Authorizes the department of transportation to establish and implement a state memorial sign program to memorialize persons who died due to injuries sustained in a fatal motor vehicle crash on state highways.
A03938 creates the “Alexander John Smullen Traffic Safety Memorial Law,” establishing a memorial sign program for people killed in fatal motor vehicle collisions. The bill directs the New York State Department of Transportation, municipal highway agencies, county highway officials, and town highway superintendents to erect roadside signs that memorialize victims and include both the victim’s name and the date of the collision. The signs must also carry one of several traffic-safety messages, such as “Please Don’t Drink and Drive,” “Please Don’t Text and Drive,” “Please Buckle Up,” or “Slow Down for Workers.”
The bill sets out a process for requesting a sign, including an application and a fee intended to help cover posting costs, while specifying that the fee cannot be excessive or prohibitive. Signs generally may remain posted for two years, may be replaced if damaged within that period, and must comply with federal law and regulations. The measure also authorizes agencies to remove damaged signs and, in some cases, release the sign to the applicant after the posting period ends. It amends multiple sections of the Highway Law and Vehicle and Traffic Law to create parallel memorial sign programs for state, county, and town road systems.
The bill would add new memorial sign authority to the Highway Law and Vehicle and Traffic Law, requiring state and local highway entities to administer a standardized roadside memorial program for fatal crash victims. It would impose new administrative duties on the Department of Transportation, municipal agencies, county superintendents, and town highway superintendents, including rulemaking, application processing, fee collection, sign installation, replacement, and compliance with federal signage rules. The measure affects families of crash victims, local highway authorities, and potentially motorists who would see the memorial and safety messaging along roadways.
The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support for the bill at each recorded stage, with favorable committee votes and final passage in both chambers without any recorded opposition. That pattern suggests the proposal was broadly viewed as a compassionate traffic-safety and remembrance measure rather than a controversial policy change. The bill’s framing around honoring victims while promoting safe driving likely contributed to its positive reception.
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record, but the bill does contain a few practical issues that could draw attention. One point is the use of public resources and administrative time to manage memorial signs, including replacement and maintenance responsibilities. Another is the fee structure, which is intended to offset costs but must not be excessive or prohibitive, raising questions about affordability and consistency across jurisdictions. A further consideration is balancing memorialization with roadway sign clutter and compliance with federal highway sign standards, though no recorded committee debate or votes indicate these concerns became major points of contention.