Facts vs. Myths
On September 25, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration issued a memo that said digital billboards are suitable as off-premise displays because they’re not “flashing” or “intermittent.”
Billboard opponents sharply criticized the FHWA memo, to the point of claiming that federal regulators “completely abandoned the law, science, common sense, and public sentiment.” (Scenic America, October 2, 2007)
This attack on FHWA relies in part on a series of myths. Here are the facts:
Myth #1: Digital billboards are distracting and/or dangerous.
FACT: Analysis by governments and by non-government experts points to no connection to accidents.
- Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, 3/22/07:
- From the driver’s standpoint, digital billboards are “safety neutral.”
- Tantala Associates, Consulting Engineers, 7/7/07
- An exhaustive analysis of accident data in Cuyahoga County, OH, shows no correlation between digital billboards and accidents.
- West Virginia Department of Transportation, 7/24/07
- “With a year behind us, we have no knowledge of any wreck or complaints of wrecks or any distractions at any of the (digital) billboard sites.”
- South Carolina Department of Transportation, 9/6/07
- “The South Carolina Department of Transportation has not received any complaints in regard to digital billboards.”
- Virginia Department of Transportation, 9/24/07
- “Our study turned up no accidents reported to local police in the vicinity of the digital signs.”
Myth #2: The FHWA memo ignores a study performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
FACT: The April 2006 NHTSA study does not address digital billboards. Instead, it looked at a wide range of possible driver distractions.
- The study concluded that “Short, brief glances away from the forward roadway for the purpose of scanning the driving environment are safe and actually decrease near crash/crash risk.”
- The study found that glances more than two seconds increase near crash/crash risk.
FACT: The same organization which performed the April 2006 driver-distraction study for the NHTSA -- Virginia Tech Transportation Institute – also performed a “human factors” study regarding digital billboards (released in 2007).
- The study on digital billboards found that the typical glance toward a digital billboard is less than a second, which is well under the two-second threshold set by NHTSA.
Myth #3: The FHWA September 25, 2007, memo dramatically alters existing law.
FACT: The FHWA September 25, 2007 does not touch existing federal or state law.
- Changeable-message billboards have been authorized for more than a decade under a guidance memo issued by the FHWA in 1996.
- The latest FHWA memo affirms and updates longstanding policy and practice throughout the United States. It affirms states’ authority to regulate their roadways and it suggests guidelines which protect public safety.
Myth #4: The FHWA memo ignores the generally accepted definition of “intermittent.”
FACT: The FHWA memo affirms longstanding policy, that static billboard displays are not flashing or intermittent.
- Digital billboards display static messages, not full-motion video or animation.
- The FHWA memo upheld longstanding interpretations by the States:
- In Ohio, the office of Attorney General issued an opinion on this issue in 1996:
“It is my opinion that Ohio’s State/Federal agreement can be reasonably interpreted to allow changeable message signs notwithstanding the ‘flashing, intermittent, or moving lights’ prohibition.”
- The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation wrote a clearly worded letter in 2002:
“The Federal Highway Administration has made it clear that it is up the (state) Department to determine the frequency of message change for all changeable message type displays, so long as such displays comply with State law.” Pennsylvania said such signs shall have “no appearance of flashing or sudden bursts of light, and no appearance of animation, movement, or flow of the message/display.”
Myth #5: The FHWA avoided public and stakeholder comment.
FACT: The FHWA assiduously and proactively sought comment prior to issuing the September 25 memo.
- The FHWA conducted a national “assessment” of the outdoor advertising control program in 2006:
- The agency received more than 1,800 comments
- FHWA conducted seven “listening sessions” across the country and initiated focus groups with stakeholders to solicit comments
- FHWA conducted in-depth interviews with more than 100 stakeholders
- After hearing from stakeholders and the public, neutral assessors hired by FHWA found that the “use of technology” was perceived as the most important issue to stakeholders and was the issue with the most reasonable potential for agreement.