3 ms·

>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

>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
I mean the NIH conclusion is literally: > However, this review’s findings suggest that this [billboards are not a distraction] may not be true in all cases. Future research should emphasize the tails of the distribution in addition to average cases, in terms of both the analysis of visual behavior and the complexity of driving tasks. Further research is also needed to understand the effects of billboard design, driver characteristics, and road and traffic context. The amount of people who text & drive and don't get into any accidents as a result on the road is quite high. Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous. And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones. Lit up bright ones at night that are engaging in some way are going to be more distracting than passive ones during the day.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  > Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous Do I need to explain that looking at a billboard and interacting with you phone are wildly different activities? Do we need to discuss the differences between terms passive and active? Equating glancing at billboards(less than 1 sec) and texting(on average 5 seconds) - requires ignoring the basic principles behind those two actions. Texting requires your visual attention, your fine motor functions and your mental abilities engaged. Looking at a few words and an image requires considerably less engagement. https://www.driversalert.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-texting-and-driving/ https://www.driversalert.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-texti... > And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones Of course they are. But distracting and hazard are two very different things. Many things are distracting, but aren't a hazard. And your other link actually shows how different are things on the road that require active attention(active safety notices) vs things that are just informative(signs and billboards). And if you made a claim that video billboards are likely to be too distracting, instead of generalizing that all billboards are a safety hazard - I wouldn't even engaged. As it stands, your position of "all billboards are a safety hazard" is just an opinion - with evidence to the contrary.

vlovich123 3y ago

I mean the NIH conclusion is literally: > However, this review’s findings suggest that this [billboards are not a distraction] may not be true in all cases. Future research should emphasize the tails of the distribution in addition to average cases, in terms of both the analysis of visual behavior and the complexity of driving tasks. Further research is also needed to understand the effects of billboard design, driver characteristics, and road and traffic context. The amount of people who text & drive and don't get into any accidents as a result on the road is quite high. Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous. And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones. Lit up bright ones at night that are engaging in some way are going to be more distracting than passive ones during the day.

JAlexoid 3y ago
> Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous Do I need to explain that looking at a billboard and interacting with you phone are wildly different activities? Do we need to discuss the differences between terms passive and active? Equating glancing at billboards(less than 1 sec) and texting(on average 5 seconds) - requires ignoring the basic principles behind those two actions. Texting requires your visual attention, your fine motor functions and your mental abilities engaged. Looking at a few words and an image requires considerably less engagement. https://www.driversalert.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-texting-and-driving/ https://www.driversalert.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-texti... > And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones Of course they are. But distracting and hazard are two very different things. Many things are distracting, but aren't a hazard. And your other link actually shows how different are things on the road that require active attention(active safety notices) vs things that are just informative(signs and billboards). And if you made a claim that video billboards are likely to be too distracting, instead of generalizing that all billboards are a safety hazard - I wouldn't even engaged. As it stands, your position of "all billboards are a safety hazard" is just an opinion - with evidence to the contrary.