Agenda - Council - 07/22/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Wachtel also offered comments on drafts of this report. In later conversations related to his revien~. Wachtel stated his belief that even though visual fixations on roadway signs decrease as route familiarity increases, astrength -of the ne«= digital billboards is that they can present messages that are ah~=ays new. -Thus; the conclusion from the 1980 FHWA study is another argument agaii5t these billboards; namely=; drivers spend more time looking at the unfamiliar signs than at familiar ones, suggesting digital billboards are more dangerous than traditional fixed billboards. Wachtel also suggested his preference for a goal to have any given driver experience only one, or a maximum of t<vo; messages ;from an i7dividual roadside sign. 3.2 Billboards: a Source of Driver Distraction?' The purpose of a sign is to attract the attention of passersby so that a message is conveyed. To the degree signs attract. the attention of vehicle drivers,. they may distract them from the activity of driving. Vdhile this report primarily examines the impact of dynm~~.ic roadside advertisinb, the role traditional static advertising plays in driver distraction is discussed below. The relationship between roadside advertising and crash rates lias been the subject of several studies. The majority of this research ~~=as conducted in the 1950s; 60s and 70s. While some .of the earliest studies have been subsequently criticized for flav,=ed methodologies and improper statistical techniques, some findings emerge when the totality of the studies are examined. One of these findings is that the correlation beta%een'Icrash rates and roadside advertising is strongest in complex driving environments. For example; higher crash rates were found at intersections (generally considered a complex envirorunent) that have advertising than those intersections that do not have advertising. A fe~~= of the studies that are important in .this field are summarized below. Minnesota Department of Transportation Field Study (1951) and Michigan State Highway Department Field Study (1952}- These t<vo studies from the early 1950s used sinilar methods but came to significantly different conclusions. Recognized as the more scientifically rigorous study; the Minnesota study found that i7creases iin the number of advertising signs per mile are correlated «=ith increases in motor vehicle crash rates. It also found that intersections ~~=ith at Ieast four advertisilg signs experienced three times more crashes than intersections «%ith. no advertising signs. Conversely; the less rigorous Michigan study found the presence of advertising signs had no effect on the number of crashes. lov~ra State College, Do Road Signs A~ect Accidents? (Lauer ~ Mchilonagle, 1955)3 A laboratory test t~=as created to determine the effect of advertising signs on driver behavior. The results of this study foui7d removing all advertising signs from the driver's field of vision did not improve driverperfoninance. When -signs «=ere included; driver perfonnailce ~~=as slightly better. Note that laboratory methods used in this study are considered to be dated by today's standards. ~7 -215-