their posts.
I don't think funeral processions should be banned - I just always found them odd. I much prefer funerals where everything happens at one place - ceremony at the church, walk outside to the cemetery, walk back inside to the wake/luncheon. I just always thought the driving around to each place was a pain. When the funeral is all in one place, people will hang around for all of the events, whereas they are more likely to duck out early with the constant shuffling around.
You know what would really be beautiful? A funeral service that was conducted entirely outside. I'm curious to see how funeral traditions will change in my lifetime as different generations pass on, in the way that wedding ceremonies and receptions have changed over the years.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 16, 2015, 08:16:20 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on September 15, 2015, 10:50:58 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 14, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
As I said before, my opposition to them is part of a broader distaste for what I feel is unnecessary ceremony and tradition. I feel the same way about school graduations (I would have happily stayed home and gotten my diploma in the mail; which as it happens we had to do anyway since finals were after graduation so the "diploma" they gave at the ceremony was an empty holder), weddings and receptions (I'm getting married in February and would gladly do the whole thing at the courthouse, but my fiancee's first marriage was done that way and she'd like to do something slightly larger, though our reception is going to be held at a board game café so instead of the traditional dancing there will be Catan instead), football homecomings (what are you coming home from again, exactly?) and so forth. So I am not going to disrupt funeral processions, and will tolerate them because I'm a civilized member of society, but if I had my way I'd dispense with them, especially since I feel they can be dangerous and disruptive themselves.
There's a board game cafe in Norman? Why the hell did I not know about this when I lived there?
Not quite yet, they signed the lease for it the other day and are planning on opening in October or November. It's called Loot & XP (https://www.facebook.com/TheGameOfHubOfNorman) and will be located at Main & 24th Avenue SW.
It figures one would open right after I move away...
It rather amuses me that the thread is focused on whether to ban them or not as if it were the only question involved, when the OP's concern wasn't whether they were appropriate, but whether they were safe. The whole safety issue with them is that they are infrequent enough that most of us don't even consider the possibility of one being nearby most of the time. I went to school next door to a very large LA area cemetery for a year, and saw perhaps six that year - and perhaps four others during the entire rest of my life.
A hearse leads a procession, so the front end is relatively identifiable - but there is no such indication of what the final car is, generally. So a person in the stuck-in-intersection mid-turn has no idea when it is actually safe to proceed, unless the intersection is controlled by a traffic cop (or someone acting as one anyway - it need not actually be a sworn police officer, just someone who is identifiable quickly as directing traffic at the moment).
Similar concerns apply to a waiting-on-green person potentially getting T-boned in the same way. When I'm stopped at a signal controlled intersection, I don't particularly feel a need to observe the traffic crossing very carefully - it's just random traffic moving through. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this - especially if the procession is in the far right lane on the side opposite from me (the left-turn direction), and thus may be obscured by several lanes of traffic from my vantagepoint. Unless I actually see the hearse itself, I have no way of knowing a funeral procession is occurring.
Having to wait an extra signal light cycle once or twice a year is a minor annoyance, but getting whacked by someone running a red light because the situation is rare and unclear is a safety issue. So my preference would be no red-light running unless there's a traffic escort to control the intersection and keep everyone (the procession AND ordinary traffic crossing) safe.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 15, 2015, 02:39:04 PM
As I've said before, funerals and the attendant ceremonies are for the survivors, not for the deceased.
My mother didn't want a funeral We had a visitation at the funeral home and then a short graveside service the next day at the cemetery.
When my dad died, I didn't want any kind of service or ceremony. I would have been content to just let the funeral home place him in the casket and bury him. But my brother insisted on doing some sort of service because my dad had four siblings who are of an age that they expect that kind of tradition. So we didn't do any public visitation at the funeral home -- for which I was glad, because my mom's visitation was pure torture for me -- and instead met at the cemetery for a short service conducted by his niece's husband.
I kinda feel sorry for future generations that won't have any traditions to hold on to.
Traditions change. Both sets of my grandparents would come to my parents house for Christmas, but they're gone now, as are both my parents.
Honestly, how often does this situation even come up? I am in the presence of a funeral possession maybe once a year- certainly not worth getting my panties in a wad about.
They're fine, HB is right that they don't hurt anybody and it's a nice small show of respect for others- one of very few left in this country, leave it be.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2015, 08:37:36 PMI think you may have tied sdmichael for MFFY of the year on AA Roads.
Here is my thought: why not just walk away? Not just from this discussion, but also from the major disagreement over motorcycle lane-splitting that I was not even aware was going on until I pulled up sdmichael's member profile and looked at his recent posts to understand why you were taking him to task.
For each of us there comes a time when, no matter how hard we try, we cannot get another person to acknowledge any merit in our point of view, let alone admit that it may be correct. In such cases it usually works better to stand back and let reality do the educating.
Sdmichael is Mike Ballard, a longtime contributor to this hobby. I also understand he is employed by the California DMV. I do not know if this is in a customer-facing role. Nevertheless, I suggest you might want to consider what this means in terms of developing skill in goading other people into open displays of rage that result in their being punished.
Last funeral I was at, the entire ceremony/procession happened at the cemetery where the deceased was laid to rest. Neatly solved the funeral procession problem.
It's impossible to predict the exact moment of anything in life. If you can't handle a 1-2 minute delay in your life, either you have a very nice life seeing everything moves at your beckon call or you have severe control issues.
