> 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 ac

> 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.