3 ms·

> But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. Billboards don't only appear when traffic is stopped tho

> But if you are stuck at a light or in a massive traffic I'd rather you look at them than your phone. Billboards don't only appear when traffic is stopped though. It's not worth the increased danger. Also, I really don't think the presence of billboards is a common deciding factor in whether or not someone is looking at their phone. Maybe if they're driving in an otherwise featureless void, but I think people are either going to look at their phone or not, regardless of what's outside their car.

legitster 3y ago
No. But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. And I don't necessarily see why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate. Regardless, your DoT or local authority probably already has a lot of rules in place about how visually distracting billboards are allowed to be, and which section of roads they are determined to be safe on. So they are already fairly highly regulated from a safety standpoint.
- digging 3y ago
  > But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. Great. High traffic areas are the most dangerous places for distractions. > why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate. I'll list the reasons: 1. Road signs are standardized in a given state, and they're designed to be extremely easy to understand at a glance, so their meaning can typically be understood without the driver having to actually read anything on them. They're also pretty close to where you should be looking already. 2. Bumper stickers and car decals are necessarily on the objects you're supposed to be watching most of the time. (But, yes, they can still be distracting.) 3. Billboards are often not in line-of-sight of the things you're trying to avoid crashing into, and can be wildly distracting. The fact that they're regulated for levels of visual distraction is hilarious news to me, having seen billboards in real life. Calling them "fairly highly regulated" feels disingenuous; others might say "barely regulated." 4. Having fewer distractions is less dangerous than having more distractions, so we should try to reduce distractions. We're not going to get rid of road signs, because that would be insane. We could get rid of bumper stickers, but they're orders of magnitude less common than billboards and they're less distracting and they typically don't have all the other negative effects of advertising that billboards do.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    You can surely provide some kind of research, that can support your argument... right? It's not just your opinion based on...
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      I might find this counter at all interesting if not for: A) it stands to reason that if phones are distracting so are billboards which are literally designed to get your attention B) a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation. As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe? https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/05/02/study-distracting-roadside-safety-billboards-may-cause-17k-crashes-a-year https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/05/02/study-distracting-roa... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/
      - JAlexoid 3y ago
        >it stands to reason that if phones are distracting The action of using your phone is distracting, not that phones are distracting. You can absolutely use your phone as a GPS. The process of interaction is the distracting part. >literally designed to get your attention The NIH article actually says literally the opposite, of what you're saying. Billboards aren't distracting enough to completely draw your attention. >a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation. No... No it doesn't. As evidenced by the results you provided. One talks about safety billboards and the other literally says the opposite of your claim. And I quote: "Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed." >As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe? Yes. You definitely should note just make un-appealable claim without knowing the reasons for it. Your argument that billboards are a safety hazard is just your opinion, that has more evidence against than for.
        vlovich123 3y ago

legitster 3y ago

No. But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. And I don't necessarily see why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate. Regardless, your DoT or local authority probably already has a lot of rules in place about how visually distracting billboards are allowed to be, and which section of roads they are determined to be safe on. So they are already fairly highly regulated from a safety standpoint.

digging 3y ago
> But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic. Great. High traffic areas are the most dangerous places for distractions. > why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate. I'll list the reasons: 1. Road signs are standardized in a given state, and they're designed to be extremely easy to understand at a glance, so their meaning can typically be understood without the driver having to actually read anything on them. They're also pretty close to where you should be looking already. 2. Bumper stickers and car decals are necessarily on the objects you're supposed to be watching most of the time. (But, yes, they can still be distracting.) 3. Billboards are often not in line-of-sight of the things you're trying to avoid crashing into, and can be wildly distracting. The fact that they're regulated for levels of visual distraction is hilarious news to me, having seen billboards in real life. Calling them "fairly highly regulated" feels disingenuous; others might say "barely regulated." 4. Having fewer distractions is less dangerous than having more distractions, so we should try to reduce distractions. We're not going to get rid of road signs, because that would be insane. We could get rid of bumper stickers, but they're orders of magnitude less common than billboards and they're less distracting and they typically don't have all the other negative effects of advertising that billboards do.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  You can surely provide some kind of research, that can support your argument... right? It's not just your opinion based on...
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    I might find this counter at all interesting if not for: A) it stands to reason that if phones are distracting so are billboards which are literally designed to get your attention B) a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation. As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe? https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/05/02/study-distracting-roadside-safety-billboards-may-cause-17k-crashes-a-year https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/05/02/study-distracting-roa... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411179/
    - JAlexoid 3y ago
      >it stands to reason that if phones are distracting The action of using your phone is distracting, not that phones are distracting. You can absolutely use your phone as a GPS. The process of interaction is the distracting part. >literally designed to get your attention The NIH article actually says literally the opposite, of what you're saying. Billboards aren't distracting enough to completely draw your attention. >a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation. No... No it doesn't. As evidenced by the results you provided. One talks about safety billboards and the other literally says the opposite of your claim. And I quote: "Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed." >As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe? Yes. You definitely should note just make un-appealable claim without knowing the reasons for it. Your argument that billboards are a safety hazard is just your opinion, that has more evidence against than for.
      - vlovich123 3y ago