January 25, 2023
Drive By: Digital Signage Isn't Dangerous
- by Erik Sass @eriksass1, April 15, 2009
A new study of digital
signage and traffic accident rates shows there is no correlation between the two, according to the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, the industry-funded organization which
commissioned the study. The timing of the study couldn't be better for the industry, which is counting on digital signage for future revenue growth. Still, it faces growing opposition from various advocacy groups and municipal governments.
The study by Tantala Associates surveyed data about 18,000 traffic accidents in the area of Rochester, New York over a five-year period, provided by the Rochester Police Department. Tantala's analysis failed to find any correlation between traffic accidents and digital signage; it also revealed that traffic accidents actually decreased by 0.4% within a radius of about half a mile around digital billboards.
advertisement
advertisement
The Rochester study comes about two years after a similar study by Tantala focusing on Cleveland, Ohio. The study surveyed accident frequencies over three years and compared this data with the positions of seven digital billboards in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which is centered in Cleveland.
This earlier Tantala study appeared around the same time as a Virginia Tech study about the effects of signs on drivers. Virginia Tech found no substantial changes in behavior patterns in the presence of digital signage. The study, conducted by the Center for Automotive Safety Research at Virginia Tech's Transportation Institute, observed measures like eye-glance patterns, speed maintenance and lane-keeping.
Rochester and Cleveland were both chosen for the Tantala studies because their metropolitan areas offer a combination of high-traffic highways, urban arterial roads and suburban street networks. They also had data allowing comparison of accident rates before and after billboards were converted to digital surfaces.
The Cleveland metro area, with about 2.2 million inhabitants, is crossed by U.S. 90 and U.S. 77, and the metropolitan area experiences heavy commuter traffic. The Rochester metro area, with about 1 million inhabitants, is crossed by U.S. 90 in the south, as well as extensions U.S. 390, U.S. 490, and U.S. 590, and several New York State highways.
I think the study is a bit flawed. First of all it was paid for by the Out Door Advertising Industry. So of course they had the outcome they wanted/paid for. The Oil Industry studies always prove the earth is not getting warmer due to Carbon Emissions. The Tobacco Industry studies always prove cigarettes do not cause cancer and are not addicting.
I do though agree with most of the results because in day time situations digital signage is no different than static print signage. That being said the Digital Signage is dangerous in certain situations. My example is the huge digital sign the City of Lawndale put up on the 405 Freeway in Los Angeles at the exit for Manhattan/Redondo Beaches.
At night it is so bright it is actually blinding when you take the off ramp.
So I think the answer lies in regulating how far from the road the sign is situated and how bright the sign in relative to the distance from the cars.
The question of whether accidents increase due to digital signs I would say it is a safe bet that any Video Motion Advertising is for the most part ignored by drivers unless they are in bumper to bumper traffic. But at the 70-80mph cruising speeds on LA Freeways do not allow drivers to follow streaming Ads. So they should stick with static ads that rotate.