Re. "Limits would help with closure" (Face to Face, The Tri-City News, Oct. 28).
Columnist Jim Nelson's opinion is that limiting roadside shrines to one month will provide a "crucial part of grieving: closure" for both the community and surviving family and friends. Limiting such memorials may provide closure for the public - because they forget - but would not provide closure to the bereaved.
My family lost a 21-year-old son not to a roadside accident but to sudden death when a virus infected his heart. Closure never comes for unexpected death. The grieving only diminishes with time as you learn to live without your loved one.
For families that lose someone to careless acts of another driver, or even if the person lost their life due to their own driving, the memorial also provides hope to the grieving family - hope that the shrine is a reminder for others and it may help prevent the loss of another life.
Mr. Nelson, I welcome your opinion that the shrines should not be banned. The concern is that a memorial may be a distraction to drivers. I cannot agree that timely removal of the shrine is a crucial part of achieving closure for a grieving family.
D. Thomas, Coquitlam