> But billboards are generally placed in areas of higher traffic.
Great. High traffic areas are the most dangerous places for distractions.
> why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate.
I'll list the reasons:
1. Road signs are standardized in a given state, and they're designed to be extremely easy to understand at a glance, so their meaning can typically be understood without the driver having to actually read anything on them. They're also pretty close to where you should be looking already.
2. Bumper stickers and car decals are necessarily on the objects you're supposed to be watching most of the time. (But, yes, they can still be distracting.)
3. Billboards are often not in line-of-sight of the things you're trying to avoid crashing into, and can be wildly distracting. The fact that they're regulated for levels of visual distraction is hilarious news to me, having seen billboards in real life. Calling them "fairly highly regulated" feels disingenuous; others might say "barely regulated."
4. Having fewer distractions is less dangerous than having more distractions, so we should try to reduce distractions. We're not going to get rid of road signs, because that would be insane. We could get rid of bumper stickers, but they're orders of magnitude less common than billboards and they're less distracting and they typically don't have all the other negative effects of advertising that billboards do.
>it stands to reason that if phones are distracting
The action of using your phone is distracting, not that phones are distracting. You can absolutely use your phone as a GPS. The process of interaction is the distracting part.
>literally designed to get your attention
The NIH article actually says literally the opposite, of what you're saying. Billboards aren't distracting enough to completely draw your attention.
>a simple internet search yields all sorts of research into this topic supporting the common sense expectation.
No... No it doesn't. As evidenced by the results you provided. One talks about safety billboards and the other literally says the opposite of your claim.
And I quote: "Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed."
>As a community, we should strive for higher information commentary maybe?
Yes. You definitely should note just make un-appealable claim without knowing the reasons for it. Your argument that billboards are a safety hazard is just your opinion, that has more evidence against than for.
> However, this review’s findings suggest that this [billboards are not a distraction] may not be true in all cases. Future research should emphasize the tails of the distribution in addition to average cases, in terms of both the analysis of visual behavior and the complexity of driving tasks. Further research is also needed to understand the effects of billboard design, driver characteristics, and road and traffic context.
The amount of people who text & drive and don't get into any accidents as a result on the road is quite high. Yet we still recognize texting & driving as dangerous. And active billboards are much more distracting as per the NIH paper than passive ones. Lit up bright ones at night that are engaging in some way are going to be more distracting than passive ones during the day.
> 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.
> 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.
Considering most of my arguments are self-evident, no. I'm not going to provide research to prove that... let's see, "bumper stickers are attached to cars," or that "official road signs are easy to read at a glance."
Try providing some evidence of how "highly regulated" billboard distraction levels are and I might take this conversation seriously.
"Generally, billboard-related distraction appeared to be minor and regulated by drivers as the demands of the driving task changed. However, this review’s findings suggest that this may not be true in all cases. Future research should emphasize the tails of the distribution in addition to average cases, in terms of both the analysis of visual behavior and the complexity of driving tasks. Further research is also needed to understand the effects of billboard design, driver characteristics, and road and traffic context."
Great. High traffic areas are the most dangerous places for distractions.
> why they are implicitly more distracting than the myriad road signs, bumper stickers, car decals, etc that drivers already navigate.
I'll list the reasons:
1. Road signs are standardized in a given state, and they're designed to be extremely easy to understand at a glance, so their meaning can typically be understood without the driver having to actually read anything on them. They're also pretty close to where you should be looking already.
2. Bumper stickers and car decals are necessarily on the objects you're supposed to be watching most of the time. (But, yes, they can still be distracting.)
3. Billboards are often not in line-of-sight of the things you're trying to avoid crashing into, and can be wildly distracting. The fact that they're regulated for levels of visual distraction is hilarious news to me, having seen billboards in real life. Calling them "fairly highly regulated" feels disingenuous; others might say "barely regulated."
4. Having fewer distractions is less dangerous than having more distractions, so we should try to reduce distractions. We're not going to get rid of road signs, because that would be insane. We could get rid of bumper stickers, but they're orders of magnitude less common than billboards and they're less distracting and they typically don't have all the other negative effects of advertising that billboards do.