Flashy billboards, unsafe? What do you think?
Now that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that nobody's free speech is violated by Los Angeles' billboard ban, legislators are getting bold, or creative, or both, in ways to head 'em off at the pass (or the freeway, or the side street).
Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), a former city councilman, has cleverly proposed a two-year statewide moratorium on those flashy, flashing, ever-changing electronic billboards -- on the grounds of safety.
The Federal Highway Administration already has a study in the works about how distracting the billboards are to drivers, measuring eye movement to see how long we take our eyes off the roads to take in the glittering panoply of advertising.
Next month, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program should be releasing its compilation review of a lot of existing studies on digital billboard safety.
The billboard industry is as relentless as kudzu. When LA enacted a three-month billboard moratorium at the end of last year, residents reported that crews were out there within a day or two, putting up yet more illegal signs.
Go ahead and harrumph about the nanny state, but remember -- this is the billboard industry we're talking about. It lost its free-speech court gambit; if the safety argument can stop a few of these monstrosities, so be it.
Think they're not so distracting as to be unsafe? Drive down a busy street with those billboards flashing, and then tell me what you think. Maybe you don't take your eyes off the road -- but you know there's always some jerk in front of you and another one behind you who don't have your driving skills, discipline, self-control and complete lack of interest in capitalistic exhibitionism. Take the poll:
Los Angeles Times photo.
This is an excuse to further the ridiculous anti-billboard Hathaway thugs campaigns. Perhaps Hathaway will start to pay for the time and expense the city is spending in ignoring their own settlement which just invites further lawsuits and will most likely not end up in the city's favor. This is a legal industry and though there are a few that have caused the latest uproar using scare tactics, the digital boards have not shown any incidents of causing accidents. Using words like FLASHY and GARISH is further baiting on your part. Maybe we should ban newspaper sales since they add to garbage on the streets and in the dumps, or while we are at it we can ban television altogether since the glare from the screens is causing an untold number of people in their homes and elsewhere to walk into walls since they are distracted from the flashy, garish glare from the screens. ONLY IN CALIFORNIA do nuts like Hathaway cause such an uproar over things like this because he is retired and has nothing better to do with his time.
Posted by: mark blum | January 14, 2009 at 08:46 AM
I work in a building that just put up a billboard completely across the side of the building.... this means that ..working inside looking through the gauze like view it feels like you are wrapped up in a visual waterboard... Yes, after having a very nice view we are subjected to a feeling of being wrapped up in a bandage.... the view now looks like your seeing the world through a heavy scum...or film... it is gauze over your window and we are demanding a decrease in our rent.... we rented a nice view and now we're in a Dilbert box created by the inconsiderate landlord...
Posted by: Joseph Miller | January 21, 2009 at 12:56 AM