I can count the number of funeral processions I've been apart of and have witnessed and/or had the slightest delay in my travels on one hand. In any case, I have yet to see a procession disrupt a traffic signal by more than 1 cycle. I've seen more malfunctioning traffic signals (more dangerous, IMHO), than funeral processions.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 20, 2015, 11:37:47 PM
It's impossible to predict the exact moment of anything in life. If you can't handle a 1-2 minute delay in your life, either you have a very nice life seeing everything moves at your beckon call or you have severe control issues.
I can count the number of funeral processions I've been apart of and have witnessed and/or had the slightest delay in my travels on one hand. In any case, I have yet to see a procession disrupt a traffic signal by more than 1 cycle. I've seen more malfunctioning traffic signals (more dangerous, IMHO), than funeral processions.
The only funeral processions I've seen that are disruptive to the degree you describe in the second paragraph are
major ones for which they close the streets altogether: Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, police officers killed in the line of duty whose funerals attract major numbers of out-of-town policemen, the (then thought to be) unknown soldier from the Vietnam War, that sort of thing. Goes with the territory living near the Nation's Capital, I guess.
Quote from: froggie on September 20, 2015, 09:29:10 PM
Last funeral I was at, the entire ceremony/procession happened at the cemetery where the deceased was laid to rest. Neatly solved the funeral procession problem.
Pretty much what we did with my dad.
Quote from: froggie on September 20, 2015, 09:29:10 PM
Last funeral I was at, the entire ceremony/procession happened at the cemetery where the deceased was laid to rest. Neatly solved the funeral procession problem.
One bygone tradition, whose gradual disappearance has made processions more popular, is for churches to have their own adjacent cemeteries. Land use restrictions (including ones specifically about the siting of cemeteries), and high land prices in urban and suburban areas, have made that option more difficult. But even some rural areas have fewer cemeteries than churches, with independent cemeteries not located next to any of the local churches.
My mother's parish church had its own cemetery, so no procession needed for her service. But both the church and the cemetery were established in the 18th century, when California was still part of Spain, so the rules were a little different.
Having the body at the memorial service is not part of my tradition, but apparently it helps some people. Funeral processions are way down there on the list of things that obstruct my way in traffic. Now if we could ban pro and college football games, that would save me 50 hours a year in traffic and detours...
Quote from: hbelkins on September 20, 2015, 08:37:36 PM
Is it really that bad for someone they don't know to acknowledge, "You have suffered a loss and are grieving. We pay our respects to you and offer your sympathy for the loss of your loved one," if they stop for your procession?
To some degree I think it's a question of culture. If this is customary in an area, well... then it's a thing people do that I suppose isn't harmful. But it certainly isn't customary everywhere. As I mentioned elsewhere, prior to reading this thread I have never in my life heard of someone stopping to pay respects for a stranger's funeral procession.
Seems to me this is an extension of a greater cultural divide in terms of how much interaction with strangers is considered normal. I live in a place where, when you walk down the street, you avoid making eye contact and ignore everyone else around, unless you have a specific reason to interact with them or it's someone you know. If you look someone you don't know in the eye and say hello, you may get a very defensive reaction.
But then it's all a question of people's priorities. In laid back country life, initiating a little casual interaction in is seen as polite and people appreciate you taking the time to do it. In hustle and bustle city life, it is seen as rude and people don't appreciate you wasting
their time.
Also, to actually answer the title question: no, I do not think funeral processions should be banned. I may not be a fan of the practice but I'm not the type to argue that everyone should by law be forced to do things the way I like. Being a minor annoyance is not a crime.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2015, 05:55:07 PMIt seems that most of our society has strong feelings very much to the contrary of yours in how they approach grieving.
You are clearly a very thick-skinned individual that has very little trouble with loss compared to the average person (as made clear not so much for your emphatic disdain for processions but that for anyone who burdens others in any way with their own death or a loved one's).
I hope that you reach out to the grieving to share your vision of strength under crushing sadness. You seem uniquely qualified for a very lucrative career in grief counseling if you ever feel like being rich and successful.
I also hope that you are spreading your message that all people show utmost courtesy under duress. It would be a beautiful world if we all put aside our problems and deferred to others as you describe. I have no doubt you lead by example in this regard.
The word all this calls to mind is
trowel.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 21, 2015, 09:51:01 PM
Know what I did? I found an alternate route that didn't require me to go by the school crossing. I didn't complain about being held up.
Which you could do because the school crossing occurs at the same time and location every day. One cannot plan a route to avoid funeral processions since one generally does not know where they will be going and when.
This is important because a five minute setback which is highly predictable can be planned around, whereas a five minute setback that occurs effectively at random cannot except by leaving early in case it happens.
Human psychology is such that people get uncomfortable when they feel they are not in control of a situation. If I know I'm going to hit traffic I will be far more mentally prepared for it than if I encounter it unexpectedly.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 22, 2015, 07:25:06 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on September 21, 2015, 09:51:01 PM
Know what I did? I found an alternate route that didn't require me to go by the school crossing. I didn't complain about being held up.
Which you could do because the school crossing occurs at the same time and location every day. One cannot plan a route to avoid funeral processions since one generally does not know where they will be going and when.
This is important because a five minute setback which is highly predictable can be planned around, whereas a five minute setback that occurs effectively at random cannot except by leaving early in case it happens.
Human psychology is such that people get uncomfortable when they feel they are not in control of a situation. If I know I'm going to hit traffic I will be far more mentally prepared for it than if I encounter it unexpectedly.
I wish I could drive around predictable disruptions. We have no end of unpredictable disruptions here. I guess that's part of why rare funeral processions don't faze me. City life is about bumping into other people's lives constantly. You roll with far worse delay and interruption than funerals without the luxury of arguing against the motivations of the people at the heart of it.