The billboard companies claim the signs are no more dangerous than anything else, but California-based consultant Jerry Wachtel, who’s reviewed digital billboard safety research for the likes of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, says studies frequently quoted by the industry are either flawed or misinterpreted, while the rest of the research confirms the obvious (and the very attribute the billboard companies are promoting to their customers): Digital signs are more distracting than traditional billboards.
Wachtel says drivers aren’t likely to admit that their eyes were locked on a flashy billboard when they crashed, but studies show that “if the signs take the driver’s eyes off the road for two seconds or longer, the risk of a crash goes way up,” especially in high-traffic environments like Chicago.
And, says Wachtel, many studies have proven that digital billboards are taking drivers’ eyes off the road for that period or longer.
Still, he says, they’re here to stay. He thinks they can be “placed and operated in a way that minimizes the safety issues.” That means not putting them right next to the highway, toning them down at night “so that they’re not any brighter than conventional signs, and extending the message-change interval.”
But the Chicago deal’s most pervasive effect is likely to be the degradation of the landscape, as bemoaned by Fioretti. Chicago architect Peter J. Kindel, chair of the AIA Chicago Urban Design Knowledge Committee, says, “Billboards have significant impact, but digital billboards are really upping the ante. I understand the city needs money, but what’s the price? It should at least be debated thoroughly, and not just on economics, but also on aesthetics.”